Sitting of 21 October 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Teddington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Hamilton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Brimpton and other places; Henley-on-Thames; and Lymington; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Teddington, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour; From Burnage; and Fenton; to lie upon the Table.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Greenock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Chorley and other places; and Manchester; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  Petition from Greenwich, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 21) Warrant, 1908. Dated 1st July, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Post (Cash on Delivery) Amendment; (No. 2) Warrant, 1908. Dated

  1133
  31st July, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Post (Cash on Delivery) Amendment; (No. 3) Warrant, 1908. Dated 11th September, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 4150 to 4152 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 16th July, 1907; Mr. Birrell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 306].
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 580 (Fiji, Annual Report for 1907) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Conversion of Battleships into Coal-Hulks—Work for the Unemployed.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the first Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been decided to give the work of converting the "Agincourt" or the "Ganges II." into a coal-hulk in Chatham Dockyard to seamen and marines of His Majesty's Navy; and, if so, whether, in view of the amount of unemployment in the neighbourhood, the Admiralty can see their way to reconsider this decision so that the work may be performed by local men.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The reply to the first part of my hon. friend's Question is in the negative.

  Poor Relief and Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. MOND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether persons of the statutory age who are in receipt of Poor Law relief, the amount of which is recovered in its entirety by the guardians from the children or relatives of such persons, are disqualified by the receipt of such relief from receiving old-age pensions.
  1134
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. It is with some others which have arisen under the recent Act, and which involve legal considerations, receiving attention, but for the moment I must ask my hon. friend to let me defer giving a definite answer to it.

  Planting of the Interliever Estate.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Secretary for Scotland what acreage is to be planted on the Interliever estate before the end of the financial year; and what is the estimated outlay and the number of trees to be employed per acre.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I am informed that there is so much work to be done in preparing and fencing the area to be planted and the nursery ground and in putting up the buildings to accommodate the staff which will have to be housed upon the spot, that it has been decided not to begin the actual planting this year, but to prepare for a larger area being dealt with next year than would have been possible under the circumstances this year. From ten to twelve men will be employed upon the work. The number of trees to be planted per acre and the cost will vary according to the nature of the ground and the kind of tree planted.

  New Planting in Delamere Woodlands.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what portion of the sum of £681 spent last year in Delamere Woodlands was expended on new planting; how many acres were so planted; and what was the number of trees employed per acre.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) About £178 were spent inclosing and planting new areas containing about twenty-one and a half acres. About 2,900 trees were planted per acre.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Osborne Naval Training College.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty

  1135
  what is the system of obtaining entrance to the training college for the Navy at Osborne; is it by competitive examination; if so, is that examination open to all the boys of the country or must they obtain nominations before they are allowed to sit; and will he say from whom these nominations are obtainable and to what class of boys they are usually given.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The method of entry into the Royal Naval College at Osborne is fully described in the public regulations, of which I have sent my hon. friend a copy. The examination is not competitive and there are no nominations—the candidates being selected after interview.
  MR. WATT: Who are the interviewers? By whom are they appointed?
  MR. MCKENNA: They are appointed by the First Lord for the time being.

  H.M.S. "Gladiator."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the £54,000 spent on the salvage of the "Gladiator" is to be met by savings on other items; and whether he can now state if the vessel is to be repaired or whether she is to be replaced, as was done in the case of the two destroyers lost this year.
  MR. MCKENNA: The question of meeting the cost of the salvage of the "Gladiator" is receiving careful consideration. As regards the other part of the Question, it has already been stated in this House in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Fareham, that the decision of the future of the "Gladiator" would be come to when the estimated cost of repair was known.

  New Destroyers.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the purchase price to be paid for the two extra destroyers which have been bought this year to replace the two destroyers lost by collision; and whether he proposes to provide this sum by savings on other items of the Navy Estimates.
  MR. MCKENNA: As the trials are not completed, no statement can yet be made as to the amount of the price, nor how it will be provided.
  MR. BELLAIRS: As the sum of money required for these two destroyers together with the repairs of the "Gladiator" will amount to at least over a quarter of a million sterling, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake it shall not be provided out of savings on repairs, which would only create future unemployment?
  MR. MCKENNA: I regret I am unable to accept my hon. friend's estimate.

  Strikes and Naval Expenditure.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the amount of under expenditure caused by strikes, and which, as announced, will now be devoted to hastening the laying down of some of the ships of this year's programme.
  MR. MCKENNA: Although it is not yet possible to give the exact figure, it is anticipated that the amount will be sufficient to meet the extra expenditure involved.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman indicate even roughly the amount?
  MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir; as I have said, the amount is due to money not having been expended in consequence of strikes, and it is impossible to fix the total.

  First Class Cruisers.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state why the Return of Fleets this year classes the "Blake" and "Blenheim" as first-class cruisers, seeing that they have been converted to the duties of mother-ships for destroyers and deprived of all but four 6-inch guns and four 12-pounder guns in their armaments, and have an armament inferior to many foreign third class cruisers.
  MR. MCKENNA: As these vessels retained an integral portion of their original armament, it was decided to leave them in the Return.
  MR. BELLAIRS: The right hon. Gentleman has not said why they were included in the Return of first-class cruisers. Cannot he create a precedent and degrade them to the third class?
  MR. MCKENNA: I shall be happy to discuss the point on a suitable occasion.
  EARL WINTERTON: Could these ships properly be described as first-class cruisers?
  MR. MCKENNA: Yes, and they are properly included and described in the Return as first-class cruisers.
  *MR. GRETTON: Do the Admiralty consider that the armament these ships at present carry is the armament of a first-class cruiser?
  MR. MCKENNA: Not the ordinary armament—but nevertheless they may properly be retained among first class cruisers for the reason I have stated, i.e., that they possess an integral part of their original armament.

  Army Horses.
  MR BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House if any result has come of the consultation between his Department and the Board of Agriculture as to the breeding of horses for the Army.
  EARL WINTERTON: In view of the great interest felt in this matter throughout the country, can the right hon. Gentleman explain the unprecedented delay?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): I am aware great interest is felt in this matter. I am afraid that I have nothing at present to add to the information which I have already given to the House on this subject.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the matter out of the hands of the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. HALDANE: No, Sir.

  Army Pensions.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will, as soon as the Old-Age Pensions Act comes into operation, make arrangements for a weekly payment of Army Pensions.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. ACLAND,): I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave to a Question put on this subject by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight Division of Hampshire on the 14th instant.

  Ammunition Stores.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what proportion of the total store of small arms ammunition in this country is kept in one place.
  MR. ACLAND: The small arms ammunition is distributed over the country in stocks corresponding to local requirements on mobilisation. I do not think any good purpose would be served by giving the particular information required, but I may inform the hon. Member that no very large proportion is stored in any one place.

  Traffic in Spirits in Southern Nigeria.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say what proportion of the revenue of Southern Nigeria was derived during the years 1906 and 1907 from the sale of gin and raw spirits; whether he has any information that these liquors are consumed by the natives alone; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of taking steps to provide that a Crown Colony shall not derive a large income from the sale of spirits, seeing that the sale of such liquors are prohibited to all natives in the self-governing Colonies of the Empire.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY,): The revenue derived by the Government of Southern Nigeria from spirit duties (not from the sale of spirits) in 1906 and 1907 was £600,784 and £806,942 respectively, and the total revenue of the Colony in these years amounted to £1,088,717 and

  1139
  £1,459,554 respectively. The Secretary of State has decided, after correspondence with the native races and Liquor Traffic United Committee, to appoint a Committee to investigate the facts on the spot. I may add that the prohibition of the sale of spirits to natives is not quite universal in the self-governing Colonies.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask if a member of this community will be added to the Commission of Inquiry on this subject as was practically promised?
  COLONEL SEELY: What does the hon. Member mean by this community—does he mean this House?
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: This country.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Committee is not yet complete. I will represent the views of the hon. Gentleman to the Secretary of State, and point out that some indication was given that some appointment of the nature should be made.

  Old-Age Pension Regulations.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Regulations under the Pensions Act will be printed and laid upon the Table.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The Regulations were laid upon the Table on Monday last, and will be issued this week.
  MR. FELL: Will they be in the hands of hon. Members this week?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am told so.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: Does the Answer apply also to Scotland?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand not.
  MR. JOYCE: Or to Ireland?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Wales and Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the hardship inflicted on monoglot Welsh-speaking applicants for an old-age pension in districts in Wales where the pension officer has no knowledge of Welsh; whether any request has been made to him on behalf of the Aberdare District Council, the Glamorgan County Council, and other public bodies to receive a deputation on the matter; and what reply, if any, he has made to such request.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, Sir, I have been requested to receive deputations on this subject, but I postponed replying to the request because I was at the time considering how this difficulty might best be met, as I have been fully alive to the hardship in the cases referred to by my hon. friend. I am now causing arrangements to be made to supply pension officers in Wales with the services of interpreters in all cases where such assistance is required to enable the officers to communicate freely with applicants.

  Court Procedure.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to cases of witnesses (especially of the female sex) suffering from extreme nervous exhaustion after standing a considerable time at the bar; and if he would issue an Order giving witnesses and prisoners the option of being seated during cross-examination.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I have no authority to issue any directions on the subject, which is one for the discretion of the Court, and I have reason to believe that permission for a witness to be seated is invariably granted if applied for.

  Vivisection.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the evidence of Surgeon-Colonel Lawrie before the Royal

  1141
  Commission on Vivisection, with reference to a vivisection performed by Dr. Gaskell, now a member of the Royal Commission; and whether, in consequence of that evidence, he will remove or advise the removal of Dr. Gaskell from the Royal Commission, which is now engaged in considering its Report.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Answer to the second is that I see no grounds for taking any such action as is suggested.
  MR. LUPTON: Are we to understand that one who has taken part in a cruel experiment is to remain a member of a Commission inquiring into the cruelty or otherwise of vivisection?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the evidence before the Vivisection Commission that the object of the operation performed by Dr. Gaskell was to enable a respirable anæsthetic to be administered and regulated, he will undertake that in cases where anæsthetics are only partially administered experiments will be confined to such animals as guinea pigs and absolutely forbidden on domestic animals.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. friend is, I think, under a misapprehension. In all experiments on living animals which are calculated to cause pain, except those of the nature of inoculations, it is the established practice that the animal must, during the whole of the operative procedure, be under the influence of an anæsthetic of sufficient power to prevent the animal's feeling pain. This applies to all animals, whether domestic or not.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a largo number of the medical profession are distinctly opposed to these experiments on domestic animals.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The whole question is now under consideration.

  Beer at Broadmoor.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he say how many gallons of beer were consumed by the inmates of Broadmoor Asylum during the year 1907.
  MR. GLADSTONE: During the year 1907 14,708 gallons of beer were consumed by the inmates of Broadmoor Asylum. This works out at a little less than half a pint per head per day.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the report of the Lunacy Commission, 32 per cent. of the inmates are in that institution owing to drink, and will he, in place of the drink, find some substitute, such as jam or pickles?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Murderers at Broadmoor.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a speech of one of His Majesty's Judges alleging that many murderers were confined in Broadmoor Asylum though perfectly sane; whether he will say whether the decision of the doctor of this asylum as to whether a patient is insane or not is final; and whether no examination either by a medical board or independent medical men is permitted.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have seen a report of the learned Judge's remarks, and I think that the hon. Member has somewhat misapprehended their purport; but I may say in reply to his Question that there are in Broadmoor persons guilty of murder who could not at the present moment be held to be insane, but who must be detained in Broadmoor in pursuance of the Order of the Court so long as there is a serious risk that, if set at liberty, they would relapse into the condition in which they committed the crime. In judging of the mental condition of patients, I rely on the advice of the medical authorities who see them daily, and who have exceptional experience of similar cases, and I should not be assisted by calling in other medical men, who, however eminent, could not have the same opportunities of forming an

  1143
  equally trustworthy opinion; in any case the present mental condition is by no means the only determining factor in deciding whether it is safe to release a man who, in a state of insanity, has committed a grave crime, and who, if at large, might again become dangerous.

  Case of Daisy Lord
  MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking in the case of Daisy Lord; whether he is arranging for her release; and, if so, whether it will be long delayed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot say more with regard to this case than was said in the letter which has recently been published in the newspapers, a copy of which I will send to the hon. Member.

  Motor Fatalities.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he say the total number of deaths caused by motor-propelled vehicles in the United Kingdom during the first six or nine months of this year.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry that I cannot give those figures. The annual Report of the Registrar-General for England and Wales will contain the figures for those countries for 1907, and will probably be ready for publication about the end of this year; and, as my hon. friend the Under-Secretary stated last week, the police have been asked to furnish returns for the period from May to December, 1908, inclusive, of all accidents in streets, roads or public places which have come to their knowledge, caused by motor or horse-drawn vehicles respectively, resulting in death or personal injury.
  MR. MARKHAM: Are not reports on all fatal accidents forwarded to the Home Office?
  MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to reply in the negative.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the number of cases in the first six months of this year?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We are getting the figures in pursuance of a promise given to this House.

  Motor Fatalities in London.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the total number of deaths and accidents to persons caused by motor-propelled vehicles in the Metropolitan police area during the first eight or nine months of this year.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The number of accidents during the months January to September, 1908, inclusive, in which personal injury resulted was 2,945. In 105 cases the injuries proved fatal.
  MR. CARR-GOMMasked if these accidents were not largely caused by allowing omnibuses to travel through narrow winding streets quite unsuitable for the traffic?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter on which hon. Members can form their own opinion.

  London Ambulance Service.
  MR. COOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the question of an ambulance service for London accidents has reported; whether the Committee have adopted the scheme of motor ambulances asked for by the London County Council in its General Powers Bill, but places the control and expenditure in the hands of the Metropolitan Police; and whether there is any town in the United Kingdom where expenditure for such an object is not controlled by the ratepayers.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Committee has not reported, and has, I understand, not yet adopted any scheme. Information on the last point mentioned in the hon. Member's Question will no doubt be given in the Committee's Report.
  MR. BOWERMAN: Have not some of the recommendations of the Committee already been published in the Press?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of that.

  Licensing Bill.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state approximately how many Italian warehousemen, co operative stores, grocers, confectioners, refreshment caterers, and other similar businesses will be affected by the inclusion of off-licences within the provisions of the Licensing Bill as regards monopoly value, local option, and prohibition.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. The Licensing Statistics for 1907, show that out of a total of 25,143 off-licenses, 14,024 were held in respect of premises where other goods besides liquor are sold. This figure would cover the trades indicated by the hon. and learned Member, but I have no information as to the number of off-licences held in connection with each of the trades.
  MR. BARNARD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can state how many licensing benches there will be under the Licensing Bill, the population in the smallest five licensing districts under the 1901 census, and how many parishes there will be with a population under fifty to which the local option proposals will apply.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. The Licensing Bill makes no alteration in the number of licensing districts. That number is at present 993. The respective populations of the five smallest districts are 265, 719, 1216, 1217 and 1328. Lastly, I understand that there are 759 rural parishes with a population of less than fifty.
  MR. BARNARD: Will an opportunity be given for discussing this matter seeing that it was precluded by the operation of the closure?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I must ask for notice.

  Trade Accounts.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any, and if so, what steps are to be taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which has reported upon the
  1146
  publication of the trade accounts of the United Kingdom.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The recommendations of the Committee are now receiving the careful consideration of the Board of Trade and the Customs, and I am hopeful that a decision with regard to them may be arrived at shortly.

  Census of Production Returns.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the form of Return required by his Department under the provisions of the Census of Production Act, 1906; whether he is aware of the amount of labour and expense that the furnishing of the detailed information asked for involves on the part of manufacturers and others; and whether he will consider the possibility of simplifying the form of Return.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The schedules issued under the provisions of the Census of Production Act were carefully considered by the Board of Trade in consultation not only with a General Advisory Committee, but with Special Advisory Committees representing the principal trades of the country, and it is not possible to modify them at the present stage. Having regard to the very large number of Returns in the various trades which have already been received I have no reason to suppose that the obligations imposed by the Act are, generally speaking, found to be unduly onerous. We desire, however, to put manufacturers to the least possible labour and expense consistent with carrying out the provisions of the Act and where any difficulty arises in filling up the schedule every effort will be made to assist manufacturers if they will communicate directly with the Census of Production Office.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Agriculture as to the form of the Returns with regard to the production of timber and underwood, and will they consider the question of making the area the estate or the rural district rather

  1147
  than the parish, seeing that many plantations extend into more than one parish and it is almost impossible to make the Return parish by parish?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will make it my business to bring the observations of the right hon. Gentleman under the notice of my right hon. friend.
  MR. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the brewery trade, for instance, much of the information asked for must be conjectural?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer as to the particular trades. But every effort is being made to obtain accurate information, and where the element of conjecture intervenes I think it will be made clear in the Return.

  Ireland and Army Horses.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Government have yet settled what grant is to be made by the Treasury for the encouragement of horse-breeding for Army remount purposes in accordance with the recent announcements made by Lord Carrington; and, if so, whether he can state what part Ireland is to take in this scheme and what share of the fund is to be allocated to Ireland.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. J. A. PEASE,): No decision has yet been arrived at in this matter, and it is therefore premature to consider any question as to the allocation of the grant.
  MR. MOONEY: Will there be a separate grant for Ireland?
  MR. J. A. PEASE: The matter is now the subject of discussion between Government Departments; I can say no more at present.

  Weir Hospital Charity Scheme.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the Charity Commissioners, in framing the
  1148
  scheme for the Weir Hospital Charity, assume or allege that the directions of the testator are incapable of accomplishment, namely, the establishment within the parish of Streatham of a dispensary, cottage hospital, convalescent home, or other medical charity with the two freehold properties and the large fund left by the testator for that purpose for the benefit of the inhabitants of that parish and neighbourhood; whether by the terms of the will income only is to be used for the establishment and maintenance of the charity; if so, on what grounds the Commissioners justify their proposal to appropriate £50,000 of the capital and the income of the whole residue of the trust funds to another purpose in another parish; upon what authority, statutory or otherwise, do the Charity Commissioners rely in applying for the benefit of a hospital in another parish and borough, viz., that of Battersea, a fund which was left for the expressed purpose of establishing a charity in and for the parish of Streatham, in the borough of Wandsworth, which parish has a population of 101,628 and an area of 4½ square miles.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (Mr. TREVELYAN,): I must premise my reply to this Question by saying that, as I am no longer responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Charity Commission, I should not be justified in entering into any discussion on the merits of the proposed scheme of the Commission. The final form of that scheme will have to be settled apart from my opinion. It is proposed by the scheme that a dispensary and also a nurses' home should be established in the parish of Streatham in the two freehold houses left by the testator, but the Charity Commissioners were of opinion that the whole of the charity funds could not properly be applied for these two purposes. It appeared to them that after providing for these purposes some other mode ought to be found for the application of the residue of the funds whether by way of capital or income, and they considered that the best means of attaining the testator's object of benefiting Streatham and the neighbourhood is that for which provision is made by the scheme. It

  1149
  appears to the Commissioners that the benefits reserved for Streatham and the neighbourhood under the scheme are considerably greater than the charity funds alone could provide for.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: When will the scheme be laid on the Table?
  *MR. TREVELYAN: The scheme is not of a character to be laid on the Table of the House.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he will state the grounds upon which the Commissioners refuse to publish the Report of the public inquiry respecting the Weir Hospital Charity or communicate it to the in habitants of Streatham, who are the beneficiaries under the testator's will, and will they lay it and the evidence and correspondence before the House, or supply a copy to the Member representing the inhabitants of Streatham; and whether the Charity Commissioners have received any, and what, protests, objections, petitions, or letters against the published draft scheme.
  MR. TREVELYAN: The report made to the Commissioners by their Assistant Commissioner of what took place at the Inquiry is confidential, and it is not the practice of the Commissioners to communicate such reports in the way desired by the hon. Member. The Commissioners have received numerous objections and suggestions with regard to the published Draft Scheme, all of which will receive their careful consideration.
  SIR HENRY KIMBERwanted to know what was the object of a public inquiry if the report was not to be made public.
  MR. TREVELYAN: The object is to inform the Commissioners, and not the public.
  *MR. SEAVERNSasked whether as a matter of fact the Trust did provide that the charity should be established within the parish of Streatham.
  MR. TREVELYAN: That hardly arises out of the Question I have just answered.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: I beg to ask the hon. Member' for the Elland division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the sum of £5,000 which was paid out of the capital of the Benjamin Weir Trust Fund to the Bolingbroke Hospital in Battersea, before any scheme had been published by the Commissioners, was made to secure two legacies from other testators, and, if so, will he state what those legacies were, by whom they were left and the conditions upon which they were bequeathed; whether the authorities of the King Edward's Hospital Fund who are alleged to have advised union with Bolingbroke Hospital knew at the time of giving that advice of the purposes for which, and the terms upon which, the testator had left his property, and of the directions which he had given for the application of the funds of the charity; and whether they never expressed any opinion that the wishes of the testator could or could not be carried out in the manner expressed in his will, and never advised that the fund was insufficient for that purpose.
  MR. TREVELYAN: The advance of £5,000 was made to secure the promised donations of £5,000 and £900 respectively of which the trustees informed the Commissioners. The authorities of King Edward's Hospital Fund were consulted only as to the best method of employing a gift of about £100,000 for the purposes of a medical charity for the benefit of Streatham and the neighbourhood. The determination of the legal questions arising in the case is a matter for which the Charity Commissioners accept responsibility.
  SIR HENRY KIMBER: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question as to whether the authorities had expressed an opinion that the terms of the will could not be carried out as provided therein?
  MR. TREVELYANsuggested that another Question should be put down.
  MR. ESSEXasked when the £5,000 was paid out.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

  Trawling Prohibition Bill.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Government intend to proceed with all the stages of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill this year; and, if so, is it intended to refer the Committee stage to the Scottish Grand Committee.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): My hon. friend accurately describes the wishes of the Government; how far those wishes can be carried out must depend upon the general progress of business.
  MR. PIRIE: Have the provisions of the Bill been approved by the Cabinet, or is it merely a Departmental affair?
  MR. SINCLAIR: It is a Government Bill.
  MR. PIRIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a certain Motion threatened in another place is passed, it will be impossible for this Bill to become law this year, if at all?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, I am aware of that.
  MR. PIRIE: And—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already had several shots.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E.R., Holderness): When the Second Reading is taken will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is opportunity for full and unfettered discussion?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish Intermediate Board of Education.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to new rules recently and unexpectedly issued by the Intermediate Board of Education in Ireland prohibiting pupils who had passed in any grade from examination in the same grade again, no matter whether qualified by age or not; whether he is aware that if proper notice had been given of the
  1152
  Board's intention many pupils would have waited longer before attempting the examination in order to compete for scholarships; and whether, in view of the hardship inflicted by the introduction of the new rule at short notice, he will urge its postponement till after the examinations in 1909.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The question of deferring the operation of the new rule was discussed by the Intermediate Education Board at their last meeting, and was then postponed for further consideration. I am at present in communication with the Board on the subject, and I hope shortly to be in a position to announce the Board's decision.

  Religious Disturbances at Swords.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what were the circumstances which required the drafting of a considerable body of additional police into the town of Swords during the past week; how many constables have been injured; and whether any proceedings have been instituted against those responsible for the disorder.
  MR. BIRRELL: It was necessary to send ten extra police to Swords to preserve the peace owing to ill-feeling caused by a religious meeting held by strangers in the village. No constables were injured. Two persons are to be proceeded against for throwing stones.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: Is it not the fact the religious services in question were held with closed doors and not the slightest element of provocation; is it the case that on five different occasions the people attending them were molested and the doors of the building wrecked; and were the persons responsible for the outrage well known to the police?
  MR. BIRRELL: I cannot answer those Questions without further inquiry. I only know that irritation was caused by the holding of certain religious meetings.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: But surely the right hon. Gentleman knows if the meetings wore held with closed doors

  1153
  and without the slightest elements of provocation?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not in a position to say definitely.
  MR. MOORE: Is it not a fact that these evangelical meetings have since had to be discontinued owing to the interference of inhabitants?
  MR. NANNETTI: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the most cordial and happy relations exist between the Catholics and Protestants of Swords and that the Catholic priest and Protestant rector worked together in order to prevent disturbances? Have not the troubles now ceased altogether?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  United Irish League Courts.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that United Irish League branches are holding illegal courts at which intimidatory resolutions are passed, which are after wards published in Nationalist journals, and acted upon; and whether, having regard to the increasing number of cases of boycotting in certain districts, he intends to take any proceedings to suppress incitements to this form of intimidation.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Government are aware that certain newspapers in Ireland are publishing reports of meetings of United Irish League branches at which intimidatory resolutions are stated to have been passed. The facts have already been placed before the Law Officers of the Crown in order that they may consider what proceedings, if any, are called for.

  Malicious Injury at Kilrush.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that compensation has been awarded at Kilrush quarter sessions to Mr. James Griffin, J.P., for malicious injury to two horses and a mare, which had their manes and tails cut off, and that the evidence in the case disclosed the fact that the
  1154
  claimant was recently shot at wounded; and whether any persons have been made criminally amenable for these offences.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that compensation was awarded as stated in the Question. The injury to the animals consisted in cutting off their manes and the hair of their tails. It is the fact that Mr. Griffin was recently fired at and slightly wounded. No person has been made amenable for these offences.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the strength of all ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary on the 1st January, 1906, and on the 1st October, 1908, respectively.
  MR. BIRRELL: On 1st January, 1906, the strength of all ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary was thirty seven county inspectors, 204 district inspectors, 235 head constables, and 9,474 sergeants and constables. On 1st October, 1908, the numbers were thirty-seven county inspectors, 195 district inspectors, 241 head constables, and 10,195 sergeants and constables.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is this extraordinary increase of the police force in Ireland due to the governing of Ireland according to Irish national ideals.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not aware I am governing Ireland according to Irish national ideals.
  MR. MOORE: Did not the hon. and learned Member for Waterford say so in America a fortnight since?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

  Leitrim Mountain Outrage.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 2nd October last a band of disguised men, who wore crepe and had blackened faces, attacked a process server in the Leitrim Mountains, at a place called Aughacashel, ten miles from Carrick-on-Shannon, and robbed him of his documents and escorted him out of the

  1155
  locality; and what arrests have made and what sentences passed.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police have no information as to any such occurrence.

  Broadford Outrage.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Tuesday night, the 13th October last, a cattle-drive took place off the farm of Mr. James D. Going, Violet Hill, near Broadford, county Clare, when fifty-four head of cattle were driven; and what arrests have been made and what sentences passed on the perpetrators of the outrage.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that the facts are as stated in the Question. No arrests have been made.

  Moneygall Cattle Drive.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that about the 15th September last a cattle-drive took place (the second within a fortnight) from a farm in the occupation of Mr. George Frend at Army Hill, Moneygall, King's County, when thirty-three sheep were scattered and seventeen cattle were driven to Gilenigile, North Tipperary, seven miles distant; what arrests have been made; and what sentences passed on the perpetrators of the outrage.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. No arrests have been made.

  Firearms in Ireland.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of firearms, including revolvers, sold in Ireland since the Peace Preservation Act was dropped by the present Government, to date, and for a similar period prior to 1st January, 1906; and whether, in view of the increase of outrages in which firearms are used, the Government intend to take steps to prohibit the sale of rifles, guns, revolvers, and ammunition to irresponsible persons in Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not in a position to give the figures asked for in the first part of the Question, nor am I aware of any means by which the Government could obtain precise information on the subject. The Government would be willing to introduce a Bill on the lines of the English Pistols Act if opportunity should offer.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will the Government take an early opportunity to introduce a Bill to deal with this serious matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Government recognise the serious nature of the increase in the number of firings into houses, but the question is how far legislation can effect a reduction.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Why did you drop the Peace Preservation Act?

  Incitements to Cattle Driving.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number and names of hon. Members of this House who have publicly advocated cattle-driving in Ireland during the recent recess; in how many cases did the police take shorthand notes of the proceedings; in how many cases did the Government institute proceedings against them; and how many arrests of persons actually engaged in cattle-driving were made.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not in a position to state the number and names of hon. Members who have publicly advocated cattle-driving during the recent recess. The only case of which I have official knowledge is that of the hon. Member for North Longford, who recently delivered a public speech in which he is stated to have advocated cattle-driving. The speech was officially reported and the shorthand notes are at present under consideration. No proceedings have yet been instituted. During the period in question seventy-three persons engaged in cattle-driving were arrested.
  MR. MOORE: Was the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman refers delivered since the same hon. Member was tried for inciting to cattle-driving, the jury disagreeing, and the Government taking no further action?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes; I think that is so.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGasked whether the Government considered it fair that the people who acted on the advice of hon. Members should he imprisoned while the instigators went free.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish Constabulary Bill.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the date on which he purposes introducing the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill; and whether he can assure the House that any increase of pay and emoluments proposed will date from the first of the financial year, as in the case of national school teachers.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am anxious to introduce the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill as soon as possible, but I cannot at present name a date because, as I explained in answer to a Question yesterday, the Bill cannot be introduced until the necessary Financial Resolution has been passed by the Committee. It is not proposed to make the operation of the Act retrospective.

  Ennis Outrage.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that about seven o'clock on Saturday night, the 10th October last, an outrage was perpetrated at Caherbullane, near Corofin, by Ennis, county Clare, when three gun shots and five revolver shots were discharged at a man named John Cahill and his uncle Thomas Cahill, some of the pellets striking the former on the cheek and legs; how many arrests have been made; what sentences have been passed on the perpetrators of the outrage; and what reason is assigned by the police for the attack.
  MR. BIRRELL: The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. John Cahill was slightly injured, one grain of shot striking him in the cheek and another in the leg. No arrests have been made. It would be contrary to practice to state any suspicions the police may have as to the reason for the attack.

  Prosecutions for Cattle-Driving.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the observations of the Lord Chief Justice at the Clare Spring Assizes, on which occasion the learned Judge, referring to the returns of boycotting presented to him by the police authorities, pointed out that those returns comprised eleven cases which were described as instances of minor boycotting, and that in five of those cases people not only declined to associate with or deal with the boycotted families, but the latter were also compelled to go considerable distances for the necessaries of life; whether the cases of these five families have since been retained on the list of persons boycotted in a minor degree; and will he state in what respects their cases differ from others which are included in the category of serious boycotting.
  MR. BIRRELL: During the twelve months ended 31st July last, 1,237 persons were charged with the offence of cattle-driving; 1,058 persons were ordered to find bail to keep the peace, and of those seventy-one were committed to prison for various terms, ranging generally from fourteen days to three months, in default of finding bail. In one case thirty-two persons were tried at Assizes, but the proceedings resulted in a disagreement of the jury.

  Scottish Education Bill.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the importance of the measure and the small amount of discussion hitherto in this House, apart from the Committee stage, on the Scottish Education Bill, he will consider the desirability of giving two days for the Report stage.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): I cannot at present make any statement as to the exact amount of time that will be given to the Report stage of this Bill, but ray hon. friend may be sure that adequate time will be allowed.

  English Education Bill.
  SIR GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he is now able to say definitely

  1159
  whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the further stages of the Education Bill as soon as the Licensing Bill has passed through Committee.
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, Sir. That is our intention.

  The Motor Car Act, 1903.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the provision of the Motor Car Act, 1903, are habitually broken and ignored by motor-car owners and their servants, he will say whether, in view of the numerous deaths and accidents caused to the public if he intends to introduce legislation providing such penalties as will ensure that the law as enacted by Parliament is obeyed by all classes of the community.
  *MR. ASQUITH: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave last Thursday to a similar Question by the hon. Member for the Newbury division of Berkshire.
  MR. MARKHAMasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that motor-car manufacturers were advertising the fact that ears of 60 or 70 horse-power were being supplied to Members sitting on the Treasury bench; whether under normal conditions those cars were bound to exceed the speed limit; and would he also say the number of Ministers, including himself, who have been convicted daring the last few weeks in respect of their cars.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that Question.

  Unemployment—Government Proposals.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the amount of suffering caused by the present state of unemployment, he can now state what the Government proposes to do to alleviate the distress, and when a day can be given to discuss the subject.
  MR. MYER: Seeing it is obviously unfair that the incidence of the relief rate should be imposed on the poorer districts in which the unemployed now congregate, will the Government
  1160
  consider the desirability of placing it on a broader basis?
  MR. ASQUITH: Mr. Speaker, the statement which I am about to make I can only make with the indulgence of the House. I obviously cannot anticipate the legislative proposals which the Government intend to make at the beginning of next session to deal with the permanent causes and conditions of unemployment. I shall not, therefore, to-day attempt to lay down any of the principles which, when the problem itself has to be faced, will of necessity require careful statement and be properly subject to criticism and review. I will only ask the House to accept my assurance—made in the name and on behalf of the Government—that we do not mean to shirk any of the larger issues which will then be raised. For the moment, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question, we have to deal with a special emergency—not, as I shall hope to show, unanticipated and unprovided for, but calling for direct and immediate treatment, without prejudice to our ultimate policy. The situation is a grave one. No one is less disposed than we are who sit upon this bench to minimise its dimensions or to dispute its urgency. From causes, some of which are obvious and admitted and others disputable and obscure, there has been brought about—not in this country only, not in this country mainly, but throughout the allied and interdependent areas of the world's industry—a temporary dislocation of the machinery of production; and the result is visible in an increase of unemployment—not, indeed, beyond precedent, but substantially in excess of anything that we have experienced for some time past. There are faint, but welcome, signs on the horizon which encourage the belief that the existing distress, though acute and widespread, may be short-lived. But be that as it may, without attempting any numerical estimate—which at the best can only be a rough conjecture—there can be no doubt, I think, that during the present autumn and winter, if nothing is done, we shall be face to face with a large body of industrious men and women who, through no default of their own, find for the time no demand for their labour in the ordinary market,

  1161
  and who, unless steps be taken, must be compulsorily reduced to idleness and want. Sir, I need not say—speaking for a moment on behalf of the whole House—they have our profound sympathy. They have a right to demand, and it is our duty to give them, something more.
  The first, and in some ways the most important, part of the statement I have to make relates to what has been done and is being done by the Government and the local authorities. The likelihood of such an emergency as now confronts us was months ago foreseen. From the beginning of the summer—I may say even earlier—my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board has been assiduously urging the necessity of those in authority in the areas of probable distress making special preparations, both in the acceleration of work for which they had already power to raise money, and in setting on foot fresh works of public utility for which new borrowing powers would be required. My right hon. friend has been exposed in these matters to a great deal of criticism, and, I think, to a good deal of misunderstanding, and I want to take this opportunity of saying—and I speak from constant personal communication with him during the whole of this time—that he has been lavish of time and labour. He has sacrificed his leisure—practically, I may say, the whole of his holiday—day and night, week after week, and month after month, He has been, with all the energy which the House knows and admires, putting his whole soul in trying to prepare and provide for the emergency which now prevails. I will not go much into figures, but let me summarise, as briefly as I can, the result of what has actually been done, and is being done. First of all, I will ask the House to compare the figures for the amount of loans to local authorities for works of local utility sanctioned by the Local Government Board in three successive years between the months of June and October. In 1906 the amount so sanctioned was £3,530,000. In 1907 it was £3,589,000—no substantial difference—but in the present year it rose to £4,388,000. In other words, in round numbers there was an increase in the loans sanctioned
  1162
  during those four months to public authorities in the present year of no less than £800,000. But there is a more significant and instructive figure still. I ask the House next to take into account the number and the amount of loans in which the employment of the unemployed in the localities was expressly the object of the application. I take the months between August and October. In 1907 the number of loans falling within that category applied for was five, and the amount of money applied for £3,560. In the same months of the present year the number of applications rose to ninety, and the amount of money applied for to £719,000. That, I think, shows, on the one hand, the growing sense on the part of local authorities of the distress and emergency which they have to provide for, and, on the other hand, an equally strong disposition on the part of the Local Government Board to meet their reasonable requirements. But I must not stop there. On 21st October—within the first three weeks of this month—the loans applied for in the same way on a similar footing, and either sanctioned or awaiting sanction, amounted to £547,000, and there are still on the list to be dealt with—and they will be dealt with, I am certain, with my right hon. friend's usual promptitude—applications for £326,000. Add these figures together and the House will see that, starting from the month of August last and taking the moment at which we are now sitting, a sum of no less than £1,500,000 will have been added to the resources of the local authorities for the purpose of dealing mainly and substantially with unemployment. That is absolutely unprecedented in any previous Parliament. Even so, that does not complete the account. I spoke a moment ago of the acceleration of works under loans which have been sanctioned. Here in London and the Metropolitan area, and largely owing to the advice of my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, there has been or there will be within a very short period, a commencement of works which would otherwise have been deferred to next year or perhaps a later date. I am only taking two or three instances—one, the Water Board and the construction of their reservoir, involving £520,000; another, the Wandsworth

  1163
  Infirmary, involving £100,000; and in the case of the London County Council—which I am glad to see is moving in this matter, and moving, I hope, strongly—there is a sum which is not at this moment defined, but which, I am sure, will be substantial.
  This special provision has been made in the course of this summer by local authorities, with the co-operation and sanction of the Local Government Board, to meet this special emergency, and I will ask the House to observe two things. These loans, the amount of which I have given, have been applied for and sanctioned on a double footing; first, I will not say with the sole object, but with the main and governing object that the large expenditure which is to be so incurred should be the employment of unemployed labour in the localities from which the applications came; and, in the next place, what is equally important—perhaps more important—that the work to be undertaken under the loans sanctioned should be work to be commenced at once, or, at any rate, without the interposition of any avoidable delay, so that the money can at once pass into circulation and become an effective wages fund for the employment of those at present in idleness. The House may ask on what kind of works this very large sum of money so sanctioned and borrowed is going to be expended, and that I think is a very important point. There is the broadest possible distinction, even when you are dealing with a temporary emergency, between spending money upon what I may call made work—work artificially called into existence, to glide over an emergency of the moment, which will leave no permanent result in the interests of the community—and work of real and permanent public utility. The great advantage of proceeding on these lines is that the money borrowed under the sanction of the Local Government Board is expended upon works for which the local authorities, either under their local Acts or under the provisions of the general law, are empowered to spend the money of the rates—on works like sewerage, drainage, street improvements erection of baths, the laying out of recreation grounds, the provision of installations for electric lighting, and all
  1164
  the various other channels by which, in these days, municipal enterprise finds a productive and fertilising outlet. Although I do not profess to be sponsor—who could?—for the wisdom and prudence which have guided the expenditure of money in any particular case—I have no doubt that here, as elsewhere, mistakes have been made, money has been squandered, a due sense of proportion has not been maintained—yet, if you look, as I hope the House will have the opportunity of doing when the return is presented, through the works upon which this sum of money is going to be expended, you will find that it is substantially work which will inure to the permanent benefit of the community in whose area it is being undertaken.
  There is another thing to say as to the cost of these works. The money has been borrowed upon loans of varying duration, but for the most part they are short loans, and the cost of repayment both of the annual interest and sinking fund, and ultimately of the principal, falls upon the rates. Therefore the whole burden of this expenditure—I am not speaking for the moment of the contribution from the Central Fund—in so far as it is defrayed by the sums raised out of loans, falls upon the rates of the localities concerned. I have said already that it is a condition of these borrowings and of works sanctioned under them that the business should be begun at once or without delay. The inducement, or one of the inducements at any rate, held out to the local authorities, and for which they in terms stipulate as a condition of their applying for those loans, is that out of the Central Fund—the fund voted by Parliament at the end of the financial year—the Local Government Board will contribute a sum in respect of each set of works which, roughly, represents the difference between the value of contract labour and the value of the unemployed labour which they are specially designed to meet. It is only in that way, by making good that difference out of the Central Fund, that you can provide a sufficient inducement in some cases—I will not say in all—for the work to be undertaken. It is, of course, further to be observed that these loans, which, as I have said, are a burden on the rate—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman, say what the estimated difference will be?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is extremely difficult to say until the end of the year. It varies between 5 per cent. and 40 per cent. in different places. It is really extremely difficult to say, and I do not believe any figures given at this moment would be of real value or instruction in arriving at a conclusion on that point. It depends, as the right hon. Gentleman will see at once, very largely on the character and quality of the labour that is employed, and upon the extent to which you can resort to the ordinary labour market and get men accustomed to the work to do it or you have to go outside. I made careful inquiry into that question myself, and I cannot say myself, the range is so wide, what the difference will be until we get to the end of the financial year. But I was going to add—not that I complain of the right hon. Gentleman's interruption—that these loans, which in themselves are a burden on the rates, have been and are being supplemented by large voluntary contributions—in Glasgow, for instance, £35,000; in Leeds and Manchester no less than £20,000 in each case have been subscribed.
  Now, Sir, in view of these facts, which I have recited in the baldest possible way to the House, I think it is impossible to say that the municipalities of the country as a whole have not shown themselves alive to their responsibilities in this matter. It has been suggested, and suggested in various quarters which are entitled to the greatest possible respect, that local authorities should be empowered by fresh legislation to raise a rate, not exceeding 1d. in the £, for the direct employment of unemployed labour. Some such provision was to be found in the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin four or five years ago, but it was ultimately dropped when that measure was passing through the House. In so far as the proposal proceeds on the view that national assistance—I will not say exactly or even proportionately—ought to be conditional on local activity, it is impossible not to sympathise with it.
  1166
  I think myself very strongly that we ought to be very careful and chary in giving a contribution out of the Central Fund to a locality which has not shown, in one way or another, its determination to do its best to the extent of its own resources to assist its own local people. But, without going into any question of principle—because we are dealing with a special emergency which calls for special treatment—the Government, after the most careful consideration, and viewing the matter in all its aspects, have come to the conclusion that the circumstances do not call for such a change in the law. I should like to make clear what are the grounds which have led us to that conclusion. In the first place, as far as we are aware, no municipality in this country has asked for this power. They have, as I have shown, been in communication for three or four mouths with the Local Government Board. They have applied for these loans and got sanction for them on the ground that in their view—I do do not say that as the law now stands they were not constrained to take that view—that was the proper method. But they have never suggested that they desired, in lieu of the policy of loans, a policy of rating themselves. On the contrary, the representations which I have received—and I have received a good number from the municipalities, and certainly the leading municipalities—have all been in this sense, that the emergency is such as to call upon the Government to deal with the matter on what they call national lines—that is to say, not to increase the burden that falls on the local community, but, as always happens in these days, to call upon the taxpayer, the central authority, to make good whatever the deficiency may be. But there is a more serious point. We have examined the facts very carefully, and we have come to the conclusion that if you gave this power to rate up to a 1d. it is extremely doubtful whether it would be largely taken advantage of, and, therefore, whether it would really be productive. What we want in these circumstances is money. We do not want an academic declaration on the Statute-book either of a principle or anything else. This is a matter of business, and we want to get money, if we can, from the right source. If you take what is called

  1167
  the distress districts, those in which unemployment really prevails, and exclude London, the total possible yield of a 1d. rate would not exceed £200,000. If you add London, a possible 1d. rate in London—I do not know whether the London County Council would like to levy it, but assuming they did, the yield would be £170,000. That is a total of £370,000.
  MR. REMNANT: It would realise over £200,000 in London.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am told £170,000. Let us call it £200,000 and make the total £400,000, instead of £370,000. But these places are not going to rate themselves both ways. That is quite certain. If they have applied—and the great bulk of the distress districts have applied—for loans, the burden of which as I have shown, in respect of both principal and interest, must be made good out of the local rates, it is not at all likely that they are going to add to that the burden of a 1d. rate in order to provide a comparatively small addition to the resources which would otherwise be at their disposal. Further, I want to deal with this matter as a matter of business, and I can assure the House, and particularly some hon. Members below the gangway who attach great importance to this proposal of a 1d. rate, that I am looking at this purely as a matter of business, and with the sole object of dealing in the best way we can with the emergency we have got to face. You will get a great deal more money for the purposes which are immediately before us in the present winter, for the purposes of the next three or four months, out of your loans than you will get out of a 1d. rate. I have got here a list, which I shall be glad to have printed if the House likes, of twenty-four boroughs which include, I think, almost all the most necessitous and also very large municipalities, like Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Salford. If you take these twenty-four boroughs and add up the produce of a 1d. rate levied in each of them, you will find that that comes, roughly speaking, to £63,000. Thus, after allowing for Manchester, which produces £17,000, Liverpool, which produces £18,000, and Leeds, which produces
  1168
  £8,000, the total produce of a 1d. rate in these twenty-four boroughs would not exceed £63,000. In those very boroughs—I do not say in all of them, some of them have not applied at all—the loans sanctioned or contemplated between June and this present month of October amount to £602,000. In other words, they have placed at their disposal through the machinery of loans for the purpose of dealing with the exceptional circumstances of the country, nearly ten times as much as they would get from the produce of a 1d. rate. And let me add this—a not unimportant fact when you are dealing with this, as I say, as a matter of business, as an expedient to deal with a temporary emergency—that many of these places are places where the rates are already very high. They run up to 9s. 8d. and 9s. 10d. in the £ and, knowing as one does, human nature, and especially rate-paying and rate-imposing human nature, I suspect it would take a very long time before you could induce the governing body of one of these really necessitous areas to add to the burden of the rates for a temporary emergency a comparatively insignificant sum when, by the loans machinery which has been resorted to, they can provide much better for their wants. I have said so much on that point because I know it is one to which great importance is attached, and because it is one on which the judgment of the country ought to be determined, not upon academic grounds, and not upon grounds of dry economics, but upon practical and businesslike grounds. The Government have satisfied themselves that for these three, four, or five months which lie before us you will make a more adequate provision out of local resources to deal with the problem of local unemployment by resorting to the machinery of loans than you would if you adopted a 1d. rate.
  The House may well ask, What are the Government themselves doing, and what do they intend to do? Well, first of all, I will say a word about what has been done, or what is going to be done, by the Government Departments, because they have great responsibility in this matter. The Post Office, a very large employer of labour—probably the largest in the kingdom—in addition to various minor

  1169
  reforms in regard to overtime and so on, for the special purpose of dealing with this matter is taking on during the Christmas season, for the extra work which falls upon it at that time of the year—is taking on as it did last year—8,000 men, so far as possible men who are genuinely unemployed, largely obtained through the Central Unemployed Body of London, at wages which, owing to the action of my right hon. friend, have been raised from 20s. to 24s. a week. That may seem a small thing, but it is an important thing as far as it goes; and my right hon. friend, very wisely, if I may say so, has sought to extend the area of action in this matter by taking steps to provide with similar employment for these special seasonal purposes the unemployed in the great provincial centres of population.
  Then I come to the War Office. Let us see what that Department is doing. The replacement of the Militia by the Special Reserve has largely increased the amount of military employment in the winter months. A Special Reservist under the new system has only a fortnight's summer camp; but he does six months drill on enlistment, so that if he enlist early in the autumn, as the War Office encourages him to do, he is provided for throughout the winter. The War Office is prepared to take at least 24,000 recruits in the Special Reserve between now and March. We have got 5,000 already, and they are coming in faster, I am glad to say, week by week; and the War Office has decided, very wisely, to widen the choice of the intending recruit by throwing open the Army Medical Corps and the Army Service Corps, as well as the combatant branch, so that they may have a wider area of employment. If you take the lowest rank in the worst-paid arm, the emoluments are 1s. a day in cash, in addition to rations, and in addition to four payments by way of bounty of £1 each. If the 24,000 men whom the War Office want will join, that Department will spend during the winter of this year something nearly approaching £200,000. That is a very substantial addition to the provision made for the unemployed.
  Now I come to what is, perhaps, more important—the action taken by the
  1170
  Board of Admiralty. At Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham, Sheerness, Pembroke, and Haulbowline 2,100 men are to be specially engaged for repair work, which in the ordinary course would not have been undertaken this year. Those who have been previously employed in the yards will have first consideration, and their engagement will terminate on 31st March, 1909. The cost of that is £73,500. Tenders have been accepted for the construction of nine destroyers. According to the programme foreshadowed in the early part of the year these tenders would not have been accepted before the end of November. It is not advisable to disclose the exact amount of money involved, but it may be stated to be very nearly £900,000. Tenders for five unarmoured cruisers have been called for and are due on 5th November. According to the programme these orders would not have been placed until January, 1909. It is now hoped to place them by 26th November, possibly some of them by 15th November. The total of these tenders will certainly exceed £1,500,000 sterling. These orders meaning, as the House will see, £2,500,000 will be placed this year upwards of six weeks in advance of the time orginally proposed. Ante-dating the programme in this way by six weeks, and in some cases two months, means that, presumably, £200,000 more will be spent this winter by the contractors in executing the orders than would have been the case under the original programme. These orders will be distributed between the different shipbuilding centres, so that, as far as possible, they may fairly share them.
  Now let me come, in conclusion, to the central grant, which is directly paid out of the taxation of the country. Apart from the function to which I have already referred—that of making good, in the case of these municipal loans, the difference to the local authorities between what may be roughly described as contract and casual or unemployed labour—the central fund is applicable to two main purposes. In the first place, it can make grants to localities which are too poor to borrow or to borrow on any adequate scale. There are many such, and we know it is most desirable that where the rateable capacity of a locality

  1171
  is so low and at the same time its congestion of population and of unemployed is so great that ordinary conditions cannot be said to exist, the special fund should be allocated to that particular purpose. Another purpose to which the central fund can be applied is to pay for the employment of labour for purposes other than those for which loans are or can be sanctioned, but which fall within the scope of municipal enterprise. This is largely done by the Central Unemployed Body of London, a body to which I desire to pay a hearty tribute of gratitude and sympathy for the admirable work which it has done in the course of the last three years. We propose to increase the amount of the central fund. It is almost impossible at this moment to forecast with anything like precision what sum will meet the full necessities of a situation which is not yet fully developed. We propose in the first instance to double the amount of the central grant which was actually expended last year, which will bring us at once to an available figure of about £300,000. I do not pretend to predict the future in regard to that; but we are not content with increasing the amount of the central grant. We think a clear case of necessity has been shown for rendering more elastic the provisions and conditions under which it has been distributed. We propose to give the most elastic and most liberal interpretation possible to the character of the work which is to be aided out of the grant. When you are dealing with a special emergency like this, I am satisfied, as I believe everybody who hears me is, that you may stretch the limits which quite properly from a business point of view would be imposed when conditions were more nearly normal. Further, with regard to the special conditions under which this grant is administered, we propose they should be relaxed in two important particulars—first, so as to allow assistance to be given, in proper cases, to persons who have been receiving Poor Law relief during the last twelve months, who are at present excluded; and in the second place—and I think this equally important—so as to remove the disqualification of persons who have been assisted under the Act in each of the last two years. With those
  1172
  three modifications, elasticity in the character of the work and the removal of the disqualification in respect of Poor Law relief and assistance during the last two years, I believe the main objection which has been taken and the main criticisms of the present administration of the grant will be effectually removed.
  May I add how much can be done at a time like this, in addition to anything that the Government or local authorities can do, by landowners and well-to-do people in every walk of life, not merely by benevolent contributions, but by anticipating and accelerating work which in the normal course of things would have to wait until a later date to be carried out? The proposals which I have laid before the House on the part of the Government, I need hardly say, even for the purpose of dealing with the emergency in front of us, make no pretence to the character of finality. If and when the necessity should arise we shall be perfectly prepared to consider in what direction and to what extent they may need to be supplemented. But we believe them to be both adapted and adequate to foreseeable needs; I am sure that as we are in the presence of a national misfortune they will not be canvassed in the spirit of Party. Like all expedients of the kind they are little better than anodynes to produce temporary relief, which do not go down to the root of the evil. And we submit them merely as such, and with the hope and the intention that before this Parliament ends its labours we may be able to strike a real and an effective blow at the permanent causes of unemployment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR, on behalf of the Opposition, thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his extraordinarily clear statement, and asked how soon he proposed to give the House an opportunity of discussing the matters he had brought before them. So far as he was concerned he did not want the day to be fixed too soon, not this week, nor perhaps next week. [LABOUR cries of "Oh!"] He would give his reasons. The right hon. Gentleman had necessarily travelled over a very wide field and had referred to questions of extraordinary interest and intricacy. They would enter

  1173
  on the discussion far better equipped for debate if they were allowed some time to think over the right hon. Gentleman's statement and by Question and Answer to elicit replies from the Ministers concerned which would make them thoroughly acquainted with the proposals of the Government. Therefore, although he was the last person to wish to see the discussion delayed, he thought they ought to be allowed a few days before they approached the most complicated and most important question with which it was possible for the House to deal.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONdesired to say on behalf of his colleagues how thankful they were that the Prime Minister had made a clear and definite statement on this important subject. He was not in a position at the moment to venture any opinion as to whether the proposals were adequate or satisfactory, but he would urge the importance of a day being granted for their discussion much earlier than had been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. The question was of extreme urgency; and on behalf of his colleagues he would urge that Monday next should, if possible, be fixed as the date of the discussion.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked whether in his survey of distressed localities the Prime Minister had taken Ireland into his purview. Had he taken steps to ascertain the amount of unemployment in Dublin, Limerick, Cork, and elsewhere, and would those plans be taken into account in the administration of the central fund.
  MR. ASQUITHasked that he should have notice of Questions relating to Ireland. With regard to the date of the discussion, the Government would like to consult the general convenience of the House. He would not commit himself at the moment to any particular day, but he confessed that the inclination of his own opinion was to take the discussion on an early day, because it was obviously a matter of urgency and should be discussed as soon as possible.

LICENSING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 4:
MR. JAMES HOPE MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central) moved an Amendment providing that in the case of old on-licences extinguished under the power of optional reduction, the compensation should be in accordance with the financial provisions, not of the Bill, but of the Act of 1904. He said that when this scheme had taken effect the number of public-houses would be brought down to the level of the wants of the neighbourhood, and now it was proposed to give the justices special power beyond that to reduce licences. If the theory of the Bill was that the scale of reduction would bring the licences down to a proper proportion he submitted that if the magistrates went beyond that on the face of it they should grant those houses the old-standing terms they would have received before this Bill was brought in. On those grounds he begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 30, to leave out the words 'this Act,' and insert the words 'The Licensing Act, 1904.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'this Act' Stand part of the clause.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid this was a Bill primarily providing for the reduction during a certain number of years of a certain number of licences, and it had always been approached from that standpoint. During a period of fourteen years the total number of licences would be reduced by 30,000, and a certain measure of compensation would apply to them. With regard to the licences coming under Clause 4, which was the clause for optional reduction, it would be well that a different standard of action should be applied. That clause being altogether an exception to the main scheme of the Bill, he put it to the Committee whether the compensation should not

1175
be of a different character, They had a method of compensation ready to their hand which was set forth clearly under the Act of 1904, and which had worked satisfactorily. The compensation that would be provided in cases of optional reduction under the scheme of 1904 would not cost the State a farthing, and would not set up the injustice of which they had had occasion to complain in cases of statutory reduction. If the Government were open to argument at all, if they had not stopped their ears with wax or cotton-wool, he hoped that inasmuch as in Clause 4 they went entirely outside the main structure of the measure they would allow compensation to be given on the liberal and equitable terms of the Act of 1904, and not under the wicked provisions for compensation which were applied to the licences to be reduced under the scheme of this Bill.
MR. YOUNGERsaid it appeared to him that the Committee were in a difficulty in dealing with this matter at present, because it was impossible to know how Clause 10 might be dealt with. The experience which the Committee had already had of the astounding changes of view on the part of the Government led him to hope that they might be induced to make Clause 10 a great deal more reasonable than it was at present. Although Clause 10 was unfair, and the compensation under it not at all equitable, they were bound at this stage to do what they could to prevent the licences being abolished on unfair terms. He cordially supported the Amendment.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS, Glamorganshire, Mid.)was understood to say that it was impossible to discuss the question of compensation under this Amendment. The fact that it was not moved by the hon. Member for Kingston, in whose name it stood upon the Paper, rather indicated to him that it was regarded as consequential on an Amendment moved last night.
*MR. CAVEsaid he addressed the Committee on the
1176
subject yesterday, and he did not wish to make two speeches on the same point.
SIR S. EVANSsaid the Amendment was to a great extent consequential. The meaning of the provision in the last four lines of the subsection was quite clear. It was also clear that if they substituted the Act of 1904 they would make absolute nonsense of the whole of that part of the clause. The proviso was intended as an indication to the justices that they might, subject to the financial provisions of this Act, make further reductions in excess of the statutory reduction. He gathered from the speech of the mover of the Amendment that he desired to discuss the question of compensation, but that could not be done at present.
LORD R. CECILsaid it did not follow that this Amendment, whether right or wrong, was necessarily consequential on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Kingston last night. Two quite different objects were aimed at in the two Amendments. His hon. friend last night urged that the procedure available under the Act of 1904 should be adopted, namely, reference to Quarter Sessions. The object of the present Amendment was to substitute the scale of compensation available under the Act of 1904 in a particular set of cases for the scale proposed under this Bill.
SIR S. EVANS: That is why I said in answer to the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs that it was impossible to discuss it now.
MR. YOUNGER: What I said was that it was difficult to discuss this without knowing how Clause 10 would be framed. I expressed the hope that the Government would change it.
LORD R. CECILsaid they could only take the Bill as it stood at present. They must discuss this clause now, knowing quite well that they would not be able to go back on the matter at a later stage. The point now before the Committee was one which he should have thought worthy of a more complete answer from the Solicitor-General. He

1177
had a profound dislike of the scheme of compensation proposed by the Government, and he regretted that any responsible Government should have committed themselves to such an extraordinary perversion of justice as was contained in the section. He thought that in this particular set of reductions—reductions which were entirely discretionary and on a different footing—there should be the freest and fullest compensation. In the particular clause they were now discussing they were going to allow a bench of magistrates to extinguish licences beyond even the scale provided by the Bill.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he would not enter into competition with the Solicitor-General on a matter of legal construction, but this was not a matter of legal construction at all. It was a matter of the plain meaning of the English language. If the clause were passed in its present form there could be no doubt whatever that the compensation payable for the licences extinguished beyond the statutory number provided for under the scheme would be the compensation payable under this Bill. If the words of the Amendment were inserted a separate scheme of compensation would be payable. Unless those words were inserted now he believed it would be impossible for the Government to make Clause 10 carry out the necessary change. The discretion given to the licensing justices beyond the statutory reduction was to apply to licences "in any rural parish or urban area," and he profoundly regretted that his hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston did not move the Amendment standing in his name to leave out these words. In a vast number of cases since the passing of the Act of 1904 licensed property throughout the country had acquired special value. The owners of licensed property in his own county had surrendered licences in order to secure licences which they now had running. These would now become subject to the operations of this clause, and to say that licences of that kind, which had acquired a value they did not possess before, were to be destroyed subject to the scale of compensation payable by the justices under the
1178
general scheme of the Bill was very unjust. If the Solicitor-General was right in saying that this proposed Amendment was in the wrong place or form it would be easy to alter the place and form. It seemed to him that the Amendment, if accepted as proposed now, would have the effect they desired. If the Amendment was not made here, it could not be done on Clause 12.
SIR S. EVANS: Yes, it can.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was sure the Solicitor-General would not give an assurance of that kind unless he was confident. If that was so he would not press for the insertion of the words here. It was conceivable that, under the procedure Resolution, they might not reach that part of the clause on which the change was to be made. He thought this Amendment was of the utmost importance, especially with regard to the extra licences which he had referred to as having acquired an additional value, which should not be ignored by the supporters of the Bill.
*MR. CAVEsaid he did not move his Amendment to this clause, to leave out "in any rural parish or urban area," because it was put down as consequential to an Amendment on an earlier clause enlarging the area for the purpose of statutory reduction. He was strongly in favour of a larger area, but the Amendment was defeated. He agreed with his hon. friend that the Amendment now before the Committee raised the whole question of the scale of compensation. By the words proposed to be omitted the Government were providing that the licences extinguished on the optional system would be compensated at the lower scale. If the clause passed as it stood it would be extremely difficult to argue afterwards the point that the extra licences beyond the statutory reduction ought to be compensated on a different scale. By accepting the Amendment it would not prejudge that question. This was a question affecting not brewers only, but owners of licensed houses of every kind.
*THE CHAIRMANsuggested that it would be better to withdraw the Amendment and the question as to whether the extra houses, if extinguished, should be compensated on a higher scale could be raised on Clause 10.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that his argument was that the extra licences stood in a stronger position than the licences statutorily reduced. However, he would gladly accept the suggestion of the Chairman and withdraw the Amendment.
SIR S. EVANShoped that the Committee would allow the Amendment to be withdrawn. The real truth of the matter was that this subsection of Clause 4 did not touch the question of compensation at all; and he was sure that it would be perfectly competent to discuss the point raised by the hon. Gentleman on Clause 10.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. CAVE*MR. CAVE moved to leave out subsection. (2). The point he wanted to take bore somewhat on the question debated at a late hour on the previous night, viz., as to the right of appeal. The subsection provided that—
"Subject to the foregoing provision 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."
He was rather puzzled to know what the other on-licences were. The reference appeared to be to on-licences other than old on-licences, and therefore to on-licences granted since the Act of 1904. But the on-licences granted since 1904 were granted on monopoly value, and with regard to those granted for a term of years there would be no question of compensation at the end of the term. He could not help feeling that there was some confusion of thought which inspired the drafting of this Bill. He did not know whether this clause did preserve the right of appeal in cases coming within this clause; and he hoped that that would be made clear. Of course, apart from that question, they had the strongest objection on principle
1180
to this subsection. There were two things of great importance involved in it. In the first place it took away from Quarter Sessions the power of dealing with those licences; and secondly, there was the alteration of the present scale of compensation. The clause provided that if a renewal or transfer of an old on-licence was refused during the reduction period then compensation should be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Act. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 32, to leave out subsection (2)."—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That the words of subsection (2), down to the word 'this' in line 3, page 4, stand part of the clause."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,)said that the hon. and learned Gentleman had put his point so fairly that he almost disarmed criticism. A question of principle, however, was involved in this subsection, and be could hold out no hope that the Government would change their view as to the desirability of giving power to the local justices to deal with this matter. He thought that the clause adequately provided for an appeal.-All that the clause did was to provide that the local justices should have revived to them the same powers and discretion as to refusing the renewal or transfer of an old licence, not necessarily every year but at the expiration of the period for which the licence was granted; but when it did come up for renewal of transfer at the expiration of the period it would then be treated under the provisions of this clause as a new licence. If they exercised that discretion which they had before 1904, then it could only be exercised subject to the payment of compensation. He thought there was no real difficulty in the interpretation of the clause. The House had already decided on the point of principle, that the discretion of the local justices should not be reviewed by Quarter Sessions.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he did not desire to repeat the argument he had used on the previous night. The intention of

1181
the Government was to give a full right of appeal on the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that any words would make that intention clearer he would communicate with his hon. friend as to the form of words which might be employed.
SIR E. CARSONexpressed satisfaction with the undertaking of the Solicitor-General that he would accept words to make it clear that there was a right of appeal in the cases mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid that before they let this clause out of the hands of the Committee he should like to say a few words about it. He should like to call attention to the fact that under subsection 2, the licensing justices had the same powers and discretion (subject to the like appeal) as to refusing the renewal or transfer of an old on-licence as they had for the time being with respect to other on-licences. It was strange to call that a full discretion. He should hardly call it a full discretion which limited the licensing justices in one direction, and gave them no power in another. It said that they might refuse, but it did not say that they might grant additional licences. Additional point was lent to this criticism by the words used by the Prime Minister when he introduced this measure, with regard to optional reduction. He said that the Bill gave power to make optional reduction, and that it was a power vested in the authority in addition to its statutory duty, so that they restored, under this Bill, to the licensing authority the discretion which was taken away from it by the Act of 1904, with regard to refusal, renewal and transfer of existing on-licences, and they repealed the provisions of the 1904 Act vesting such power in the Quarter Sessions. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the clause which they were now discussing did nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman said that it restored to the licensing authority the full discretion with regard to refusal and renewal, but when they looked at the clause they found that it was restricted entirely to
1182
refusal. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman when he foreshadowed what was going to be done under the Bill did not foreshadow it properly.
MR. MCKENNAwished to point out that the words were "refusing the renewal." Therefore, if they did not refuse, they renewed.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid the power was limited to further reduction. He was in some doubt, owing to the extraordinary way the subsection was drafted, on another point. Licensing justices had the same powers or discretion as to the refusal of the renewal of an old "on-licence" as they had, for the time being, with respect to "other on-licences." This was most obscure, especially when he considered what were the provisions later on of Clause 20, which were of the most drastic and far-reaching nature. He knew he was not in order in referring to Olause 20 at length. Under that clause the licensing justices might attach all sorts of conditions to the licence, and if those conditions were not complied with then there was no compensation to the publican. The old on-licences might, it seemed to him, under the wording of the subsection, be subjected to those conditions. The wording of the subsection clearly required alteration. On the general question of which was the preferable tribunal, the licensing justices or Quarter Sessions, that was more or less dealt with last evening, and he would not trouble the Committee with it in any detail, but he would like to say that his opinion remained the same, that the best initial tribunal in all the circumstances of the case would have been the Quarter Sessions, and not the licensing justices. The main object of the Bill from first to last seemed to be to find some stone to throw at anybody supposed to favour the licensed trade. Here the body that had been selected was the Quarter Sessions. The reason why the Act of 1904 substituted Quarter Sessions for the licensing justices was that in a matter where there was any feeling in regard to licences aroused, it was much better to remove the settlement of the question from the local to the larger arena, where it would not be swayed by any

1183
prejudice in the locality, and where they could rely upon justice being done. It was for no reason except that of working up feeling in favour of local justices against Quarter Sessions that this provision was inserted.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid it might be due to the density of the lay mind, but he did not understand the answer of the Solicitor-General to the hon. Member for Kingston as to the obscurity of these words "other on-licences" in distinction from "an old on-licence." What would be the effect of these provisions in regard to new licences granted under the Act of 1904? The clause said that with regard to the renewal of these licences the magistrates had the same power. These powers under the fourth section of the Act of 1904 were very extensive indeed, and he submitted that if one of these licences granted under that Act came up for renewal the magistrates might attach fresh conditions to it. For instance, if the licence were granted, say last year for a term of three years, and came up under the operation of this Act within two years, it might be in 1910, quite early in the reduction period, the magistrates might well make use of their powers under the fourth section and vary the conditions of granting the renewal and attach conditions as to monopoly value, so that the licence would not be renewed unless these conditions were submitted to. He thought it was plain that that would refer to all licences granted under the fourth section of the Act of 1904. If that was true of them what did this provision mean? It applied the condition to all "on-licences," and the effect would be to give the magistrates powers in regard to them, to attach the same conditions of renewal as they at present attached to new licences under the Act of 1904, and in that way they might even during the reduction period put before the licensees the alternative of being cleared out altogether under the compensation provisions of Clause 10, or having their licences renewed subject to that very monopoly value which the Prime Minister said he did not mean to exact for twenty-one years. He thought that was the meaning of these words and he should like to know if the
1184
Solicitor-General could supply an explanation.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that as at present advised if his hon. and learned friend went to a division he should not be able to support him. As he understood it except for the words in this subsection there was no provision even for the grossly inadequate compensation provided for under this Bill, and if this subsection disappeared even that inadequate compensation would be lost. Therefore he had a difficulty in supporting the Amendment of his hon. friend. But on the earlier part of the clause he thought his hon. friend raised a substantial difficulty, which had not been adequately answered by the Solicitor-General. It might be that the difficulty was only due to somewhat obscure drafting, but certainly an explanation had not been forthcoming of the curious method of expressing themselves which the draftsmen, no doubt by the instruction of the Government, had adopted. He conceived that the operative part of subsection 2 was that, subject to the provision at the end of subsection 1, Quarter Sessions should cease to be the tribunal in dealing with these licences, and the licensing justices should be constituted as the tribunal. It would be quite possible to say that easily and simply without any reference to the old on-licence or other on-licences, and he confessed himself puzzled to know what the powers were which would not otherwise have been possessed in respect of post-1904 licences, which were to be given to the magistrates decision under subsection 2 in regard to pre-1904 or old on-licences. If a licence had been granted for three or four years he did not know what power the provision gave which was not possessed under the Act of 1904. It appeared to relate to a different class of licences, and there must be some reason for it.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he rose to put some points to the Government and also to the Chair with regard to order and the convenience of the debate. In the first place, he hoped before they went further there would

1185
be some explanation from the Government as to the rather cryptic phrase which had puzzled Gentlemen more learned than himself—
"Subject to the foregoing provisions 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."
Apart from that it seemed to him that this was the proper place in which his right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin could properly raise a question to which he attached great importance, the question whether the discretion of Quarter Sessions might not at all events be retained with reference to the rural areas. It was not the same question that had been raised on the previous day by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, but quite a different one. He did not know exactly what words were put from the Chair, but it seemed to him that this question could best be raised by the insertion of words after the word "shall" in line 33, so that the clause should run: "The licensing justices shall except in rural parishes." That would be a convenient way of raising the question his right hon. friend desired to raise with regard to certain questions which especially affected the rural areas of the country. He therefore asked whether the general question would be best discussed on this Amendment or whether his right hon. friend should await a more convenient opportunity to introduce this or a similar Amendment at or near the beginning of line 33. Another point he had to suggest for the convenience of the debate was the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Walton division of Liverpool, who had truly said that much as they objected to some parts of this section they did not object to some compensation being given for those licences which were refused at the unfettered discretion of the local justices. They thought the compensation was inadequate, but they also thought the worst compensation was better than no compensation at all. Those were the three points. The first was an explanation of certain words, the second was for the Chairman to say as to what would be the more convenient course for dealing with the rights of
1186
rural parishes with regard to licences, and the third was whether, whatever the Chairman's ruling might be on this particular point, it would not be wiser to have that discussion on this subsection, having regard to the fact that this was the only subsection which dealt with the licences to be reduced.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he put the words down to the word "this" in line 3, page 4. Therefore it would be necessary for the present Amendment to be withdrawn by consent if another Amendment was to be proposed in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. That, of course, was a matter for the Committee.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he had no objection to that course being taken.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WALTER LONG, in moving the insertion of words exempting rural parishes from the discretion of the licensing justices, said he desired to raise the question of the application of this subsection to the rural areas of the country. He raised it on this clause, because as had been pointed out, it stood absolutely clear and distinct from the main policy of the Bill. This was the clause which gave power to deal with what had been called the extra licences, and it proposed to take away the power now possessed by Quarter Sessions, and transfer it to the licensing justices of the district. Whatever might be said with regard to the general principle with regard to the large towns and urban areas, the general convenience of the community had been entirely ignored by the Bill. Yesterday the hon. Member for the Appleby division gave a description of certain parts of the country which he said enjoyed great blessings owing to the absence of licences. He had ventured to interrupt the hon. Gentleman by pointing out other districts which were quite as blessed which possessed licences. He was going to submit that their condition was not due to there being no licences. He had in mind a great many rural parishes in which there were no public-houses in the villages and

1187
never had been, but in which there were public-houses in the neighbourhood. There was at times a wave of popular opinion which led to action being taken by the licensing justices who in no way represented the district, and there was a power given, subject only to that, to enable justices sitting in Petty Sessions to deal with the licences of the whole district without any power of control by any body which not only represented the whole county, but had the general conditions of the district much more fully before it than the justices could have. Anybody who knew our rural parishes, know that they were not composed of single villages hanging on to two sides of one or two roads. Most of the rural parishes were much better supplied by adjoining parishes for the sale of liquor and things of that kind, than by their own neighbourhood. All these things had been brought to the notice of those who sat in Quarter Sessions to deal with licences. They had been brought forward with a force and an authority which there would not be if these vast powers were given to the licensing justices under the Bill. Under the Bill they provided for a greater reduction; they provided that there should be a power in the justices to deal with extra licences, and then in addition they proposed to remove the only safeguard now possessed, namely, the administration by Quarter Sessions, and to hand over these very strong powers to a non-elective body which in many cases did not represent the views of the district. He believed that if this clause was put into force it would create a vast amount of feeling against the justices and those responsible for the clause. He could see no reason at all events why they should not make this exception with regard to the rural parishes and leave them to be dealt with by Quarter Sessions as at present. He had heard no reason given for this remarkable change in the law. It seemed to him to be made without any just ground being given for it. It would inflict very severe hardship on many of the rural districts of the country, and the magistrates would be charged with a most invidious task. They had never asked for it, and why this special charge was
1188
put into the Bill unless, indeed, as had been stated, the Government were determined to make the Bill as severe as possible to those who came under its operation, he could not say. It was sufficient for him to move the insertion of the words "except in rural parishes" after the word "shall" in line 2 of the subsection. It was with the hope that there would be some explanation other than that it was the general policy of the Bill that he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 33, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'except in rural parishes.'"—(Mr. Long.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR S. EVANSsaid he imagined the right hon. Gentleman had moved the words more or less as a matter of form. If his Amendment were adopted they would have one course of procedure in the case of rural areas and another in the case of urban areas, whereas the right hon. Gentleman's argument covered the whole field. It must always be remembered by the Committee that they were dealing now only with the very smallest possible reduction. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the extraordinary powers to be given to the justices, but it was indisputable that these powers which were being restored to them in respect of optional reductions were powers which they had always had up to 1904. What was the main reason of the change made in 1904? It was that for the licences to be taken away there was to be compensation in every case, and that compensation was entirely controlled by Quarter Sessions; therefore, the Act merely allowed the justices who thought the licence ought to go for compensation to refer it to Quarter Sessions. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that so far as this matter was concerned, there was really a very small difference, no more than the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. Under the section, in every case of the refusal of a licence there was the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions. What was the difference between the local justices saying

1189
that the licence ought to be taken away with right of appeal to Quarter Sessions in the one case, and in the other the reference to Quarter Sessions? The difference was infinitesimal. The tribunal which had the approval and commendation of the right hon. Gentleman would be the final tribunal under the first subsection, just as it was under the Act of 1904.
MR. NIELDpointed out that there was a very great distinction between the two cases. In the one case the licence was referred for compensation, and Quarter Sessions had to deal with it. Under the clause the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions was restricted.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he should like some explanation of the words in the subsection "as they have for the time being with respect to other on-licences." He formally moved the omission of those words which he did not exactly understand.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 35, to leave out the words 'as they have for the time being with respect to other on-licences."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR S. EVANSsaid the meaning of the words was this: Wherever, under this subsection, there had been a refusal by the justices either to renew or transfer an old licence, there would be full right of appeal, as there would be in the event of their refusing to renew or transfer any on-licence that might come before them. They had the right to refuse renewal or transfer subject to the fullest right of appeal. He did not say that the words were as clear as they might be, but if there was any doubt the matter should be set right, and he would communicate with his right hon. friend the Member for Dublin University in regard to it.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the Solicitor-General seemed to him to be entirely
1190
mistaken as to the effect of these words. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that appeal would survive in both cases, but if they looked at the way in which the clause was drafted it was perfectly clear that the object was not as stated, because it said—
"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."
The object of the clause was that they "shall have the same powers," an expression difficult to construe and deal with, and giving powers and discretion with no right of appeal at all. The difficulty which he and many of his hon. friends felt had not been dealt with. The effect of this subsection was that the justices would have the same power in relation to pre-1904 licences as to post-1904 licences. He wanted to know what powers the justices had in relation to post-1904 licences which they did not possess in regard to pre-1904 licences. If, as to pre-1904 licences, under the terms of this Bill the justices had the same powers as for post-1904 licences, then for the life of him he could not understand why it was necessary in this sub-section to express it in this way—
"As they have for the time being with respect to other on-licences."
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said the justices possessed powers with regard to post-1904 licences which they did not possess with regard to pre-1904 licences—the power of refusing renewal without a formal reference to Quarter Sessions, though subject to appeal to Quarter Sessions; and these words "as they have for the time being with respect to other on-licences," were emphasised by the words which followed, "and the provisions of the Licensing Act, 1904"—and so forth.
MR. YOUNGERpointed out that this section gave the justices smaller powers with regard to the renewal of an old licence than they now possessed under the Act of 1904. The Solicitor-General had entirely missed the point; it was not a question of appeal at all.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the section dealt not with the granting of a licence but the renewal of a licence.
*MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that the words of the section as they stood would, if the justices thought they had the power, unless modified, enable them to attach a monopoly value during the reduction period to the renewal of an on-licence. The Solicitor-General was redrafting the clause he understood, and he would ask him to make quite clear what the power was.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not thoroughly understand what the powers given were. They wanted to know what was meant by the words "new licences under the Act of 1904." The licence granted since 1904 came to an end, was not renewed, and no compensation was to be made. The contract between the justices on the one hand and the post-1904 licensee on the other was finished and complete, and he took it that the new contract was for not renewing the old licence at all. He did not think it ought to be called a renewal; it was a new thing altogether. If he was right in that, then the powers the justices had for the time being with respect to other on-licences, namely, the post-1904 licences, were the same as they had with regard to the licences coming to an end. Suppose the 1904 licence had come to an end, then the new licence thereupon created might carry with it all sorts of new and extremely onerous conditions which they could not put upon the old licence; and what they wanted to know was whether the Government were not merely restoring the pre-1904 powers of the magistrates, plus a certain right to compensation—whether they were giving the justices not merely their old powers but a new kind of power; in other words, that they were granting power to deal with the post-1904 licences. That was the exact point he desired to have cleared up.
SIR S. EVANSpointed out that the words in line 34 made it clear that the provision referred to pre-1904 licences. It might be a refusal to renew or transfer, and this sub-clause did not deal with any post-1904 licences at all.
1192
The operative part of this section was line 34, which enacted what the powers of the justices would be with reference to pre-1904 licences. With regard to post-1904 licences, if the licence was granted for a term under the Act of 1904 it came to an end, and there was a provision in that Act which provided that any application for a re-grant of a licence for a term should be treated as an application for a new licence. The operation of this sub-clause was not upon the pre-1904 licences at all.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then why not content yourself with saying that the old powers shall be given to the magistrates?
SIR S. EVANS: Well, we will redraft it in that sense.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*MR. CAVEsaid the Amendment he had on the Paper dealt with a matter which might seem a small one, but it was very important to the parties interested. Under the Act of 1904 when a licence was refused, on the terms of compensation being paid, provision was made for continuing the licence until the compensation was actually paid. It was thought unfair that the publican should lose his licence until he had actually got the money, and provision was made in Clause 6 of the Act of 1904 for continuing the licenee refused until actual payment of the compensation had taken place. That seemed perfectly fair, and the object of his Amendment was to make the same provision in this clause. A licensee might have his licence refused in April in one year and might not get his compensation until three, six or even twelve months later, and meantime he might have to go without means of livelihood and without his compensation. He had known a case where the fixing and apportionment of the compensation had taken twelve months, and he hoped that some provision would be made for meeting this case.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 3, at the end to insert the words 'and the refusal shall not take effect until compensation has been paid, the licence

1193
when necessary being provisionally renewed or transferred for this purpose.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR S. EVANSsaid there was provision in the Act of 1904 dealing with a provisional renewal of a licence, but it had been omitted from this Bill because it was unnecessary under the procedure now adopted. In many cases where a licence was referred to the Court of Quarter Sessions there was an interval of time before Quarter Sessions could deal with it, and there was also an interval before the compensation was paid, and meanwhile the licensee was entitled to carry on business until he actually received the money. But the procedure under this Bill was quite different, and it was intended that in the case of statutory reduction and the other reduction that the matter should be dealt with at the annual licensing meeting of the justices, who would be the final tribunal. Therefore they had not to go to Quarter Sessions. The intention was that the licence should come to an end on the 5th April next succeeding the annual licensing meeting which was generally held in February and March. They had dealt with compensation having regard to these circumstances, and it would be seen that Clause 10, subsection 2 provided—
"And the number of unexpired years shall be calculated as from the 5th day of April after the date on which the renewal of the licence has been refused by the licensing justices."
That was to say that the amount of compensation which was to be received by the person who lost the licence was to be fixed with reference to the 5th April, the date at which it ceased. Therefore it was unnecessary to insert the provision which had been suggested. The hon. and learned Member opposite said that he was not wedded to this particular form of words, and his Amendment was to the effect that the house should be kept open meanwhile. That was a different matter from saying that something in the nature of interest should be paid or an advance made to the licensee. The point raised was whether the house should be closed or not on 5th April and the policy of the Government was that it should be closed on that date as licensed
1194
premises. Therefore the Government were not able to accept the Amendment.
MR. F. E. SMITHthought the Solicitor-General would have been well advised to accept the principle of this Amendment even if he had varied the expression of it. What had his hon. and learned friend pointed out? He had with his great experience told the Committee that unforeseen accidents did take place, and where a delay had not been anticipated it had actually taken place and the licensee had not been compelled to close his house. Under the present Bill it was true one or two obvious grounds of delay which existed in 1904, had been removed, but no one would contend that under the Bill the Government were free from all chance of delay. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred the Committee to a later section dealing with quite a different matter not in any way affording security for the payment of the money. Surely it would save considerable debate and make it clear that no hardship would accrue if words were inserted providing that in case compensation had not been paid the house should not be closed. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he would not do that, and if he refused the Amendment, unless he could show that under no conceivable circumstances could this arise, his action would naturally create a sense of suspicion and discontent, and it would be taken as a refusal to meet an obvious grievance. If there was any method of satisfying them that this contingency could not arise it would be different, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had not shown that this was the case.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid they agreed that there was a possibility of such a grievance arising, although he did not think it was probable. The settlement of the amount of compensation might take some little time, and meanwhile the man's house being closed, if he had no other resources, hardships might arise. The point was one which clearly ought to be met. But the way which had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member opposite was very undesirable, and he would state briefly why. Under the Act of 1904 power was

1195
given to keep the house open until the compensation was paid, and this had given rise to real abuse. The house to be closed was frequently selected because it was not a very desirable one, and in the interval abuses often occurred and misconduct took place which could not be adequately penalised for the licence was already to be discontinued and compensation was assured. Therefore, the Government must adhere to the view which had been expressed by the Solicitor-General. It had been suggested that power might be given to the Licensing Commission to pay a sum on account pending a settlement of the whole amount. There was nothing to prevent the Licensing Commission doing that now, but in order to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite the Government would undertake when they reached Clause 10 to meet the point.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid the publican was going to get beggarly compensation and nothing more under this Bill, and now the Government were actually proposing that this wretched man, the greater part of whose living was to be taken away from him, was to be paid a small sum on account. When the licensed property was taken away, if the Commissioners did not happen to have the money the unfortunate person who was turned out would not get paid his due. In the Act of 1904 there was a specific provision for continuing a licence refused on compensation grounds until the compensation money had been paid over. Surely that was a fair and proper way of dealing with the matter. He could understand that the Government might have a good reason for repealing that particular clause, but that was no earthly reason for not re-enacting it in some just and proper shape. It might not seem a large point in that House, but he was perfectly certain that when the outside public heard that when a licence was taken away, the person concerned was not to be paid compensation money there and then, but only a bit on account, the resentment against the whole measure would if possible be intensified.
EARL WINTERTONsaid the Under-Secretary of State
1196
for the Home Department had left the matter most vague, for he had not dealt with the point at all. He would venture to ask him whether he thought it quite dignified to insert an Amendment in a later clause providing that an unfortunate licence-holder dealing with the Government should be paid something on account for being dispossessed of his licence. Really the Government were adopting the methods of usurers. He quite agreed that cases of hardship were not very likely to arise; but they had to look at the unexpected. He did not want to go into a very big question, but everybody who knew what had happened in connection with land purchase knew that there had been considerable injustice to individuals. The grotesque proposal of the Government that a certain sum should be paid on account did not in any way meet the case, and there had been no reason shown why, if an Amendment was to be made, it should not be made here. He ventured to say that it would be much more possible to debate the Bill and evade those muddles and troubles which they had had hitherto if the Government would consider the suggestions made to them from that side of the House. The proposal of the Under-Secretary to amend Clause 10 would not meet a quarter of the difficulty. He hoped the Government would reconsider their decision. Although they agreed that cases of injustice were unlikely to arise, he hoped such cases would be guarded against; but the way this Amendment had been met did not encourage them to believe that the Government wished to treat the publican with ordinary justice.
MR. LYTTELTONthought there was a real difficulty here. He appreciated what the Under-Secretary had said as to its not being desirable to keep the public-house open for a very long time, but it was equally an injustice and a hardship to take away a man's property and not pay him for it there and then. He did not think the anticipations of delay which had been made on that side of the House were exaggerated. There must be cases of appeal which would often take a prolonged time, and

1197
surely it was a plain injustice that during an interval, which might be twelve or eighteen months, a small sum on account should be paid. Directly the compensation money was assessed by any tribunal, the publican was entitled to it. Until it was assessed, under the Government plan, the publican was to lose his home and get nothing. He should himself be prepared to accept a compromise upon the footing that until the compensation money was assesed the publican should remain in possession of the house, and that it should remain open. As soon as it was assessed it should be at once paid to him in full and the public-house be killed. There were two distinct periods. The first, which might be very considerable, was that during which the amount of the compensation money was being determined, and there might be a subsequent interval before it was paid. But until it was determined surely a man ought to be left in possession of his house. When it was determined it should be at once paid.
*MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the suggeston differed infinitesimally from the Amendment which the Government could not accept for good reasons given. There might be two periods, one during which the amount of the assessment was being determined, and the second, subsequent to assessment but prior to the payment. That second period would be exceedingly short. As soon as the assessment was made there was no reason why the money should not be paid. The only point of substance was with regard to the period between the time the publican was told his licence was going to be taken away and his house closed, and the time when he received the money. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal was the same as that of the Amendment, that during that period the house was to remain open under sentence of death with practically no power of control. He was informed in the Home Office that the experience of the Act of 1904 was that abuses might and did occur in these very instances, and it would be a grave error on the part of Parliament to perpetuate a system which gave rise to these abuses. He saw no reason
1198
why the suggestion of the Government should not be accepted.
MR. WALTER LONGthought they ought to press the Government. In an earlier stage of this and the previous debate certain figures were quoted. The Under-Secretary had again exercised the privilege of which Ministers very rarely, in his experience, availed themselves. He had told them that under the administration of the Act of 1904, he had been assured that cases of misconduct occurred which caused the gravest inconvenience, and naturally ought to be provided against if possible. But he had not fortified himself, as was usually the case when these assertions were made, by one single case which he could quote in support of his contention. He was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman had made a false statement, but it was neither usual nor was it just to make allegations against traders connected with a particular industry in general terms unless they were prepared to fortify the allegation by producing particular instances, and especially to the jury whom they were seeking to convert to their view, that there was in the archives of the Home Office abundant evidence to justify a step of this kind. If they knew neither the number nor the character of them it was impossible to say whether this grave act of injustice was justified. The final answer of the Government was that the operations of this Bill, which he believed to be unjust and unnecessary, were to be brought into force against a publican who had committed no misconduct, who might have no other means of living than that derived from his occupation, and that he was not to be paid anything but some modicum on account, because in certain cases there had been instances of misconduct after it had been intimated that the licence would be withdrawn. Further, the Under-Secretary told them that these cases had occurred under the Act of 1904, and he quoted them as justification of his present conduct. Surely his own contention was that, whereas under the Act of 1904 the period which elapsed was a long one, in this case the interval would be a very short one. Was it reasonable to propose, on the ground of a single instance, that the

1199
compensation money should be withheld after the house was closed? The Under-Secretary said there was no means of dealing with the publican in case of misconduct; but he could be prosecuted for misconduct. Was it likely, however, that a man was going to run this risk, the loss of his character, and possibly punishment, during the interval, which the Under-Secretary said might be only a few months? That was no argument. If this was not injustice, there was a new meaning altogether to be given to the word. They were taking a man's property against his will, not because he had been guilty of misconduct, but in the general interests of the community, and they were paying him a price which everybody connected with the trade, and a vast number of those who were not connected with it, believed to be altogether unfair. He had never heard coming from a Government a proposition with less support behind it, nor allegations made with less justification against men connected with a trade. Unless some better reason could be given for this additional injustice in the policy of the Government, he hoped his hon. friend would go to a division, and he should most certainly support him, because he believed without an Amendment of this kind a grave and unprovoked and unnecessary act of injustice would be done.
SIR S. EVANSsaid the right hon. Gentleman had repeated, what had been said over and over again on very nearly every Amendment, that such compensation was grossly unfair. That was not the point they were discussing. He desired to enter his protest against, the canon which the right hon. Gentleman laid down as to discussions in that House. Apparently no Minister was entitled to express an opinion gathered from experience unless he gave case A., case B, and case C.
MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Gentleman did not express an opinion. He said he was informed that cases had occurred.
SIR S. EVANSsaid a Minister gathered his knowledge both from personal experience and from immediate contact 1200
with those whose duty it was to advise him, and he supposed it was in that sense that his hon. friend said he was informed. But he would tell him from his experience, without giving the name of the case, because it was unnecessary, and, indeed, it was common knowledge to everybody who knew anything about the business, that immediately a house had its licence threatened or taken away the conduct of the house became less reputable. He had known cases where licence-holders said: "My licence is going to be taken away," and the result was that people who used to go to a house did not continue to go. That was the difficulty in the way of the Amendment, and he told the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government could not accept it on that ground. Prima facie, when a licence was taken away, it was done in the public interest. If it was to be taken away notice was given as early as the month of February.
MR. CAVEsaid the decision might not be come to in February.
SIR S. EVANS: In February or March. The licensing body would be an important body with important duties to discharge, and they might be depended upon to discharge those duties in the best possible way. What did the hon. Member mean by saying that they would pay over the money when it suited them?
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid the Under-Secretary had proposed that a bit should be paid on account.
SIR S. EVANSsaid that was done to meet the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He asked the Committee to consider what would happen. They were to compensate a man who was earning his living. Hon. Members had been speaking in favour of licence-holders rather than of their friends the brewers. [An HON. MEMBER: There are some of them on your side of the House.] However much the justices might be inclined to do their duty there might be a little delay in the payment of compensation. What was the objection to paying a little of the money on account? If a licence-holder

1201
was paid a sum on account it did not matter for the first fortnight or three weeks, or even the first two or three months, whether he was paid in full. That concession was quite fairly made immediately they saw what the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman was. The Government were strongly against the particular Amendment now before the Committee. Immediately a decision had been come to under Clause 1 or Clause 3 to take the licence away, that licence would cease in respect of the premises from 5th April next succeeding. There would be no injustice such as had been suggested. Everybody would do his duty and the money would be forthcoming. He would give an illustration. Every lawyer in the House knew that when it was proposed to take a piece of land for the benefit of the State they could enter at once into the possession of the land after it had been valued by a valuer appointed by the Board of Trade. What happened? The money was paid into Court, and the matter of assessing the value came before a Court or arbitrator. [An HON MEMBER: He gets interest.] No doubt the individual whose land was taken got interest on the money, but that was a totally different matter. [An HON. MEMBER: He gets the full market value.] So far as inconvenience or injustice could be avoided by hurrying up the Commission or using the power now possessed of paying something on account the Government were perfectly prepared to meet the desire of the Opposition.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that upon no point has he given satisfaction, even to his own friends, with regard to this matter. The first point is the matter of justice to the individual whom you admittedly are depriving of his living. That is granted, and is not denied. You do not deny that at a given date you absolutely deprive him of his living, and you say he must have compensation for that. Does not common justice suggest that a provision should be put in the Bill which would prevent there being anything between the deprivation of a man of his living and his getting the compensation—good or bad—that you mean to
1202
give him? And let me tell the Government and those who support this Bill that the Bill does not on the face of it carry very much popularity; it does not suggest generous and fair treatment so obviously that they can afford to burden it additionally with what every man in the country plainly and manifestly thinks a hardship on deserving individuals. I am not sure that the Government do not admit it, and that the Under-Secretary did not think something would be done. Is that going to be put in the Bill?
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): My hon. friend said that an Amendment would be inserted.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not ask the Government to draft an Amendment on the spur of the moment, because I notice how unsuccessful they have been on other parts of the Bill. But I do ask for, not the exact words, but the exact provision which they mean to introduce, and the part of the Bill in which they mean to introduce it, and whether they mean to make it applicable not only to the class of licences immediately affected by this Amendment but to all licences affected under the Bill. The second point is a very important one. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down said they must insist if a licence is condemned in February or March on the house being closed on 5th April, because experience shows that immediately you have told the publican that he is to lose his licence the house becomes an ill-conducted house.
SIR S. EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman may paraphrase what I said, but I am not bound to accept it as an accurate paraphrase. I did not say anything of the sort. I said he becomes more reckless in the management of his trade.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should think what I said was more in the nature of a translation. But what a light does that cast upon the operations of this Bill. Every licence-holder is to be

1203
under notice at the end of fourteen years; every licence-holder, therefore, in the opinion of the Government is going to be turned into a reckless trader by the action of the Bill, which we are told is a great temperance reform. The Government cannot think that every licence-holder will become a reckless trader, for no one who holds that opinion would have the face to defend this Bill. I imagine, therefore, they do not hold it. If the hon. Gentleman would really compare the argument which he has thought it convenient to use upon this particular Amendment with the general principle that underlies the wholesale withdrawal of licences which is involved in the Bill, he will see that the two propositions are absolutely inconsistent with each other. Both on the ground of common equity and on the ground of general principle, the Government have shown themselves in an utterly impossible position in connection with this Amendment. But I do not press the hon. and learned Gentleman further on the general principle. All I ask is that now, before we leave this question, the Government will tell us in what language they mean to meet the particular difficulties that my hon. and learned friend behind me has pointed out, and the general terms of the scheme now put before us which would relieve the authors of the Bill from what would otherwise be a great and manifest injustice.
CAPTAIN FABERsaid he rose to correct one or two inaccuracies. The Solicitor-General must have forgotten that a licence-holder was liable to be heavily fined if anything happened before the extinction of the licence. The probability was that a licence-holder might apply for a licence elsewhere at some future time, and if he were convicted of keeping open his old premises after his licence terminated, it was quite clear that he would not be likely to get another licence. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the licence-holder's character not being kept in check; but that man had probably just as good a character as many Members of this House, and it was as dear to him as to those hon. Members.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he only intervened to refer to a point not yet mentioned. What was to happen if the Licensing Commission ran out of funds? That seemed to be contemplated in subsection (5) of Clause 13, which stated that—
"The Licensing Commission shall exercise their powers under this Act in such a way as to make the assets and liabilities of the compensation fund, as far as possible, balance at the end of the reduction period."
It did not say that they expected a balance every year, and it might happen that they found they had sanctioned a good many more reductions than they had money to pay for. He submitted that unless this Amendment were accepted the result would be that while the Commission and the Treasury were engaging in a long correspondence for the loan of money on the security of the compensation fund to pay the compensation, the poor licensee would be kept in a very unhappy state of mind.
MR. J. M. HENDERSONthought that the Opposition were fighting about very little. Clause 10 provided that—
"Where compensation is payable in respect of the extinction of an old on-licence the amount payable shall be determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and shall be such sum as will purchase, with interest reckoned at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum, an immediate annuity for the unexpired years of the reduction period equal in amount to the annual value of the licence."
If the licence expired the moment it was taken away on 5th April, he was entitled to compensation for the unexpired term from 5th April, but if he kept his premises open for another six months, the unexpired term would date from the end of the six months, so that he would lose all he would get from the Amendment.
*MR. COURTHOPEsaid that it was not a question of amount but a question of date. The Under-Secretary seemed to think that the claims of justice and equity would be met by paying the licensee a sufficient sum on account to keep the man alive. Surely the hon. Gentleman had overlooked the possibility of a case arising where a man might himself own the building of the licensed premises

1205
and have his whole capital represented partly by bricks and mortar and partly by the licence. If his licence were taken away, and the compensation due to him was not paid by the date on which his house was closed, his premises would stand idle, because he would not have sufficient capital to adapt them to any other business. Surely this would be grossly unjust. He thought the arguments of the Solicitor-General were extraordinarily contradictory. When that hon. and learned Gentleman first spoke against the Amendment he said it was exceedingly improbable that such a case would ever arise, and he concluded his speech by picturing a terrible state of things if the Amendment were carried—that the public-house would be kept open after the proper period, that there would be disorder and reckless dealing, and that the locality would be reduced to chaos.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he did not use these words.
MR. COURTHOPEbegged the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. He thought the word "chaos" had been used by him. At any rate the hon. and learned Gentleman drew a rather vivid picture of what would happen if the Amendment were carried. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were right in regard to the little probability of that case ever arising, why did he not accept the Amendment? Therefore that objection fell to the ground. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was right as to the latter state of things arising, surely the criminal law was sufficient to cope with it. From the experience he had had on the licensing bench he had not found that disorder followed when notice was given that the licence would be terminated. No case of the kind had been given in the course of the debate. He hoped that the Prime Minister, who had now arrived, would take this matter into his own hands and accept the Amendment which his colleagues had refused.
*MR. CAVEsaid that what he wanted to protest against was not only the delay which might occur while the Licensing Commission was finding the money, but the still longer delay while the compensation was being assessed and the
1206
shares ascertained. It had to be assessed by the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue, who would have to arrive at the hypothetical value of the house if not licensed. That would take time. Then they would have to ascertain under Clause 10 what was proper to be paid to the licence-holder for loss of business. That would take time. Again, the Inland Revenue Commissioners having fixed that, the question would arise as to the division of the amount of the compensation amongst the persons interested. That would have to go to another tribunal—the licensing justices. Further, the clause provided that if any difficulty arose there, the matter might be referred to the County Court. That meant still further delay. The rule, therefore, would be that it would take months after the 5th April before the amount of compensation payable to each person interested could be assessed. The Solicitor-General had said that as soon as the licence was condemned there would be misconduct on the part of the licensee. He had never heard of such a case, and if it occurred it could be very easily met by introducing in the Amendment some provision that if there was misconduct the licensing justices might intervene and close the house.
MR. WATTthought that the principle underlying the Amendment was a very reasonable one. It would be very hard indeed, when a licensee was deprived of his licence, if he were not to get at once the compensation for being deprived of his income from the licensed premises, nor the use of the premises during the time which would necessarily elapse before he got the money. It had been said that if the Amendment were adopted, and the house were kept open, abuses would necessarily follow in the house. In his opinion, if abuses occurred they would not be attributable to the licensee, but to the purchaser of the house who failed to pay the purchase money. The licensee was entitled to get his money at once or interest on the money.
*MR. GRETTONcordially supported the view of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow.

1207
He would also point out that a licensee seldom had any capital invested elsewhere than in the licensed house which he would be able to employ in adapting his premises to another kind of business. He condemned hon. Members for laughing at the proposition that the licensee should be paid at once; but receive only an advance of a small portion of the compensation to be granted to him. With no income from the sums invested in the premises from which the licence was withdrawn and in which his capital was locked up, he would have to live on the portion of his capital advanced, and so reduce the capital he might secure through compensation. Hon. Gentlemen who treated this question in that way

AYES.

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

Gardner, Ernest

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Percy, Earl

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gretton, John

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

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

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Haddock, George B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Hamilton, Marquess of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Baldwin, Stanley

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Renwick, George

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Heaton, John Henniker

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Helmsley, Viscount

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Barnard, E. B.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Houston, Robert Paterson

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hunt, Rowland

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bowles, G. Stewart

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kerry, Earl of

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Keswick, William

Stanier, Beville

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Kimber, Sir Henry

Starkey, John R.

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

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Clark, George Smith

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Clive, Percy Archer

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Valentia, Viscount

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Courthope, G. Loyd

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

M'Arthur, Charles

Watt, Henry A.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Whitbread, Howard

Craik, Sir Henry

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Winterton, Earl

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

Moore, William

Young, Samuel

Fardell, Sir T. George

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George

Fell, Arthur

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Cave, and Mr. George Faber.

Forster, William Henry

Oddy, John James

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N, E.)

Agnew, George William

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Alden, Percy

Armitage, R.

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

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

had very small consideration for financial matters.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he hoped the Prime Minister would inform the Committee in general terms the way in which the Government intended to meet this difficulty.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that he would state the position the Government intended to take when Clause 10 came up for consideration.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 117; Noes, 283. (Division List No. 274.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Findlay, Alexander

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

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

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

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

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Micking, Major G.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Fullerton, Hugh

Mallett, Charles E.

Barker, John

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Gill, A. H.

Massie, J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Menzies, Walter

Barnes, G. N.

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

Middlebrook, William

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Glover, Thomas

Molteno, Percy Alport

Beale, W. P.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Mond, A.

Beauchamp, E.

Grant, Corrie

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Montgomery, H. G.

Bennett, E. N.

Gulland, John W.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Morrell, Philip

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

Hall, Frederick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

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

Black, Arthur W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Myer, Horatio

Bowerman, C. W.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Napier, T. B.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Branch, James

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Norton, (Capt. William Cecil

Bright, J. A.

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

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Brooke, Stopford

Harwood, George

Nuttall, Harry

Bryce, J. Annan

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Grady, J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hedges, A. Paget

Partington, Oswald

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Helme, Norval Watson

Paulton, James Mellor

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Byles, William Pollard

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

Perks, Sir Robert William

Cameron, Robert

Higham, John Sharp

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hodge, John

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Chance, Frederick William

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hooper, A. G.

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

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

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

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cleland, J. W.

Hudson, Walter

Raphael, Herbert H.

Clough, William

Hyde, Clarendon

Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro'

Clynes, J. R.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rendall, Athelstan

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jackson, R. S.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

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

Jardine, Sir J.

Richardson, A.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Crooks, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Crossley, William J.

Jowett, F. W.

Robinson, S.

Dalziel, James Henry

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kekewich, Sir George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Kelley, George D.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rose, Charles Day

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

Laidlaw, Robert

Rowlands, J.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Duckworth, James

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lambert, George

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lehmann, R. C.

Sears, J. E.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Seaverns, J. H.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lewis, John Herbert

Seddon, J.

Erskine, David C.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Shackleton, David James

Essex, R. W.

Lyeil, Charles Henry

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Everett, R. Lacey

Maclean, Donald

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Macpherson, J. T.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Fenwick, Charles

M'Callum, John M.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Ferens, T. R.

M'Crae, Sir George

Sloan, Thomas Henry

1210

1211

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wiles, Thomas

Snowden, P.

Ure, Alexander

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Soares, Ernest J.

Verney, F. W.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Spicer, Sir Albert

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Stanger, H. Y.

Walters, John Tudor

Williamson, A.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Walton, Joseph

Wills, Arthur Walters

Steadman, W. C.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wardle, George J.

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

Stewart Smith, D. (Kendal)

Waring, Walter

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Summerbell, T.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Waterlow, D. S.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Winfrey, R.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Yoxall, James Henry

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Whitehead, Rowland

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

Tomkinson, James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

*MR. H. H. MARKSsaid the Amendment which he rose to move was in a sense preliminary and if it should find favour with the Committee, would necessitate certain consequential Amendments. He hoped that that might not be regarded as a fatal objection to it, more especially in view of the number and character of the Amendments which the Government had themselves made in the measure, during the time it had been under discussion in Committee. The Amendment proposed to leave out subsection (4), which provides that no appeal shall lie from the refusal of the licensing justices to renew an on-licence where the licensing justices declare that the licence is to be extinguished in pursuance of a scheme for statutory reduction under this Act. The argument in favour of the proposal could perhaps be best and most briefly put by laying before the Committee a statement of what consequences would ensue if this subsection (4) were permitted to remain part of the Bill. The Committee would remember that at present the power to extinguish old on-licences rested with Quarter Sessions. Under this clause the power to extinguish was to be transferred to the licensing justices subject to an appeal to Quarter Sessions. If, however, the justices declared that the refusal of renewal was a part of their "scheme," then, under sub-section (4), there was to be no appeal. Apparently under the Bill there was to be no publication of the "statutory scheme." It was to be prepared and submitted to the Licensing Commission. It might be altered at a later date. But, for all that
1212
the Bill said, its particulars were to remain a secret between the licensing justices and the Commission. When it was being prepared, no opportunity was given either to the trade affected or to the community that was to be reformed to protest against its details or to propose modifications, and no notice was to be given of any proposed revision. The reduction of licences was to be distributed over fourteen years. It followed that either in April, 1909, certain licences would be condemned in anticipation, so many in each year and some perhaps thirteen years in advance, while the knowledge as to which these licences were would be imparted exclusively to the justices and certain officials and clerks, or else the "scheme" would give the justices power to select the licences at their discretion as the period went on. The power to revise involved to some extent the power to select for extinction as they went on other licences than those originally contemplated. But during the whole period of fourteen years only the justices and the Licensing Commission were to know what had been determined on. The justices might renew or transfer a licence and stand by while purchases of property were affected, knowing all the time that the licence involved was scheduled for extinction at a certain date. When that date arrived they were to declare the licence extinguished, and their mere statement that its extinction was decided upon under a secret scheme prepared in 1909 was to deprive the licence-holder of any right to appeal. It might be argued that the risk of an

1213
innocent purchaser being injured by taking a transfer of a licence which, to the knowledge of certain people, had only a fixed time to run, would be averted by publication of the "scheme." But the power to revise "schemes" and the obligation to revise them at the order of the Licensing Commission rendered publication a wholly ineffective protection. They published one "scheme," and carried out another. At any time during the reduction period any licence-holder was liable to be told: "Your licence is extinguished and you cannot appeal because our decision is part of a "scheme." It does not matter to you if it was a "scheme" made in 1909 or a revision of that scheme made yesterday. Other people whose licences are refused can appeal, but not you, for you have been selected as a person who is not to have a right of appeal." He submitted that that constituted a great hardship and a gross injustice. For these reasons, he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 7, to leave out subsection (4)."—(Mr. H. H. Marks.)
Question proposed, "That the word s proposed to be left out, to the word 'an,' in line 8, stand part of the clause."
MR. ASQUITHsaid that so far as he understood the remarks of the hon. Gentleman his objection to this subsection was to the decision of this particular point being left in the discretion of the licensing justices. He pointed out that the scheme and revised scheme had nothing to do with what he might call the process of selecting the victim; it merely prescribed what should be the reduction in a particular area. When the statutory reduction had been applied by a scheme approved by the Licensing Commission to a particular district all that followed was to select, supposing it was shown that there must be some reduction, which of the existing licences should succumb. If the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that that process might take place in a hole and corner fashion were a lively contingency it ought to be guarded against, but an Amendment to Clause 7 standing in the name of the Solicitor-General would
1214
provide against that possibility. That being so, surely of all questions that could be suggested as arising out of the provisions of an Act of Parliament of this kind this question of selecting the particular houses to be suppressed was one most properly left to the uncontrolled discretion of the justices of the district. What could be more irrational than to call upon Quarter Sessions, remote from the area of the house, to discuss whether the Black Bull or the Blue Lion should disappear? It was purely administrative action, and should be carried out by the licensing justices. Under these circumstances he could not accept the Amendment.
SIR E. CARSONthought that everybody would admit that the Bill as it stood was a most extraordinary one. And so far as this subsection was concerned, it showed an absolute disregard for anybody who had any property whatever in these licences. Anyone who was prepared to take away the property of others in the most cruel manner possible would naturally support this Bill. This particular procedure was a most extraordinary one. The justices were to settle the number of licences to be extinguished. That was a matter in which he admitted the licence-holder had only an indirect interest. The Licensing Committee would say how many were to go, and the justices would say how many were to go one year and how many another. This they were bound to do under Clause 7. If the justices refused to carry out the provisions of the Bill, the Licensing Committee had power to go down and see the justices. They would then meet together and take a survey of the houses in the district and select those to be extinguished. This would be done behind the back of everybody, in the magistrates' room. Was that fair? The man whose house was to be extinguished got no hearing at all, neither under the Bill nor even under the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. What the licensing justices would do would be to go into a room, look at a map, and without one word either to or from the man who was going to be dispossessed, say to the licensee when he came up for a renewal: "No." This

1215
was a fantastic operation. The clause destroyed not only the appeal but the preliminary hearing—a proposition foreign to our existing laws and unknown to our jurisprudence. He hoped before the Bill left the House that some effort would be made to give the 30,000 persons concerned a hearing, and that they would not be left to be turned into the street without a sixpence. All he could say was that such a proposal as that in the Bill was a disgrace to civilisation.
MR. YOUNGERthought the Prime Minister had totally misapprehended the point which had been taken by hon. Members on that side of the House. He rather thought that the Amendment to Clause 7, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was not there for the purpose of meeting the point they now made, but for the purpose of machinery for the extinction of the licences, which those who drafted this Hill had forgotten to provide. The Prime Minister had taken up the wrong point, and had not met the objection raised by the Opposition, namely, that he was taking away licences without allowing the smallest opportunity to the persons concerned to appear, and there was nothing in the Amendment of the Solicitor-General which appeared on the Paper to provide such an opportunity.
MR. TOMKINSONsaid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University seemed to him to be another instance of what was apparently now the very common practice of assuming from any proposed legislation that there would be the most unlikely, the most farfetched, and the most injurious results. They spoke of them as very likely, if not certain, to accrue. The right hon. Gentleman took the instance of the reduction of licences in a country district, and said the licensing justices would have before them a number of licences together with the statutory reduction which they were bound to make, and that then, without one word of warning or notice, in the most hardhearted manner they would proceed to extinguish and take away the property
1216
of the licensees. He ventured to say, after some experience of local benches of magistrates, that, of course, no such action would be taken by them. The return would be made when this Bill became law and not before. They would have before them the population, its density or otherwise, of the area, they would have the number of licences within their licensing district, and they would have before them the statutory reduction which they would be bound to make under the Bill. He would undertake to say that the justices in every case, if a reduction had to be made, would not only deal with the matter as tenderly as possible, but the licensees whose licences were to be taken away would have as long a notice as possible and as much consideration as possible to prevent hardship.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid after what the Prime Minister had stated, if he correctly understood him, the speech of the hon. Member opposite was irrelevant. He understood the Prime Minister to concede the right of the licensee to a hearing. If the licensee had a right to publicity—and publicity was equitable—then of course, he must be entitled to it under the bare words of the section. He saw no such words at all in the Amendment of the Attorney-General. He had conversed with a magistrate of experience the other day, an excellent man, and not a Party man at all, a man who had read this Bill, and who believed that he would have to administer it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government largely depended upon the goodwill, discretion, and zeal of the magistrates. But his friend told him that the duty cast upon the magistrates of selecting—perhaps from two or three between whom there was no distinction—whose licence was to be taken away, was so odious to him that he would absolutely and positively refuse to discharge it. He did not think a more powerful affirmation of the truth of what his right hon. friend had said could be made. To take away property in the way proposed was contrary to every principle of fairness. It was contrary to English law that a person should not be entitled to be heard before sentence was passed. He asked the

1217
Solicitor-General to show the House where the publicity was to come in, and where a hearing was to be given.
SIR S. EVANSsaid the licensing justices would not be able to take away licences except at the annual licensing session upon application for a renewal. All persons who applied for a renewal must be fully heard in accordance with the provisions of the Acts of 1882 and 1904. They could always appear in open Court and would have the fullest opportunity of laying the facts before the justices.
SIR E. CARSONpointed out that by the section as it stood, before the application for renewal came up at all to be heard the magistrates would have to decide what houses were to be taken. Would the Solicitor-General make clear in the Bill that there was to be no decision at all until the justices had heard all the various persons concerned? He did not see under the scheme of the Bill how anything was to occur except that which he had stated. It was not a question of one licence here or one licence there; it was a question of the whole scheme; and, therefore, if the matter was to be settled on the basis of the scheme, unless they allowed the licence holders to be present when the scheme was being made, and allowed them to be heard, there was no possible way of getting out of it.
SIR S. EVANSreplied that when the scheme was prepared it would only deal with the number of licences and not with the names of the licensees.
SIR E. CARSONread the section—
"It shall be the duty of the licensing justices of every licensing district to give effect to this scheme for statutory reduction as approved by the Licensing Commission."
That meant that the number was to be approved by the Commission. How were they to do it? "By selecting the licences to be extinguished for the purposes of the scheme and extinguishing the licences accordingly."
MR. ASQUITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman had really answered himself. The whole of this discussion was really upon Clause 7, and had no relevance to
1218
the subject Under consideration. The right hon. Gentleman had begun by saying that the publican or licensee ought to be present at the framing of the scheme, but apparently he did not realise what the scheme was.
SIR E. CARSON: Yes.
MR. ASQUITH: Then the right hon. Gentleman's argument could not be seriously viewed. The scheme settled the number, and it was not until then that any particular licensee could be heard. The Solicitor-General had for long had an Amendment on the Paper to omit the words "extinguish the licences accordingly."
SIR E. CARSONsaid the Solicitor-General did not propose to omit the words "by selecting the licences to be extinguished for the purposes of the scheme."
MR. ASQUITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not do himself justice.
SIR E. CARSON: Nor do you me.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that what he had stated was this, that the Solicitor-General proposed to leave out the words "extinguish the licences accordingly," the express purpose being to make the process of extinction incomplete until the licence had been brought on for renewal, and the licensee had an opportunity of appearing before the Court.
MR. NUSSEYsaid the procedure would be similar to that under the Act of 1904. The magistrates appointed a committee to investigate, and the houses in their district were ear-marked. The owners of those houses had a chance of being heard and evidence was taken on oath. That was the Amendment which the Solicitor-General had put on the Paper. When the houses had been ear-marked, then there would be opportunity to be heard in Court. That had not been so until the Amendment was put down the day before yesterday, but now it would be so.
SIR E. CARSON: As to the argument of the hon. Member, which had been

1219
cheered by the Solicitor-General, he made this offer to him, that he would allow them to retain the procedure under the Act of 1904.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid the subsection applied to on-licences, and his point was that it ought to apply to all old on-licences. The Prime Minister, from his speech, did not intend that the post-1904 licences were to be included in

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hart-Davies, T.

Agnew, George William

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Alden, Percy

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Harwood, George

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Amritage, R.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Crooks, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Crosfield, A. H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Crossley, William J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham).)

Astbury, John Meir

Dalziel, James Henry

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Henry, Charles S.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Higham, John Sharp

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Barnes, G. N.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hodge, John

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Duckworth, James

Holt, Richard Durning

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hooper, A. G.

Beale, W. P.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Beauchamp, E.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Horniman, Emslie John

Beck, A. Cecil

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Bellairs, Carlyon

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Hudson, Walter

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

Erskine, David C.

Hyde, Clarendon

Bennett, E. N.

Essex, R. W.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Berridge, T. H. D.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jackson, R. S.

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

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Bethell, T. R. (Essex' Maldon)

Everett, R. Lacey

Jardine, Sir J.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Black, Arthur W.

Fenwick, Charles

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Ferens, T. R.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Bowerman, C. W.

Findlay, Alexander

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Branch, James

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Jowett, F. W.

Bright, J. A.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Brooke, Stopford

Fuller, John Michael F.

Kekewich, Sir George

Bryce, J. Annan

Fullerton, Hugh

Kelley, George D.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gibb, James (Harrow)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Gill, A. H.

Laidlaw, Robert

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Glover, Thomas

Lambert, George

Byles, William Pollard

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lamont, Norman

Cameron, Robert

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Grant, Corrie

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Causton, Rt. Nn. Richard Knight

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lehmann, R. C.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Chance, Frederick William

Gulland, John W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Lewis, John Herbert

Cheetham, John Frederick

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hall, Frederick

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cleland, J. W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Lupton, Arnold

Clough, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Clynes, J. R.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lynch, H. B.

the scheme of reduction, and therefore, a fortiori, there would be no appeal.
MR. ASQUITHsaid as to the post-1904 licences, he could assure the hon. Gentleman he remembered what he had said, but the proper time to deal with them would be on Clause 24.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 317; Noes, 128. (Division List No. 275.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Radford, G. H.

Summerbell, T.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Sutherland, J. E.

Maclean, Donald

Raphael, Herbert H.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Macpherson, J. T.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

M'Crae, Sir George

Rendall, Athelstan

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Thomasson, Franklin

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

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

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Richardson, A.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Mallet, Charles E.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Tomkinson, James

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Massie, J.

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Ure, Alexander

Menzies, Walter

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Verney, F. W.

Middlebrook, William

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robinson, S.

Walsh, Stephen

Mond, A.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Walters, John Tudor

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Roe, Sir Thomas

Walton, Joseph

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Montgomery, H. G.

Rose, Charles Day

Wardle, George J.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Rowlands, J.

Waring, Walter

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Morrell, Philip

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Waterlow, D. S.

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Watt, Henry A.

Myer, Horatio

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Napier, T. B.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Nicholls, George

Sears, J. E.

Whitehead, Rowland

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Seaverns, J. H.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Norman, Sir Henry

Seddon, J.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Seely, Colonel

Wiles, Thomas

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Shackleton, David James

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Nuttall, Harry

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

O'Grady, J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Williamson, A.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wills, Arthur Walters

Partington, Oswald

Simon, John Allsebrook

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

Paulton, James Mellor

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Snowden, P.

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

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

Soares, Ernest J.

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

Perks, Sir Robert William

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Stanger, H. Y.

Winfrey, R.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Steadman, W. C.

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

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

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

NOES.

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

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Craik, Sir Henry

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Carlile, E. Hildred

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Ashley, W. W.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Cave, George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Fell, Arthur

Baldwin, Stanley

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Fletcher, J. S.

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

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

Forster, Henry William

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gardner, Ernest

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Clive, Percy Archer

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Barnard, E. B.

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

Gretton, John

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Courthope, G. Loyd

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

Bowles, G. Stewart

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

Haddock, George B.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Hamilton, Marquess of

1222

1223

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Magnus, Sir Philip

Stanier, Beville

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Starkey, John R.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Heaton, John Henniker

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Helmsley, Viscount

Moore, William

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hill, Sir Clement

Morpeth, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hills, J. W.

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Thornton, Percy M.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Oddy, John James

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hunt, Rowland

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Valentia, Viscount

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Percy, Earl

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Kerry, Earl of

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Keswick, William

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Kimber, Sir Henry

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Whitbread, Howard

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Renwick, George

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

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Winterton, Earl

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

Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Young, Samuel

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Younger, George

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. H. H. Marks and Mr. George Faber.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

M'Arthur, Charles

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

And, it being after 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 Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 318; Noes, 128. (Division List No. 276.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bowerman, C. W.

Crossley, William J.

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

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dalziel, James Henry

Agnew, George William

Branch, James

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Alden, Percy

Bright, J. A.

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.

Armitage, R.

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

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Byles, William Pollard

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cameron, Robert

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Barker, John

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Chance, Frederick William

Erskine, David C.

Barnes, G. N.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Essex, R. W.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cheetham, John Frederick

Esslemont, George Birnie

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Beale, W. P.

Cleland, J. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Beauchamp, E.

Clough, William

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Beck, A. Cecil

Clynes, J. R.

Fenwick, Charles

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devon p'rt

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Ferens, T. R.

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Findlay, Alexander

Bennett, E. N.

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Berridge, T. H. D.

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

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Fuller, John Michael F.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Fullerton, Hugh

Black, Arthur W.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Crooks, William

Gill, A. H.

be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock this day.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Glover, Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macpherson, J. T.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

M'Crae, Sir George

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Grant, Corrie

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

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Micking, Major G.

Sears, J. E.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Mallet, Charles E.

Seaverns, J. H.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Markham, Arthur Basil

Seddon, J.

Gulland, John W.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Seely, Colonel

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Massie, J.

Shackleton, David James

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Menzies, Walter

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Hall, Frederick

Middlebrook, William

Sherwell, Arthur James

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mond, A.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Simon, John Allsebrook

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hart-Davies, T.

Montgomery, H. G.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Snowden, P.

Harwood, George

Morrell, Philip

Soares, Ernest J.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

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

Stanger, H. Y.

Hedges, A. Paget

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Myer, Horatio

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Napier, T. B.

Steadman, W. C.

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

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholls, George

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncastr

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Higham, John Sharp

Norman, Sir Henry

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Summerbell, T.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sutherland, J. E.

Hodge, John

Nuttall, Harry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hooper, A. G.

O'Grady, J.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomasson, Franklin

Horniman, Emslie John

Partington, Oswald

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

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Paulton, James Mellor

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Tomkinson, James

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

Ure, Alexander

Jackson, R. S.

Perks, Sir Robert William

Verney, F. W.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Jardine, Sir J.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Walsh, Stephen

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walters, John Tudor

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Walton, Joseph

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

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

Ward, John (Stokeupon Trent)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

Wardle, George J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Waring, Walter

Jowett, F. W.

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

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Radford, G. H.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Kekewich, Sir George

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Kelley, George D.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Waterlow, D. S.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro'

Watt, Henry A.

Laidlaw, Robert

Rendall, Athelstan

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lambert, George

Richardson, A.

Whitehead, Rowland

Lamont, Norman

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wiles, Thomas

Lehmann, R. C.

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robinson, S.

Williamson, A.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

Lupton, Arnold

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rose, Charles Day

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

Lynch, H. B.

Rowlands, J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

1226

1227

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

Winfrey, R.

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

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

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Yoxall, James Henry

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Randles, Sir John Seurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Haddock, George B.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Remnant, James Farquharson

Baldwin, Stanley

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Renwick, George

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Heaton, John Henniker

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Barnard, E. B.

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hill, Sir Clement

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hills, J. W.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hunt, Rowland

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

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

Kerry, Earl of

Stanier, Beville

Carlile, E. Hildred

Keswick, William

Starkey, John R.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffish.)

Cave, George

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Clive, Percy Archer

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

Valentia, Viscount

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Courthope, G. Lloyd

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Whitbread, Howard

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Craik, Sir Henry

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Winterton, Earl

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Mason, James F. (Windsor,

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Young, Samuel

Fardell, Sir T. George

Moore, William

Younger, George

Fell, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Fletcher, J. S.

Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Oddy, John James

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Clause 5:

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 314; Noes, 118. (Division List No. 277.

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bennett, E. N.

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

Batker, John

Berridge, T. H. D.

Agnew, George William

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

Alden, Percy

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Barnes, G. N.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Black, Arthur W.

Armitage, R.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Beale, W. P.

Bowerman, C. W.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Beauchamp, E.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Astbury, John Meir

Beck, A. Cecil

Branch, James

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Bright, J. A.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

Brooke, Stopford

Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

Bryce, J. Annan

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Montgomery, H. G.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hart-Davies, T.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

Morrell, Philip

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harwood, George

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

Byles, Wiliam Pollard

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Cameron, Robert

Hedges, A. Paget

Myer, Horatio

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Napier, T. B.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W)

Nicholls, George

Chance, Frederick William

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

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

Norman, Sir Henry

Cheetham, John Frederick

Higham, John Sharp

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cleland, J. W.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nuttall, Harry

Clough, William

Hodge, John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Clynes, J. R.

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Grady, J.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hooper, A. G.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Partington, Oswald

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hudson, Walter

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hyde, Clarendon

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Perks, Sir Robert William

Crooks, William

Jackson, R. S.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Crosfield, A. H.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Crossley, William J.

Jardine, Sir J.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Dalziel, James Henry

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Johnson, W. (Nuncaton)

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

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulhanm)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jowett, F. W.

Radford, G. H.

Duckworth, James

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kekewich, Sir George

Raphael, Herbert H.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kelley, George D.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rendall, Athelstan

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Laidlaw, Robert

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

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

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Richardson, A.

Erskine, David C.

Lambert, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Essex, R. W.

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lehmann, R. C.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Fenwick, Charles

Levy, Sir Maurice

Robinson, S.

Ferens, T. R.

Lewis, John Herbert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Findlay, Alexander

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roe, Sir Thomas

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lupton, Arnold

Rose, Charles Day

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rowlands, J.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lynch, H. B.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

Maclean, Donald

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Glover, Thomas

Macpherson, J. T.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Crae, Sir George

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under-Lyne

Grant, Corrie

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

Sears, J. E.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Micking, Major G.

Seaverns, J. H.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Mallet, Charles E.

Seddon, J.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Markham, Arthur Basil

Seely, Colonel

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Shackleton, David James

Gulland, John W.

Massie, J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Menzies, Walter

Sherwell, Arthur, James

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Middlebrook, William

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hall, Frederick

Molteno, Percy Alport

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Simon, John Allsebrook

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

1230

1231

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Tomkinson, James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Snowden, P.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wiles, Thomas

Soares, Ernest J.

Ure, Alexander

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Verney, F. W.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Stanger, H. Y.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Walsh, Stephen

Williamson, A.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Walters, John Tudor

Wills, Arthur Walters

Steadman, W. C.

Walton, Joseph

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

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

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wardle, George J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Waring, Walter

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

Summerbell, T.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Sutherland, J. E.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Winfrey, R.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Waterlow, D. S.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Watt, Henry A.

Yoxall, James Henry

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Thomasson, Franklin

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Whitehead, Rowland

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Guinness, Hn. R. (Hnggerston)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Haddock, George B.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Ashley, W. W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Remnant, James Farquharson

Baldwin, Stanley

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Renwick, George

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Helmsley, Viscount

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Hill, Sir Clement

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Barnard, E. B.

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Houston, Robert Paterson

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hunt, Rowland

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Kerry, Earl of

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Keswick, William

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stanier, Beville

Carlile, E. Hildred

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Starkey, John R.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Cave, George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Clive, Percy Arthur

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Valentia, Viscount

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Courthope, G. Loyd

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Waldron, Hon. Lionel

Craik, Sir Henry

M'Arthur, Charles

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Magnus, Sir Philip

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Faber, George Denison (York)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

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

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Fardell, Sir T. George

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Young, Samuel

Fletcher, J. S.

Moore, William

Younger, George

Gardner, Ernest

Morpeth, Viscount

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Gretton, John

Oddy, John James

Clause 6:
*SIR EDWARD SASSOON*SIR EDWARD SASSOON (Hythe) moved to leave out subsection (1). He moved the Amendment as a protest
1232
against the new fangled obligation which it was sought to impose upon licensing justices. It required them to prepare by the 1st of April of next year—a most appropriate day, by the way—a scheme for

1233
the statutory reduction prescribed by Clause 1, Schedule 1. The Committee would observe that this Bill would come, or at least His Majesty's Government hoped that it might come, into operation by the 1st of January. The time, therefore, allowed to these bodies was only a period of three months within which to complete this complicated, and as the discussion the Committee had earlier in this debate showed, a most invidious task. These hapless justices were expected to unearth from some source or other elements of information which he believed existed in a very fragmentary condition. He thought he was right, or the learned Gentleman opposite would correct him. They had not the divining rod. The requisite figures to enable them to ascertain the ratio of licences to density of population in each rural parish and each urban area were not available. At any rate, it was not pretended that they were available with any approach to any degree of accuracy. And then they were in view almost of the taking of the new census. That was difficulty number one. Having surmounted this, the justices would have to consider how and where the modifications allowed in Schedule 1 were going to be adjusted, with the object of avoiding the infliction of gross injustice in exceptional cases. That was difficulty number two. These elaborate and anxious studies would have to be undertaken with the fear of the Licensing Commission in the minds of the justices, because this Bill finally invested that Commission with the power of accepting or rejecting these suggested Amendments, so that the local people, with their intimate knowledge of local conditions, ran the risk of having their opinions overborne and overridden by an outside body which would inevitably act to a great extent irrespective of local conditions, and in defiance, so to speak, of the desires of the respective localities, needs and wishes which he ventured to say no Government had any right to anticipate by such stringent, inelastic, and rough and ready rules. Presumably the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, and the hon. Member for the Appleby Division would be the shining luminaries on that outside tribunal.
SIR. S. EVANS: No, no.
*SIR EDWARD SASSOONsaid he was more than glad to have elicited this
1234
disclaimer from the learned Solicitor-General because, competent as they were, no two more bitter partisans could be found to equip a board which eminently required an impartial and a judicial mind to be brought to the solution of the problems coming before them. At any rate the work of the licensing justices would be of a very arduous nature, and he thought that it would be materially and physically impossible for them to complete their task within the specified period. From the nature of the case the scheme would, to all intents and purposes, be a numerical one, that was to say, the justices would have to fix upon the number of houses they had to see extinguished; the selection of the victims of the sacrifice would come after. And in this connection he might recall to the attention of the Committee subsection 1, Clause 44, which provided that the licensing justices should not refuse the renewal or the transfer of any old on-licences under circumstances involving the payment of compensation. It was difficult to conceive of conditions more harassing, because these future victims would be on the rack awaiting their appointed doom, or conditions less calculated to attract the right and the reputable sort of people to undertake the management of public houses. One would think that His Majesty's Government had taken a machiavellian delight in honeycombing their measure with provisions of bewildering uncertainty, and of wearisome ambiguity of interpretation. After all, these were minor and subsidiary objections. What he specially desired to impress upon the Committee was that this clause circumscribed and fettered the powers and the action of licensing justices. Why drag in the Licensing Commission at all? They could know nothing at first hand of local circumstances. Why could the Government not trust these local people not to abuse their powers or to act in a reasonable, sensible and businesslike manner? Here they were minutely prescribing to the local bodies all over the country, the precise lines and conditions upon which they were to proceed in the elaboration of their scheme, whatever attenuation and mitigation the special circumstances of each district might require. He should have thought that the Party opposite would have been the last people in the world to

1235
deal such a severe blow upon an important branch of our system of local government. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Essex last night laid the flattering unction to his soul that the Party to which he belonged was the sole depository of the orthodox creed of national and local liberty. Did he still think that he could advance that claim with any justice, in view of the scurvy treatment meted out to a body of gentlemen who had deserved well of their follow countrymen? Had they, in any important case, been shown to have acted in defiance of the wishes of the districts with which they were connected? He remembered when they were piloting the Licensing Act of 1904, it was made a great point of that the Unionist Party ignored the position and the authority, and the competence of local justices, and the present Prime Minister, in criticising provisions of that Act, said that there should be an infusion in our local administrative licensing body of a popular and representative element. Could he still say with any approach to accuracy that anything like such conditions had been observed in the framing of the present measure? Instead of a popular and representative element, he offered a body of three gentlemen that reminded one very much of the three tailors of Tooley Street, responsible to no one, nominated by a party administration, having no acquaintance with local wants and local aspirations, sitting in some obscure office in London, and affecting the livelihood and the welfare of large bodies of His Majesty's subjects.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is anticipating the discussion of subsequent subsections of the clause. The question whether the licensing justices should have any discretion in the matter of the statutory reduction was fully debated, and decided in the negative, under a specific Amendment moved to Clause 1 (1). Subsection (1) of Clause 6, which the hon. Baronet is moving to omit, simply says that before 1st April, 1909, the licensing justices shall "prepare a scheme for carrying out in their district the statutory reduction." The submission of the scheme to, and its approval by, the Licensing Commission arise later, on subsection (4) of this same clause.
MR. F. E. SMITH: Is it in order for my hon. friend to object on the ground that when the scheme is prepared it is to be submitted to another tribunal?
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that comes under the words in regard to the preparation of the scheme. That question will arise later.
*SIR EDWARD SASSOONsubmitted, on the point of order, that this subsection being the governing factor which was to determine the nature and the character of amendments to subsequent subsections, it was open to him to refer in general terms to the Licensing Commission under whose heel the opinions and the wishes of the licensing justices were to be placed. By the statutory reduction the Bill had already snatched away from these the discretion they had always possessed as to the advisability of extinguishing or renewing licences; it now went further and deprived them of the freedom to carry out their statutory duty free from outside interference in such manner as might seem good to them. Even in regard to the modifications under Schedule 1, local desires were to be subject to the veto of the Commission. A popular and representative element indeed was the last thing the Government wanted to see introduced into the administration of this measure. They knew it to be so unpopular, so contrary to the mass of public opinion, that they had to coerce the licensing justices by imposing upon them a statutory duty subordinating their knowledge of local wants to the orders of an unrepresentative commission and deposing them if they declined to be over-ruled by the triumvirate. It was because he considered this as an intolerable infringement of local liberties and because of his conviction that the result of this measure would be detrimentally to affect the comfort and the welfare of those who had to resort to the public-houses of the land—a class than whom, or even as much as whom, no other class of His Majesty's subjects had a greater right to the indulgent and considerate treatment of Parliament, that he begged to move the omission of this subsection.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 20, to leave out subsection (1)."—(Sir Edward Sassoon.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'shall,' in page 4, line 21, stand part of the Clause."
SIR S. EVANSsaid the hon. Baronet had delivered a panegyric upon the local licensing justices and in so far as that was justified, and he was not saying it was not justified, it was an argument dead against the Amendment, because what was proposed in this subsection was that that very body whose fidelity and ability the hon. Baronet had commended, should prepare a scheme. The whole question which arose upon this Amendment was whether or not that body, upon whom the duty had been laid under Clause 1, was to prepare a scheme for the reduction of licences. The clause imposed an obligation upon the justices to reduce the licences in the district in which they acted, and the question was how they were to do it. The hon. Member had referred to the Licensing Commission. That was a matter which had better be discussed on subsection 4 of this clause which said a scheme prepared by the local justices was to be submitted to the Licensing Commission. In subsection 1 there was no mention at all of the Licensing Commission. He thought the Licensing Commission was a bugbear in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, but an opportunity would be provided on subsection 4 of dealing with the matter. The sole question which arose upon subsection 1 was whether or not the licensing justices should prepare a scheme. He did not know who the Licensing Commissioners were going to be, but whoever they were he was sure when they were appointed they would perform their duties perfectly well. The subsection imposed upon the licensing justices the duty of preparing a scheme before 1st April, 1909. They hoped this measure would become law certainly before the end of the year, and, although the hon. Member might be thinking of the vast work which would have to be done all over the country, if they distributed that work in the various districts, he did not think there would be any difficulty at all. He had heard no complaint from any body of licensing justices that the time at their disposal
1238
between the framing of the measure and the time fixed for the operation of the scheme would not be sufficient. However, that might be, there was an Amendment down in his name which allowed the Licensing Commission to extend the time if special circumstances were brought to their notice.
*MR. YOUNGERsaid the schedule specified the number of licences that should exist according to the population in particular districts, but of course it gave no information whatever, and the Government had no information worth having as to the effect their scheme of reduction would have or of the scheme which they said the licensing justices were to prepare. He had put a Question to the Prime Minister on 9th March last on this very point, but he was refused any answer on the ground that it was impossible to obtain the tabulated information desired without very great labour extending over a period which would prevent the issue of any such return in time to be of commensurate value for the purpose of discussion on the Licensing Bill. He should have thought there was lots of time between March and now to give all the information they wanted. It was extremely important that they should have had it. Loose statements had been made as to the number of licences to be extinguished under the Bill. The Government had not the ghost of a notion as to how many licences would be extinguished. They were in gross and culpable ignorance on the whole subject and they had done nothing whatever to enlighten themselves or the House. There were all sorts of conditions under which licences might be increased in certain circumstances which they could not tell the effect of and which they did not know how far it might be necessary in the public interest to use. The whole scheme of reduction was simply grabbed in rather an indifferently successful fashion from the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing, a Report which was thrown at their heads on every occasion when it suited the Government, and which was forgotten when it did not suit their purpose for quoting. But that minority was a very small one indeed.

1239
It only contained one member of the independent panel, and he had yet to learn that Lord Peel, able man as he was, and very respected as he must be by every Member of the House, possessed any very outstanding authority on the subject. He had sat with Lord Peel all the years the Commission did its work and he was most assiduous and careful in everything, but to the last moment on the Licensing Commission there were many questions which Lord Peel never understood, and on the very last day when examining a witness he showed he had not picked up the exact bearing of the questions he was putting after being chairman for three and-a-half years. He was sorry to say that, and he said it only because so much importance was always laid upon Lord Peel's views when it suited the Government and their supporters, though when they ran counter to those of the Government they did not hear much about them. When, for example, he suggested in his original draft Report that to have a prohibitory resolution they should have three-fourths of the electors in a particular district voting for it, and for local management two-thirds, the Government could hardly claim that he supported their proposition on the veto question. So with other parts of the Report Lord Peel originally introduced, the teetotal friends with whom he latterly associated could not swallow this and he had to drop it and sign something quite different. The facts would be found in Hansard, he believed, in April of last year. The preparation of this scheme was a very important duty indeed. Under the Amendment which the Solicitor-General was to propose later, the effect of the reduction was to be considered and reported upon, he supposed by the Licensing Commission. That was a new importation into the clause which made it a little more intelligible and it gave a little more freedom of action than the Government apparently intended originally to grant. It might make all the difference in the world in their preparation of schemes and recommendations, and probably would make all the difference in the world in the decisions of the Licensing Commission. Therefore, when the Prime Minister and other Members talked about 30,000 licences being wiped
1240
out they had no more idea than the man in the moon whether it would be 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000. The sooner the people understood that and the Government realised and admitted it, the better. The period would be practically only thirteen years, because no on-licences which would be entitled to compensation were to be refused in the first year, so that the whole of this great reduction would have to be compressed into some thirteen years, a very short period indeed in which to effect such a large interference with what might be a necessary public convenience in these various districts. Surely the scheme involved greater difficulties than there was any need to create. He was entirely dissatisfied with it. He objected to it on principle, because it was absurd to suggest that they could by a hard and fast line say how many licences there ought to be in a particular district. They had considered this most carefully in the Licensing Commission, because they all acknowledged that there were too many licences in many districts. He acknowledged it quite frankly now. They did everything they could to adumbrate a scheme under which they could get some sort of numerical relation of licences to population, but they found themselves hopelessly estopped from doing so. When they went carefully into the evidence from many of these districts where there was a large number of licences, they found drunkenness was not extreme. In other cases where they were comparatively few, they found drunkenness much more extreme. In such places as Epping Forest all sorts of arrangements had been made, not for the people who lived there but for those who went there; just as exceptional arrangements must be made in the City of London for people who went there every day but did not sleep there at night; and they found it perfectly impossible, with any regard to the wants of those districts, to propose any consistent scheme which would effect what they desired—a proper reduction of licences in those districts where they acknowledged the need for reduction. The Government had, with probably a great deal less consideration than the Commission had given to the subject, accepted this proposition, and

1241
he did not think they were wise in doing so. They would find when the local justices had prepared their schemes there would be very great variations indeed proposed in this hard and fast scheme and that it would not work in many districts to which it was proposed to apply it. The Licensing Commission was given a most difficult task in supervising and advising upon all these reports, and in granting or refusing them, one which it was perfectly impossible for three men to perform without any of the local knowledge or experience of the needs of the district, which was essential in a matter of this kind. For three panjandrums sitting in London to control with any success the operations of an enormous number of licensing benches, and ascertain for themselves in anything like a satisfactory way the varying necessities of those districts was impossible. He would like to see the scheme altered en bloc, because he did not think it could possibly succeed. He believed, moreover, that it would have a totally different effect from what the Government thought it would have, and for these reasons he entirely objected to it.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he cordially supported this very important Amendment to a very important clause. They had enacted the fact of reduction; they had now the hardly less important matter of the proper machinery for reduction, and he could not help thinking that on the threshold of a matter so vital to the Bill, the few perfunctory words which the Solicitor-General had vouchsafed to them, and the appearance of the Liberal benches, were an eloquent commentary upon those passionate statements, of which they heard so much, that this Bill had behind it all that was best in the Liberal Party. He entirely agreed with what had been said in general praise of the licensing justices. He had some experience of them and of their methods, and he thought that in the main they well deserved every word of commendation that had been used of them. But it was because he had a high opinion of the licensing justices that he desired to support this Amendment, in protest against the manner in which these clauses
1242
proposed to treat them. Discretion and responsibility must always go together, and no doubt responsibility often carried with it odium, and much that was unpleasant. But his objection to this clause was that it treated the licensing justices with the utmost injustice, in taking from them all real discretion and leaving them exposed to the bitterest odium and dislike, which they could stand if they had the discretion, but which without it was very hard to bear.
MR. MCKENNA: You are dealing with subsection (1)?
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he was dealing with subsection (1), but he was sure that the narrowest critic of technical points of order would not object to his saying that he was opposed to this plan of making the justices prepare a scheme and select the victims, because it was obvious that the authority which did the one must do the other. The licensing justices must prepare this scheme whether they liked it or not; whether they thought a reduction was necessary or not. Having prepared it, they must consider it and reconsider it on the orders of the Commission, and if the Commission thought fit to alter it they were helpless. The only thing in which discretion was given to the justices was in the selection of those licence-holders whose livelihood should be taken away without any reasonable or real compensation. He ventured to think that the licence-holder who found his livelihood taken from him would turn the brunt of his indignation not so much on Parliament which had passed this Bill, or even upon the Licensing Commission who insisted on certain reductions, as on these justices who had selected him as a victim to be destroyed. It was treating the justices with the greatest injustice to leave them no real discretion as to whether or not they would reduce, while they would be exposed, being men living in the place, among their neighbours to the bitter odium and dislike which must attend this selection of those who should be destroyed and ruined. On these grounds he strongly supported the Amendment.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he also desired to support the Amendment which his hon.

1243
friend had moved, and he was not intimidated by the signs of enthusiasm on certain of the benches opposite. If one considered this Bill as a harmonious whole, as a measure which, though lengthy, was one of perfect draftsmanship, he should feel some objection to supporting the Amendment of his hon. friend, because he would feel that he was spoiling the artistic value of the Bill of the Government. But having regard to the fact that there was hardly a single clause, so far, that the Government were not pledged to alter before the Report stage, he felt that he could support this Amendment without interference with the artistic merits of the Bill. Under these circumstances he had no hesitation at all in falling back upon the mere ground of merit in claiming some support for the Amendment of his hon. friend. What was the position as it stood at present? It was quite true that in the earlier clauses a certain scheme of reduction had already received the approval of the Committee, and could not be discussed by him at the present moment. The proposal before the House now dealt with the machinery by which the already approved scheme of reduction was to be carried out. He ventured to press upon the Government some argument in favour of his hon. friend's Amendment, which he thought was worthy of serious consideration. Four years ago, when the Licensing Bill was being discussed, hon. Gentlemen were extremely eloquent on the importance of the functions discharged by the licensing justices and the iniquity of interfering with them. It was not interfering with them by sending them to three esteemed strangers in London but to their own district, and the late Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, spoke of the undesirability of taking this decision from an able body of men and placing it in the hands of another body of men at a distance. This afforded the strongest argument in favour of the Amendment of his hon. friend. If they took subsection (3) of Clause 1 they would find that even there the activity of the Licensing Commission commenced, because it was to the effect that, if it appeared to that body that the grant of any new licence had been confirmed in contravention of the section, they should declare that that licence was invalid. As they went on in the
1244
Bill they would find that it was not the licensing justices who counted, but the Commission in London. When they came to Clause 6, which they were discussing, here again the permission of the Licensing Commission was necessary before the licensing justices might give an auxiliary licence. He put it whether it was not a great mistake to maintain in this Bill relics of the past. Why have licensing justices at all? Was it not worth considering in the stage which they had reached, whether the scheme should not be prepared by the Licensing Commission so that the duties of the local justices, merely nominal now, should be extinguished. They would then know that they had descended to a bureaucratic age and got rid of those who had discharged these duties for many generations. Why not get rid of the already confusing inconsistencies of the Bill under which the licensing justices did one thing and the Commission might refuse it, and the Commission did one thing and the licensing justices started a counter memorial? Why not start a Licensing Commission and say they should prepare a scheme, and when they had prepared it say there should be an appeal to the Licensing Commission, and they should decide whether the scheme was a good one? How admirable would be such an Amendment, and why should they expose the local justices to the indignity of being mere puppets to a bureaucracy in the City of London, who knew nothing of the locality and only interfered in the decision so far as they might be supposed to be ready to take a partisan Act for the political Government of the day?
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that until this Bill he always looked upon the office of justice of the peace as one of honour and dignity and of legitimate ambition. He believed that view was shared by many of the supporters of the Government, who in consequence caused some embarrassment to the head of the law ill making a selection and in not overcrowding the benches from which justice in petty sessions was administered. He could only suppose that this particular provision was brought in to obviate any such embarrassment,

1245
by making the office of justice of the peace a thing which was by no means to be desired, because he understood the operation of this clause would be to transform a justice of the peace into an unpaid functionary subject to a bureaucracy in London and in no way of any status or dignity. He thought, however, they should have some discretion and some responsibility, and if these duties were put upon the justices by Parliament they should at least be given an ample discretion as to the mode and as to the time in which they should discharge these functions. Moreover, legal machinery would have to be provided in case they discharged these functions ill. He presumed that the justices would get out elaborate statistics of houses in each parish, together with the population, that they would consult their ordinance maps as regards distances, and go through a great deal of uncongenial and unprofitable work, for which they would not be paid, in order that they might carry out the policy of the Government, and when all had been done they would have their decisions reviewed by a perfectly irresponsible board, upon which, once it had been created, no pressure could be brought. He could not conceive any proposals which more surely cut away the honour and responsibility of the office of justices of the peace. He believed many Members of this House were justices of the peace, and he was sure if this Bill became the law in its present shape, they would all refuse to do what he could only call the dirty work of the Government.
EARL WINTERTONexpressed the hope that the Government would give some further explanation with regard to this subsection before the division was taken. The duties placed upon the justices by the subsection would be not only most unpleasant but also of a most arduous character. One of his friends, who sat on a Licensing Committee, said that it had been impossible to devise a scheme at that time to carry out the reduction of licences, and all of those who were magistrates on that side of the House objected to the proposal as it stood, to place upon them the responsibility for the invidious duty of saying what licences should be extinguished. There
1246
ought to be some further explanation. All that the Committee had been told was that the proposals had been passed in the early sections of the Bill, and that the licensing magistrates must carry out the scheme. They had not been told how the scheme was to be framed with regard to the time that was to be involved in carrying it out. The effect of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment was to give the Licensing Committee a power to enable the licensing justices to take a little longer time; that was the only concession that was made. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General had said in the course of his Speech that there would be ample time for the justices to draw up their scheme between the passing of this Bill and the 1st April. He thought a greater conundrum could not be put to anybody than that of saying what the date of the passing of this Act would be. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman not to throw the burden of this invidious duty on the shoulders of the licensing justices. If his hon. friend pressed the matter to a division he should certainly support him in the lobby.
VISCOUNT MORPETHdesired to say a few words upon the ancient office of magistrates, because he had an extremely lively recollection of the debate on the Licensing Act of 1904 in the late Parliament, when the then Opposition accused the Government of placing a great indignity on the body of magistrates in this country. The Government were then told that they were upsetting the system of licensing which had been in operation for 400 years. No one was so truly Tory as a Radical when he wanted to be so, and nobody was less Tory when he was able to do something else.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANcalled attention to the fact that the hon. Member was going very far from the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid that had he been allowed to conclude his argument he would have shown very conclusively that it was impossible to obtain men to do this work. His point was that if this work of the justices, which had been

1247
dignified and responsible work for all these centuries, was to be cut down to nothing and no responsibility or dignity to be attached to it, it was not likely that men would be desirous of sitting on the magistrates' bench.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANpointed out that the Committee had already decided in Clause 1 of the Bill that the statutory reduction of the licences should be made by the licensing justices. The Amendment now before the House was very limited in scope. The duty of the justices in this matter had already been decided, and the discussion now must be limited to the point that a scheme shall be prepared.
EARL WINTERTON, on the point of order, asked whether it would not be in order to discuss this point, having regard to the fact that the scheme must refer to particular houses.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANreiterated that this was a scheme for carrying out the statutory reduction; that duty was placed upon the justices, and that being so, the decision to which he referred in Clause 1 applied to this sub-section so far as the discretion of the licensing justices was concerned. What the scheme should contain was the subject matter of the next subsection.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERasked whether it would not be in order, notwithstanding the fact that the reduction had been decided, to contend that the justices should not be made the vehicle.
*MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby) asked whether the justices had not already in Section 1 been made the vehicle for carrying out the statutory reduction.*MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby) asked whether the justices had not already in Section 1 been made the vehicle for carrying out the statutory reduction.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERpointed out that Section 1 said that the justices should reduce the licences; it did not say there should be a scheme—that the justices should prepare a scheme or anything of that kind.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he had already pointed out that the discretion of the licensing justices, as
1248
regards the statutory reduction, had been negatived in an Amendment moved to Clause 1. The duty to prepare a scheme was a necessary consequence, so far as the matter of discretion was concerned.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid in that case he was afraid he had not made himself quite clear. The amount of the statutory reduction was decided by Clause 1, but under that clause there was a certain amount of discretion allowed both under subsection 1 and subsection 2.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that there was no discretion allowed to the licensing justices under Clause I which dealt with the statutory reduction. The present Amendment only dealt with the duty to prepare the scheme for carrying out the statutory reduction, and the noble Lord must limit his arguments to the Amendment before the Committee.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid the point was that the magistrates should produce a scheme, and in that scheme they should say what was desirable, whether more houses should exist in particular districts, having regard to the fact that they were touring or market districts or exceptional districts of that kind. That discretion was of a very attenuated character, and if that were now taken away it would be impossible to get anybody of weight or authority to sit and determine matters of that kind. Not only was it a very fine distinction, but it was controlled and trammelled by the fact that there was a Licensing Committee which could upset all their decisions. They all knew that the machinery was extremely slow. The local authority sent up the recommendation to the Department in London, and the Department sent down an official to make inquiry. Suppose that the opinion of the official was different from that of the magistrates who had used their discretion, then the matter was left to the Commission in London, who had no knowledge of their own as to the special circumstances of the locality, and were dependent solely and entirely on the official whom they had sent down over the heads of the magistrates.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the noble Lord must confine himself to the subsection under consideration, and he must not discuss the subsections which follow.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid his point was that the magistrates had little power because the matters left in their discretion were very limited, and further they could be overridden by somebody else. The difficulty in this matter was that the Government were prepared to trust nobody. The discretion of the magistrates seemed to be a discretion in which it was left to somebody else to say "Yes" or "No." The Government had taken the whole of the power out of the hands of these persons whom they would not trust, in order to concentrate it in the hands of two or three officials in London.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was rather surprised, in view of the very excellent arguments which had come from Members of the Opposition, that nobody on the other side of the House had got up to show that they were wrong. The Solicitor-General had made a general statement which he thought had been proved to be incorrect by the speeches made on that side of the House. The First Lord of the Admiralty had said nothing; therefore it was to be presumed that he saw that the arguments which had been advanced were such as did not admit of reply. Therefore, with his great acuteness, he had said nothing, and was careful of his reputation; he had not committed himself to a reply which might be afterwards held to be inadequate to the occasion. There were several hon. Members present, the hon. Member for Denbighshire and the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Wales, and others, who were not only great authorities but extremely eloquent, and who could have been trusted, without the responsibility which attached to the Treasury Bench, to have risen and at any rate made some show of a defence against the reasons which had been put forward by his hon. friends around him. It appeared to him that there were two points which should be considered in connection with this clause.
1250
The first was whether or not the time allowed was sufficient for the justices to do their work. That it was not sufficient was absolutely proved by the fact that the Solicitor-General had put down an Amendment to the clause, which provided that the time was to be extended, not by the Government, but by the Licensing Commission. But the Licensing Commissioners were not the people who ought to be entrusted with the power to extend the time. The original intention of the Government was that this scheme should be prepared by the licensing justices on 1st April, a very appropriate day as his hon. friend the mover of the Amendment had reminded them. If the Government had come to the conclusion that that was not the proper day, then they should themselves have extended the time by introducing an Amendment which would have provided a reasonable time in which the justices could prepare a scheme. There was nobody in that House or outside of it who really knew how long it would take to prepare a scheme, or what practical results it was to have, unless it was the Government. His hon. friend near him had, with his great prescience, so long ago as last March, asked how long it would take to prepare a scheme, or whether it would be possible for the justices to get the information to assist them in preparing a scheme. The Government said that it would require such an extreme length of time to get the information that they could not reply to the hon. Gentleman's question. But they would see that if they took from March to October they had seven months. Then if the Bill was passed by 1st January, he thought that was the estimate of the Solicitor-General, who added extreme sanguineness to his other great qualities — then taking from 1st January to 1st April, there remained—
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Baronet was discussingan Amendment which would come later. Of course the discussion could include the question of time, but they could not have two discussions, one now and another when the other Amendments were reached, and if they were to discuss the question of time now, it must be understood that there was not to be a second discussion.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid they were dismissing under very disadvantageous circumstances, and it was quite probable that the other Amendments would never be reached, because they had only another hour and twenty minutes. Of course, he did not wish to carry the discussion further. [Cries of "Go on."] Very well, he would endeavour to show that the time allowed, from every point of view, was not sufficient. Let them consider what the licensing justices had to do. He understood that under this scheme there was no question of choosing houses or persons; it was merely the numbers which would be chosen. But he also understood that the number would have to be distributed over the different areas of the districts of the licensing justices. That was an extremely difficult task to perform, because they had not only to get the facts with regard to the areas, but they had to gather their information for the whole fourteen years. He understood that he was correct in saying that the facts would have to be ascertained with regard to the different areas and spread over the whole fourteen years. That being so, he thought that three months was not a sufficient time, and he also thought that any extension of time should be given by Parliament and not by the Licensing Commission. The justices were really being put as a sort of buffer between the Commissioners and the people. That was a very invidious position in which to place them. If there was to be any buffer it should be Parliament. He did not think it expedient from the point of view of the nation that the justices should be treated in this manner. The justices had very high functions entrusted to them; they had to exercise judicial authority in a proper manner, and though he did not for one moment believe that they would be actuated by a desire to seek for popularity, yet one did not want to put them into a disagreeable position. Therefore, under the circumstances, he hoped that his hon. friend's Amendment would be accepted. He felt that in all courtesy the arguments which had been advanced with great cogency by hon. Members on that side of the House ought at least to have had some reply, if not from Members of the Treasury Bench, at any rate from hon. Members who sat behind them, in
1252
order to enlighten the Committee on one of the most important clauses of the Bill.
MR. RICHARDSONsaid he had heard the whole of the speeches of hon. Members of the Opposition, and he must say, if he might do so without disrespect, that they appeared to him to be artificial and unreal, and not applied seriously to the Amendment before the House. Only two points, in his judgment, had been raised by Members of the Opposition. One was that it was a slight upon the justices to lay this duty upon them; and the second was that the justices were not the best instrument for carrying out the work. He had the honour to be one of a bench of magistrates, though he must say that he had not accepted the position for the sake of social distinction; but being a justice he could assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that no duty could be placed on his shoulders which he would carry out with greater pleasure than that of the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill, and especially this part of the measure which the Opposition wished to eliminate. He had noticed during the short time he had been on the bench that very many of the cases which came before them had their origin in these licensed houses; and he thought the justices would be better employed in doing away with some of those houses than in sentencing these unfortunate people to fourteen days imprisonment or inflicting upon them a fine of 15s. He thought the licensing justices were just the men to frame this scheme, because they knew the needs and requirements of their respective localities, and how the houses should be distributed. He hoped that the Government would stand by their proposal, and he opposed the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that the argument of the hon. Member who had just spoken pointed to something which was not in the Bill. The hon. Member argued that the justices were thoroughly well acquainted with the business they had to do, and, as a justice, he would like to have the whole discretion in dealing with licences. But in this case there was no discretion at all. Instead of

1253
having discretion in dealing with licences in a particular district the justices were bound by a hard and fast rule to make a certain statutory reduction within a given time. That was not a position in which magistrates ought to be placed.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the Committee had already decided that the statutory reductions were to take place.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he was merely endeavouring to answer the arguments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, and to show that the justices had no discretion in the matter of statutory reductions. He would like to say a word on the general question as to which no member of the Government had yet spoken. They had not heard why the Government had fixed upon this particular date for the reduction of the licences and what grounds they had for supposing that the magistrates had sufficient time to make a scheme for reduction. Another important point on which they ought to hear a good deal from the Government was, what was the general basis for a statutory reduction in proportion to population. [Cries of "Order."]
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the only question they were dealing with was that relating to the justices preparing schemes.
*MR. G. D. FABERsaid he could not help wondering why only three months were to be allowed to the licensing justices to perform this arduous business of preparing schemes. Clause 44 provided that the licensing justices should not during the year 1909 refuse the renewal or transfer of any old on-licence under circumstances involving

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barker, John

Berridge, T. H. D.

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

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

Agnew, George William

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Alden, Percy

Barnes, G. N.

Black, Arthur W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Beale, W. P.

Bowerman, C. W.

Astbury, John Meir

Beauchamp, E.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Baker, A. Joseph (Finsbury, E.)

Beck, A. Cecil

Branch, James

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

Bright, J. A.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bennett, E. N.

Brooke, Stopford

the payment of compensation. That meant that the year 1909 was to be a period during which no licence would be touched, and that the Licensing Commission, whatever might happen in the case of the licensing justices, would require a whole year to make their arrangements, because the reduction period was not to begin until 1910. Why was it that the Commission had a whole year to consider this matter, and the licensing justices were only to be allowed three months? It was contrary to the promise which the Prime Minister had given in introducing the Bill that all the powers of the licensing justices were to be restored, to find that the licensing justices were to have nothing to do except to prepare a scheme. From his point of view it was derogatory to the dignity of the licensing justices that their powers should be whittled down to the preparation of a scheme which might be torn to tatters by the Commission. Having prepared a scheme, the justices were afterwards permitted to do no more than to act as common executioners by selecting the licences to be destroyed.
MR. JOHN RUTHERFORDthought that this clause was altogether objectionable. Every magistrates' clerk and chief constable throughout the country would object to the position in which it would place them; inasmuch as it would subject them to the approval of the town council and the magistrates, and also to the approval of the Commission in London. He supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 278.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hyde, Clarendon

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)

Byles, William Pollard

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robinson, S.

Cameron, Robert

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Chance, Frederick William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jowett, F. W.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Kearley, Sir Hudson J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Kekewich, Sir George

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

Cleland, J. W.

Kelley, George D.

Sears, J. E.

Clough, William

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Seely, Colonel

Clynes, J. R.

Laidlaw, Robert

Shackleton, David James

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

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lambert, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Crooks, William

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Crosfield, A. H.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Simon, John Allsebrook

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Lewis, John Herbert

Snowden, P.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Soares, Ernest P.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Lupton, Arnold

Spicer, Sir Albert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lyell, Charles Henry

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Duckworth, James

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Steadman, W. C.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Maclean, Donald

Summerbell, T.

Essex, R. W.

Macpherson, J. T.

Sutherland, J. E.

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Crae, Sir George

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Everett, R. Lacey

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

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

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

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

Fenwick, Charles

Mallet, Charles E.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Ferens, T. R.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Findlay, Alexander

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Massie, J.

Ure, Alexander

Fuller, John Michael F.

Menzies, Walter

Verney, F. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Middlebrook, William

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Walsh, Stephen

Gill, A. H.

Morton, Alpheus, Cleophas

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Glover, Thomas

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Myer, Horatio

Watt, Henry A.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Napier, T. B.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Nicholls, George

Whitehead, Rowland

Hall, Frederick

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nuttall, Harry

Wiles, Thomas

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Hart-Davies, T.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Partington, Oswald

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Williamson, A.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Hedges, A. Paget

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

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

Helme, Norval Watson

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

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

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

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

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

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Higham, John Sharp

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

Winfrey, R.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Radford, G. H.

Yoxall, James Henry

Hodge, John

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Holt, Richard Durning

Rendall, Athelstan

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

Hooper, A. G.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmt'h

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Richardson, A.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Ridsdale, E. A.

NOES.

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

Banbury, Sir Frederick George.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Balcarres, Lord

Barnard, E. B.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

1256

1257

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Starkey, John R.

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Magnus, Sir Philip

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Courthope, G. Lloyd

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Doughty, Sir George

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

Faber, George Denison (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

Oddy, John James

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

Fell, Arthur

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

Forster, Henry William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Young, Samuel

Gardner, Ernest

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Younger, George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Edward Sassoon and Earl Winterton.

Helmsley, Viscount

Remnant, James Farquharson

Hill, Sir Clement

Renwick, George

SIR S. EVANSmoved to add the words after 1909, "Or such later day as may be allowed in any case by the Licensing Commission." He did not think that, in the ordinary course of things, the interval which would elapse between the passing of this measure and the operation of this clause was too short. It was not a general extension of time they desired, but if it was found in any particular locality on account of any difficulties of the work or for any special reason that the time was rather short they wanted the Licensing Commission to be able to do the best they could for the district generally, although they might not be able to present the scheme by the fixed date. It was merely to meet those exceptional cases that he had thought it necessary to put down this Amendment. There were about a thousand licensing districts, and, therefore, the work in the country would be distributed, but so far as the Commission was concerned, of course, they would have the supervision of the whole, and therefore it was quite necessary that they should have longer time than was permitted to the justices in the ordinary course to prepare schemes for their respective localities. It should be remembered that the scheme did not comprise the selection of the houses whose licences were to be extinguished.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 21, at the end, to insert the words 'or such later day as may be allowed in any case by the Licensing Commission.'"—(Sir Samuel Evans.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. F. E. SMITHmoved to omit all the words of the Amendment after the word "as" in order to insert the words "they may think proper." The effect of that would be that the persons on whom the decision would rest as to whether there should be an extension or not would be the justices and not the Licensing Commission in London. He would ask the Committee to consider a little more carefully what the proposal of the Government meant. In this case they had local justices dealing with the needs of their own locality and the Government was imposing upon them the duty of preparing schemes. Supposing the justices found themselves unable in the proper time to prepare their scheme, they had to appeal to three gentlemen sitting in London who knew nothing of the locality in order to ask them as a matter of grace for a little delay. A more undemocratic proposal was never heard from any Government. He would like to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Solicitor-General, and the Home Secretary of a debate on the last Licensing Bill in 1904 in which most of them took part, and in which the then Leader of the Opposition, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, used the following words—
"We insist that there shall be no tampering with or modification of the discretion of the local magistrates.… We say that the discretion of the local magistrates ought not to be interfered with or modified, but it is to be

1259
abolished by this Bill. The local magistrate, the man on the spot, the man who knows all about it, who lives in the locality, is acquainted with its requirements, and is conversant with the feeling of the inhabitants, is to be practically set aside, except that he may, perhaps, send a written memorial to the superior court, and the estimable gentleman from another part of the world, who has no knowledge whatever of the circumstances, will be entrusted with this essential part of the magisterial control of the publican."
Those who applauded and cheered those sentences, when they were uttered, and supported the then Leader of the Opposition in the division lobby, came forward four years later with the proposal that the discretion of the licensing justices should be subordinated not to Quarter Sessions but to the decision of three gentlemen in London to be appointed by the Government, and who did not pretend to have the slightest acquaintance with the needs of the locality. If there was any sincerity in the case put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite when in opposition that the discretion should be maintained, then there was no case in which it was more proper and essential to insist upon the maintenance of that discretion than in the case now under consideration. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out from the word 'as,' to the end, and to insert the words 'they may think proper.'"—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. LANE-FOXsaid he supposed that on this Amendment it would be possible to raise the whole question of the existence and scope of the Commission.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That would not be possible. It appears to me that the only question that is raised here is whether this matter is to be in the discretion of the Licensing Commission.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid he rather anticipated that that would be the ruling. It was just as well to know where they were. This Amendment dealt with the question
1260
of the subordination of the local justices to the Licensing Commission. It was not putting it too strongly to say that the justices were going to be asked to do the dirty work of the Commission in the preparation of the proposed schemes. It seemed to him that the justices might have been left to their own discretion in such a matter as the date for the completion of the schemes. The position of subordination the justices were in to the Licensing Commission was sufficiently degrading in many points to make a good many dislike the task put before them, and refuse to serve in that capacity. It was quite possible that the effect of the Bill as it stood might be that they would only get as justices those who were so determined on reform in this connection that the Bench would be composed entirely of ultra-teetotal people. He hoped the Government would give some further reason for the attitude they had adopted in refusing to give the justices this discretion.
SIR S. EVANSsaid it was in order that the Committee might come to a speedy decision on this matter that he rose to reply now. The point raised by the Amendment was whether the time should be extended. If they said in one part of the clause that the justices were to do this work by a certain date, and in another part at such another date, that would be contradictory. It was always interesting to listen to the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division on democratic principles. He said that if the Government were to act on those principles in this matter, they would leave it to the discretion of the justices. Really that question did not arise on this Amendment. The quotation made from a speech of the late Prime Minister in 1904 was one which contained the expression of a view with which they all agreed and to which the Government had given the amplest effect in the Bill. The Government had said that the justices were the people to decide on the statutory reduction of licences. Of course, the Licensing Commission, or some other body, must be put over the licensing, justices, because the latter would have no control over the fund, which was to be a general fund, and it was because it was a national fund for

1261
the whole of England and Wales that they must have some central body to deal with it. The Commission, however, were not put over them for the purpose of saying whether the licence of the "Black Bull" or the "Blue Boar" was to be taken away. The fullest discretion in that matter was given to the justices, and the Commission in London would have nothing to do with it. With regard to the benches being composed of ultra-teetotallers, he knew what a teetotaller was, but not an ultra-teetotaller.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the tendency of the condition imposed on the justices by this section would be to induce gentlemen who found the work burdensome to keep away.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he hoped the provisions of the Bill would not be such as to induce any of the present justices to withdraw from office, or to prevent anybody who desired to become a magistrate from still having that desire.
MR. YOUNGER, in supporting the Amendment, reminded the Solicitor-General of his own Amendments on the Paper, some of which tended to make this clause a little less stupid that it was at present. The alterations to be made in the clause by the Government wholly altered the situation and made the justices on the spot very much better judges of the time required to prepare the scheme than the Licensing Commission sitting in London who knew nothing whatever of the districts. Of course, it was convenient for the Government to evade all those points. They were extremely clever in doing so, but they were usually found out.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERsuggested to the mover of the Amendment that a certain amount of alteration in it was necessary. It would hardly do to enact that the justices should make their scheme before 1st April, or some future date. It was necessary to state some fixed date which they

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Astbury, John Meir

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

Armitage, R.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Agnew, George William

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Alden, Percy

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Baring, Goodfrey (Isle of Wight

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Barker, John

should have power to fix during the currency of a period. Provided that was done he could see nothing inconsistent or contradictory in the clause as it would then read. There was nothing novel in giving an authority power to extend the time in which it should perform some ministerial function. The practical question before the Committee was as to who was the best judge of the local circumstances of a particular scheme, and whether or not it was expedient that the time should be extended. The difficulties arising would be purely local and personal, as to which the Commission in London could, in the nature of the case, have no sort of knowledge, while the local justices must know fully all the circumstances of the case. It appeared to him that it would be more practical and desirable to allow the discretion as to the occasional extension of time to be exercised by those who had local knowledge.
*CAPTAIN FABERsaid the Solicitor-General had stated that the justices were to have the power to decide whether the licence of the "Black Bull" or the "Blue Boar" was to be extinguished. But it should be remembered that the Commissioners in London could act over the heads of the justices in regard to money, and the two houses might not be of the same value. If the justices Were to recommend the Commissioners to do away with the "Black Hull," they might turn round and say they had not the £3000 necessary for compensation in that case, though the amount they had available would be sufficient to pay compensation in the case of the "Blue Boar." He hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit that there was some difficulty in the case.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 271; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 279.)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Barnes, G. N.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Beale, W. P.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Beauchamp, E.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Beck, A. Cecil

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Hall, Frederick

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Myer, Horatio

Bennett, E. N.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Napier, T. B.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nicholls, George

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Hart-Davies, T.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Norton Capt. Cecil William

Black, Arthur W.

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

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Boulton, A. C. F.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nuttall, Harry

Bowerman, C. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Helme, Norval Watson

Parker, James (Halifax)

Branch, James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Partington, Oswald

Bright, J. A.

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Brooke, Stopford

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Bryce, J. Annan

Higham, John Sharp

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hobart, Sir Robert

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

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hodge, John

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Holt, Richard Durning

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hooper, A. G.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Byles, William Pollard

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cameron, Robert

Horniman, Emslie John

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

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Chance, Frederick William

Hudson, Walter

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

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hyde, Clarendon

Radford, G. H.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Rendall, Athelstan

Cleland, J. W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Clough, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

Clynes, J. R.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Richardson, A.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Jowett, F. W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kekewich, Sir George

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Kelley, George D.

Robinson, S.

Crooks, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Roch, Walter V. (Pembroke)

Crosfield, A. H.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Roe, Sir Thomas

Crossley, William J.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lambert, George

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Lamont, Norman

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lehmann, R. C.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Duckworth, James

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Levy, Sir Maurice

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lewis, John Herbert

Sears, J. E.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Seely, Colonel

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lupton, Arnold

Shackleton, David James

Erskine, David C.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Essex, R. W.

Macdonld, J. R. (Leicester)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Everett, R. Lacey

Maclean, Donald

Simon, John Allsebrook

Fenwick, Charles

Macpherson, J. T.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Ferens, T. R.

M'Crae, Sir George

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Findlay, Alexander

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Snowden, P.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Fuller, John Michael F.

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

Spicer, Sir Albert

Fullerton, Hugh

Mallet, Charles E.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Gill, A. H.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Steadman, W. C.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Massie, J.

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Glover, Thomas

Menzies, Walter

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Middlebrook, William

Summerbell, T.

1264

1265

Sutherland, J. E.

Waring, Walter

Williamson, A.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Wills, Arthur Walters

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wason, John Carchart (Orkney)

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

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Waterlow, D. S.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

Watt, Henry A.

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

Tomkinson, James

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whitehead, Rowland

Winfrey, R.

Ure, Alexander

Whitely, John Henry (Halifax)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Verney, F. W.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Yoxall, James Henry

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wiles, Thomas

Walsh, Stephen

Williams, (J. (Glamorgan)

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

Walton, Joseph

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

NOES.

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Percy, Earl

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Forster, Henry William

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Gardner, Ernest

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Renwick, George

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Hill, Sir Clement

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Barnard, E. B.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stanier, Beville

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hunt, Rowland

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Keswick, William

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Kimber, Sir Henry

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Carlile, E. Hildred

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Cave, George

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

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

Clark, George Smith

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Whitbread, Howard

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

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

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Winterton, Earl

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Doughty, Sir George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Moore, William

Young, Samuel

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George

Faber, George Dension (York)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Oddy, John James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. F. E. Smith and Mr. Salter.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 4, line 26, after the word 'effect,' to insert the words 'as regards the number of licences.'"
"In page 4, line 27, after the word 'area,' to insert the words 'giving particulars of any modifications made in the strict application of the scale.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. JAMES HOPE MR. JAMES HOPE moved an additional subsection (c) providing that the scheme should be published in every district, and a copy sent to each of the licensees and owners affected. He thought that the Amendment, which had originally
1266
been put down on the Paper by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, would commend itself to the Committee. He held that all the licensees and owners in a district which would be affected by the scheme ought to be informed of the nature of the scheme, so that they might have an opportunity of approaching the Commission and showing, if need be, that the licensing justices had neglected in any way to carry out the principles of the Schedule. It was a slight mitigation in the direction of an easier working, and as such he had no doubt the Government would accept it.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 31, at the end to insert the words '(c) he published in every district, and

1267
a copy sent to each of the licensees and owners affected.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR S. EVANSsaid the effect of the Amendment was that the scheme to be prepared by the justices and sent to the Committee was to be published in the district and copies sent to each of the licensees and owners affected. It meant that a copy was to be sent to everybody who held a licence or was interested in one. He thought the Amendment was probably put down by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth under a misapprehension. It was quite right that those who were interested in the licences to be taken away should be heard, but there was no reason that he could suggest to the Committee why the scheme, dealing not with individual cases of licences to be extinguished but with the reduction according to the Schedule of the Bill or the modification in the particular localities, should go to everybody who was interested in licences in the district. But after the scheme had been originally passed, then it was right that those with licences which it was proposed to extinguish should be heard. Under those circumstances he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid they would never get to Clause 7 for the purposes of discussion, and therefore they would not settle finally the discussion which they had before dinner as to where they now stood. The Prime Minister, the Solicitor-General and the Front Bench opposite generally said they meant to have every kind of publicity and a fair trial or hearing for all the persons whose licences were threatened. Very well. Supposing a man's licence under the scheme was to be taken away, what was his defence? He could say: "I have a good business, and I do not think there is any reason why my licence should be taken away." But the justices would say: "Well, all you say is true, but we have to take away a certain, number of licences. The other licensees are just as well behaved as you are, and every argument you can use is used by them, and the only argu-
1268
ment before us is as to how many licences have to be taken away." This was the scheme. Why were the Government not, therefore, going to publish the scheme which would furnish the real substance of the argument that that licensee must deal with? All the licensee could say was: "You are obliged by law to deprive this district of, say, five licences, and you have chosen to include mine among the five. I only hear this for the first time to-day as you have not published the scheme. I have not had an opportunity of preparing an argument to show that if five licences are to be abolished mine should not be one of the five." Was not that a material point, and yet that was the scheme which the Government refused to publish. He was unable to understand, first, why there should be a scheme prepared by the magistrates, secondly, why that scheme should be accepted by the Licensing Commission, and, thirdly, why that scheme, being the only one on which an argument could occur before the magistrates when this hearing of which they were told so much took place, should be kept from the knowledge of those most nearly concerned.
SIR S. EVANSsaid he thought he made it plain that the scheme must follow the plan of the Bill—must have the population ratio of the Schedule. With that the individual licensee had nothing whatever to do, but when it came to the selection of the houses, and to the carrying out of the scheme which had been prepared, then the licensee would have notice and a good hearing.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the licensee would not have a good hearing, but granting the thesis of the hon. and learned Gentleman, ought not the licensee to have the materials in respect to which that full hearing was to be held? What argument had the "Blue Boar," or whoever the particular victim was, to bring forward? It was not to be about his good behaviour, nor as to the needs of the district, because that was settled by the House of Commons in total ignorance of those needs. It could only be settled by a consideration of the number allowed in the district and by the proof which

1269
the owner of the "Blue Boar" could bring before the magistrates that if somebody was to be victimised he was not to be the man. But he must know exactly the number to be victimised; in other words, he must know the scheme. Surely the only argument he could bring forward was: "You tell me to-day that a certain number of licences have to be suppressed, and that you have chosen mine to be one of them. In my opinion if you have got to suppress these by law, the 'Red Lion' ought to be suppressed and not the 'Blue Boar.'" But the owner of the "Blue Boar" must know the general scheme before he used that argument. How could he make his defence unless he knew the scheme? The whole argument turned on the scheme. Therefore, let them publish the scheme and allow the man affected by it to know what it was and to frame the defence which would show that the "Red Lion" and not the "Blue Boar" was the licence that had to be sacrificed in order to meet the arbitrary and Procrustean method by which the learned Gentleman proposed to proceed. He could not tell why the Government resisted the Amendment. He thought the Government wanted the Bill to be not only unjust, but obviously and practically unjust. Even the smallest modification which they ventured to suggest, which did not touch or affect any vital principle of the measure, was un-pityingly rejected. He could not understand why the Government in their own interests did not at all events attempt to soften the outlines of their picture, even though they refused to alter the main scheme. Let them make it as agreeable as they could for their unhappy victims. They were not content to do that. They were determined not merely to do that which was unjust, but to do it in a most unjust way. The very least they could do when they put these unhappy persons on their trial was to give them all the information possible in order to make their defence

AYES.

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

Balcarres, Lord

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Baldwin, Stanley

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bowles, G. Stewart

Ashley, W. W.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Brotherton, Edward Allen

as complete as possible. That was a modest request, and it was absolutely refused, and the Solicitor-General had given no reason for refusing it. Indeed he said it might be granted if the magistrates liked. There was no disadvantage in granting it in the case of the magistrates or the Commission; then let them make obligatory what they admitted was not noxious, and they would at all events, have shown that this hearing should be made with all the circumstances, not merely before the magistrates, but in the possession of the man who was to be heard.
SIR HENRY KIMBERapologised for not being in his place in time to move the Amendment, and said it would be noticed that the provisions as to the preparation of the scheme described by Clauses 6 and 7 were all to be done in caméra. No party interested was to be at liberty to appear. The justices and the Commission were to meet, he supposed, and it then became the duty of the justices to select the individual licences to be extinguished. Up to that point, and even after, the person affected was not to be heard at all. He was only to be heard if and when he applied for a renewal of the licence, which, unknown to him, perhaps, it had already been decided should be extinguished. Let them suppose he was to have a hearing on the question as to whether it was or was not to be extinguished on that occasion. Obviously the answer which the licensing justices—
And, it being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 17th July, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 122; Noes, 300. (Division List No. 280.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Remnant, James Farquharson

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Renwick, George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hill, Sir Clement

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Clark, George Smith

Kerry, Earl of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Clive, Percy Archer

Keswick, William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stanier, Beville

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Starkey, John R.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Doughty, Sir George

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Valentia, Viscount

Faber, George Denison (York)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Fardell, Sir T. George

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Fell, Arthur

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Whitbread, Howard

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Moore, William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Gardner, Ernest

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Winterton, Earl

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Oddy, John James

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend

Young, Samuel

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Younger, George

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

Percy, Earl

Haddock, George B.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Henry Kimber and Mr. Gretton.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bright, J. A.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

Brooke, Stopford

Duckworth, James

Agnew, George William

Bryce, J. Annan

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Alden, Percy

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Armitage, R.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Erskine, David C.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Byles, William Pollard

Essex, R. W.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cameron, Robert

Esslemont, George Birnie

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Astbury, John Meir

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Everett, R. Lacey

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Chance, Frederick William

Fenwick, Charles

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Ferens, T. R.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Barker, John

Cleland, J. W.

Findlay, Alexander

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Clough, William

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Clynes, J. R.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Barnes, G. N.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fullerton, Hugh

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Beale, W. P.

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

Gill, A. H.

Beauchamp, E.

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Beck, A. Cecil

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Glover, Thomas

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Bennett, E. N.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Crooks, William

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

Crosfield, A. H.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Crossley, William J.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Curran, Peter Francis

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Black, Arthur W.

Dalziel, James Henry

Gulland, John W.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Bowerman, C. W.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hall, Frederick

Branch, James

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

1272

1273

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

Masterman, C. F. G.

Seaverns, J. H.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Menzies, Walter

Seddon, J.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Middlebrook, William

Seely, Colonel

Hart-Davies, T.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Shackleton, David James

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mond, A.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Sherwell, Arthur James

Harwood, George

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hedges, A. Paget

Morgan J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Helme, Norval Watson

Morrell, Philip

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

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

Snowden, P.

Henry, Charles S.

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Soares, Ernest J.

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

Myer, Horatio

Spicer, Sir Albert

Higham, John Sharp

Napier, T. B.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholls, George

Steadman, W. C.

Hodge, John

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Holt, Richard Durning

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Hooper, A. G.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Nuttall, Harry

Summerbell, T.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sutherland, J. E.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Parker, James (Halifax)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hudson, Walter

Paulton, James Mellor

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Thomasson, Franklin

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Jardine, Sir J.

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

Tomkinson, James

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Philips, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Trevelayn, Charles Philips

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Ure, Alexander

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Piric, Duncan V.

Walsh Stephen

Jowett, F. W.

Pollard, Dr.

Walton, Joseph

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Kekewich, Sir George

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wardle, George J.

Kelley, George D.

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

Waring, Walter

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Laidlaw, Robert

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Radford, G. H.

Waterlow, D. S.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Watt, Henry A.

Lambert, George

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Lamont, Norman

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Rendall, Athelstan

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Whitehead, Rowland

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lever A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Richardson, A.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wiles, Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Williams Osmond (Merioneth)

Lupton, Arnold

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Williamson, A.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robinson, S.

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

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Maclean, Donald

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, J. W. (Worchesters, H.)

Macpherson, J. T.

Rose, Charles Day

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

M'Crae, Sir George

Rowlands, J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Winfrey, R.

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

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Yoxall, James Henry

Mallet, Charles E.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Marnham, F. J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

Massie, J.

Sears, J. E.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Question on the Amendments moved by
1274
the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be con-

1275
cluded at half-past Ten of the clock this day.
Amendments proposed—
"In page 5, line 2, to leave out the words 'consultation with,' and to insert the word 'giving.'"

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 302; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 281.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Crosfield, A. H.

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Crossley, William J.

Hooper, A. G.

Agnew, George William

Curran, Peter Francis

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Alden, Percy

Dalziel, James Henry

Horniman, Emslie John

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Armitage, R.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hudson, Walter

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Hyde, Clarendon

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Dilke Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Astbury, John Meir

Duckworth, James

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jardine, Sir J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Barker, John

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Erskine, David C.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Essex, R. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Barnes, G. N.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Kekewich, Sir George

Beale, W. P.

Everett, R. Lacey

Kelley, George D.

Beauchamp, E.

Fenwick, Charles

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Beck, A. Cecil

Ferens, T. R.

Laidlaw, Robert

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

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

Findlay, Alexander

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Bennett, E. N.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lambert, George

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lamont Norman

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

Fullerton, Hugh

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gill, A. H.

Lehmann, R. C.

Black, Arthur W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Boulton, A. C. F.

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Bowerman, C. W.

Glover, Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Bramsdon, T. A.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Branch, James

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Bright, J. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lupton, Arnold

Brooke, Stopford

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bryce, J. Annan

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Macdonald, J. R. (Liecester)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Gulland, John W.

Mackarness, Frederick C.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Maclean, Donald

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Macpherson, J. T.

Byles, William Pollard

Hall, Frederick

M'Crae, Sir George

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Chance, Frederick William

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mallet, Charles E.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hart- Davies, T.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Cheetham, John Frederick

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

Marnham, F. J.

Cleland, J. W.

Harwood, George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Clough, William

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Massie, J.

Clynes, J. R.

Hedges, A. Paget

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Helme, Norval Watson

Menzies, Walter

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Middlebrook, William

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

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Henry, Charles S.

Mond, A.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Money, L. G. Chiozze

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Higham, John Sharp

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tyne mouth)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Crooks, William

Hodge, John

Morrell, Philip

"In page 5, line 2, after the word 'justices,' to insert the words 'an opportunity of consulting with them.'"—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
Amendments agreed to.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

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

Robinson, S.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolvehampton

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Tomkinson, James

Myer, Horatio

Roe, Sir Thomas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Napier, T. B.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Ure, Alexander

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Rose, Charles Day

Verney, F. W.

Nicholls, George

Rowlands, J.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Walsh, Stephen

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Walton, Joseph

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Nuttall, Harry

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wardle, George J.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Waring, Walter

Parker, James (Halifax)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Partington, Oswald

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Waterlow, D. S.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Sears, J. E.

Watt, Henry A.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Seaverns, J. H.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Seddon, J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

Seely, Colonel

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampt'n

Shackleton, David James

Whitehead, Rowland

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Sherwell, Arthur James

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wiles, Thomas

Pollard, Dr.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Williamson, A.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Snowden, P.

Wills, Arthur Walters

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

Soares, Ernest J.

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

Radford, G. H.

Spicer, Sir Albert

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

Rainy, A. Rolland

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

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

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Steadman, W. C.

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

Rendall, Athelstan

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Winfrey, R.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Richardson, A.

Summerbell, T.

Yoxall, James Henry

Ridsdale, E. A.

Sutherland, J. E.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Thomasson, Franklin

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Hill, Sir Clement

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hills, J. W.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Balcarres, Lord

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Kerry, Earl of

Baldwin, Stanley

Doughty, Sir George

Keswick, William

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kimber, Sir Henry

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fell, Arthur

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Fletcher, J. S.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gardner, Ernest

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Carlile, B. Hildred

Gretton, John

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Cave, George

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Haddock, George B.

Moore, William

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Morpeth, Viscount

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Clark, George Smith

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Oddy, John James

Clive, Percy Archer

Helmsley, Viscount

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

1278

1279

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

Percy, Earl

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Stanier, Beville

Winterton, Earl

Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

Starkey, John R.

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

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Young, Samuel

Renwick, George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Younger, George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Valentia, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Foster.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Whitbread, Howard

Clause 7:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 10, to leave out the words 'extinguishing the licences accordingly,' and to insert the words 'if application is made for the renewal of any such licence, by refusing to renew the licence under the powers contained in the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1900, in accord-

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick

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

Agnew, George William

Chance, Frederick William

Glover, Thomas

Alden, Percy

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Armitage, R.

Cleland, J. W.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Clough, William

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Clynes, J. R.

Gulland, John W.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Astbury, John Meir

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

Hall, Frederick

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Barker, John

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hart-Davies, T.

Barnes, G. N.

Crooks, William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Crosfield, A. H.

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

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Crossley, William J.

Harwood, George

Beale, W. P.

Curran, Peter Francis

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Beauchamp, E.

Dalziel, James Henry

Hedges, A. Paget

Beck, A. Cecil

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Helme, Norval Watson

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

Bennett, E. N.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Henry, Charles S.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Duckworth, James

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

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Higham, John Sharp

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Black, Arthur W.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Hodge, John

Boulton, A. C. F.

Erskine, David C.

Holt, Richard Durning

Bowerman, C. W.

Essex, R. W.

Hooper, A. G.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Horniman, Emslie John

Branch, James

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Bright, J. A.

Everett, R. Lacey

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Brooke, Stopford

Fenwick, Charles

Hudson, Walter

Bryce, J. Annan

Ferens, T. R.

Hyde, Clarendon

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Issacs, Rufus Daniel

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Findlay, Alexander

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Jardine, Sir J.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Fuller, John Michael F.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Byles, William Pollard

Fullerton, Hugh

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Cameron, Robert

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gill, A. H.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

ance with the provisions of those Acts.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Question put, and agreed.
Question put, "That Clause 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 302; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 282.)

Jowett, F. W.

O'Grady, J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Kearley, Sir Hudson K.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Snowden, P.

Kekewich, Sir George

Partington, Oswald

Soares, Ernest J.

Kelley, George D.

Paulton, James Mellor

Spicer, Sir Albert

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Stanley, Albert, (Staffs, N. W.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Steadman, W. C.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lambert, George

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Lamont, Norman

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Summerbell, T.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sutherland, J. E.

Lehmann, R. C.

Pollard, Dr.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Thomasson, Franklin

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Lupton, Arnold

Radford, G. H.

Tomkinson, James

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rainy, A. Rolland

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Ure, Alexander

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Verney, F. W.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rendall, Athelstan

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Maclean, Donald

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Walsh, Stephen

Macpherson, J. T.

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

Walton, Joseph

M'Crae, Sir George

Richardson, A.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wardle, George J.

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Waring, Walter

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Mallet, Charles E.

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Waterlow, D. S.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Watt, Henry A.

Marnham, F. J.

Robinson, S.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Massie, J.

Roe, Sir Thomas

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Whitehead, Rowland

Menzies, Walter

Rose, Charles Day

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Middlebrook, William

Rowlands, J.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wiles, Thomas

Mond, A.

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Williamson, A.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Morrell, Philip

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

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

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

Sears, J. E.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Seaverns, J. H.

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

Myer, Horatio

Seddon, J.

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

Napier, T. B.

Seely, Colonel

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Shackleton, David James

Winfrey, R.

Nicholls, George

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Sherwell, Arthur James

Yoxall, James Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Nuttall, Harry

Simon, John Allsebrook

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Clark, George Smith

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Bowles, G. Stewart

Clive, Percy Archer

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Ashley, W. W.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Courthope, G. Loyd

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Balcarres, Lord

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Baldwin, Stanley

Carlile, E. Hildred

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cave, George

Doughty, Sir George

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

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

1282

1283

Far dell, Sir T. George

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Fell, Arthur

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

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Fletcher, J. S.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Gardner, Ernest

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Stanier, Beville

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Starkey, John R.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Gretton, John

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Haddock, George B.

Moore, William

Valentia, Viscount

Hamilton, Marquess of

Morpeth, Viscount

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Oddy, John James

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

Helmsley, Viscount

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hill, Sir Clement

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

Hills, J. W.

Percy, Earl

Winterton, Earl

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hunt, Rowland

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Young, Samuel

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Younger, George

Kerry, Earl of

Remnant, James Farquharson

Keswick, William

Renwick, George

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

Kimber, Sir Henry

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Clause 8:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 22, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'after considering any representations made with respect to the matter by persons appearing to the Commission to be interested.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 23, at end, to insert the words 'but where an old on-licence is so declared

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Beauchamp, E.

Cameron, Robert

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

Beck, A. Cecil

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Agnew, George William

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Alden, Percy

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Chance, Frederick William

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Armitage, R.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cheetham, John Frederick

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Black, Arthur W.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Boulton, A. C. F.

Cleland, J. W.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Bowerman, C. W.

Clough, William

Astbury, John Meir

Bramsdon, T. A.

Clynes, J. R.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Branch, James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bright, J. A.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brooke, Stopford

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

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Bryce, J. Annan

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

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barnes, G. N.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Beale, W. P.

Byles, William Pollard

Crooks, William

invalid, the provisions of this Act relating to the payment of compensation shall have effect as if the renewal of the licence had been refused by the licensing justices.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
Question put, and agreed to.
Question put, "That Clause 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 297; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 283.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Crossley, William J.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Curran, Peter Francis

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Dalziel, James Henry

Jowett, F. W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Pollard, Dr.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Kekewich, Sir George

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kelly, George D.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

Duckworth, James

Laidlaw, Robert

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Radford, G. H.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lambert, George

Raphael, Herbert H.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lamont, Norman

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Erskine, David C.

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Rendall, Athelstan

Essex, R. W.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Richardson, A.

Everett, R. Lacey

Levy, Sir Maurice

Ridsdale, E. A.

Fenwick, Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ferens, T. R.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

Findlay, Alexander

Lupton, Arnold

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Brad'rd

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robinson, S.

Fullerton, Hugh

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

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Gill, A. H.

Maclean, Donald

Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

Macpherson, J. T.

Rose, Charles Day

Glover, Thomas

M'Crae, Sir George

Rowlands, J.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Mallet, Charles E.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Markham, Arthur Basil

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Gulland, John W.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Marnhara, F. J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

Hall, Frederick

Massie, J.

Sears, J. E.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

Masterman, C. F. G.

Severns, J. H.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Menzies, Walter

Seddon, J.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Middlebrook, William

Seely, Colonel

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Shackleton, David James

Hart-Davies, T.

Mond, A.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Sherwell, Arthur James

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

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Harwood, George

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Simon, John Allsebrook

Hedges, A. Paget

Morrell, Philip

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Helme, Norval Watson

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Snowden, P.

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

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Henry, Charles S.

Myer, Horatio

Spicer, Sir Albert

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

Napier, T. B.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Higham, John Sharp

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholls, George

Steadman, W. C.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hodge, John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Holt, Richard Durning

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hooper, A. G.

Nuttall, Harry

Summerbell, T.

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sutherland, J. E.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

O'Grady, J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hudson, Walter

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Hyde, Clarendon

Paulton, James Mellor

Thomasson, Franklin

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Jardine, Sir J.

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester

Tomkinson, James

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

1286

1287

Ure, Alexander

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Verney, F. W.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Whitehead, Rowland

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

Walsh, Stephen

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Walton, Joseph

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Winfrey, R.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Wiles, Thomas

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Wardle, George J.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Yoxall, James Henry

Waring, Walter

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Williamson, A.

Waterlow, D. S.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Watt, Henry A.

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

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fletcher, J. S.

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Gardner, Ernest

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Percy, Earl

Ashley, W. W.

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Balcarres, Lord

Gretton, John

Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

Baldwin, Stanley

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

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

Remnant, James Farquharson

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Haddock, George B.

Renwick, George

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Helmsley, Viscount

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hills, J. W.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stanier, Beville

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Starkey, John R.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Keswick, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Clark, George Smith

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clive, Percy Archer

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Craik, Sir Henry

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Winterton, Earl

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

M'Calmout, Colonel James

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

Doughty, Sir George

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Young, Samuel

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Younger, George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Moore, William

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

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Fardell, Sir T. George

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Oddy, John James

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.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Sixteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 580. Fiji (Report for 1907).
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 4150. China (Wenchow).
  No. 4151. Japan (Nagasaki).
  No. 4152. China (Foreign Trade, 1907).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE.
  I. (Foreign and Colonial Post).—The Foreign and Colonial Post (Cash on Delivery) (Amendment (No. 2) Warrant, 1908, dated 31st July, 1908; The Foreign and Colonial Post (Cash on Delivery) Amendment (No. 3) Warrant, 1908, dated 11th September, 1908.
  II. (Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post, Turkey).—The Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 21) Warrant, 1908, dated 1st July, 1908.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE CONDITION OF IRELAND.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the lawless condition of certain parts of Ireland, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether there has been an increase in intimidation, boycotting, cattle-driving and offences against property and individuals in those districts during the current year; and whether the law as administered has been found adequate to deal with the existing state of affairs and, if not, what steps the Government propose to take with a view to protecting the liberty and property of individuals.
  Your Lordships will remember that I have brought this subject before the notice of the House on more than one occasion. On the first occasion the disorder was but as a small cloud no bigger than a man's hand, but the misgivings I then expressed have, unfortunately, been since realised; and
  1070
  this lawless condition of affairs, owing to the action of His Majesty's Government in not checking it in its origin, has now spread over a certain number of counties in Ireland. Indeed this entire disregard of the law has extended to almost within eighteen miles of Dublin. When I drew the attention of His Majesty's Government to this matter, and warned them as to what would take place, the noble Earl who now leads the House denied that the Government—
  "Had any intention of doing anything but dealing in the fullest manner with such disorder."
  And the noble Marquess whose absence we so much regret (Lord Ripon), who then led the House, declared that the Government—
  "Wanted to stand by the ordinary law until the ordinary law failed."
  Now, are His Majesty's Government to-night prepared to repeat their declaration that the ordinary law is sufficient to check the disorder?
  It will be observed that I have restricted my Question to certain parts of Ireland, to the parts which are at the present moment in a lawless condition, and to those districts I shall entirely confine my remarks to-night, because I rejoice to think that outside eight counties the ordinary law of the land is recognised and respected. Hitherto when attention has been called to the serious condition of certain parts of Ireland it has been the custom of His Majesty's Government to slide off into an entirely different channel, and instead of giving a direct reply they have endeavoured to prove that ordinary crime in Ireland was no worse, and perhaps less, than in England. Therefore I ask the noble Lord who will reply to me on behalf of the Government to confine himself to replying to my Question.
  I do not think that His Majesty's Government will deny that at the present moment this lawlessness exists in no less than eight counties in Ireland. It was, therefore, with some surprise that I read a speech delivered at Liverpool on 8th October, by the Attorney-General for Ireland, who said that we were at the
  "Beginning of an era of peace, concord, and prosperity in Ireland."
  I do not hesitate to say that I rubbed my eyes with astonishment when I read

  1071
  that statement coming from a prominent member of the Irish Executive, and I hope there will be some explanation of how such a statement can be reconciled with the actual facts. The Government have themselves recognised in some degree the actual state of affairs, for they have issued a certain kind of proclamation enabling them to introduce extra police into disturbed districts. That was one reason why I rubbed my eyes with astonishment at reading the Attorney-General's statement. I find that the charges of the Judges of assize are at complete variance with the statement made by the Attorney-General. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by quoting more than a few of the charges. Mr. Justice Kenny, at the Galway Assizes on 20th July, said—
  "With the exception of one district its condition is deplorable."
  Mr. Justice Madden, at the Longford Assizes on 3rd July, referred to the condition of things as—
  "Other than satisfactory."
  At the Roscommon Assizes on 10th July, Mr. Justice Kenny said—
  "Roscommon, I regret to say, is in a state of extreme lawlessness."
  I have other extracts of a similar kind, but I think those I have quoted will be sufficient to prove that the condition of these parts of Ireland has been declared by the Judges to be unsatisfactory and deplorable.
  The actual returns of outrages confirm these statements. Persons under police control on 31st January, 1906, were 41; on 30th September, 1908, they numbered 104. Under patrol protection on 31st January, 1906, there were 167; on 30th September, 1908, 252. Cases of wholly boycotting on 31st January, 1907, were 14; on 31st August, 1908, 75. Cases of partial boycotting on 31st January, 1907, were 38; on 31st August, 1908, they were 40; and minor cases had increased from 164 to 639.
  Then I come to another very dangerous class of crime, which appears as far as I can see, not to disturb the authorities at all—what is known as firing at persons. In 1906 there were three cases of firing at persons, and up to 30th September there had been ten such cases in 1908. Firing
  1072
  into dwellings during the same periods had increased from nine to fifty-five. Agrarian outrages numbered 234 in 1906, and were 418 to 30th September, 1908. Cattle-drives in 1907 numbered 381, and in 1908 up to June there were 413. The awards for malicious injury in the six months from April to September, 1906, amounted to £372; and the amount from October to March, 1908, was £2,912. These figures are of so remarkable a character that I think it must strike your Lordships as extraordinary that the Attorney-General for Ireland should endeavour to lead the people of England to believe that we are at the beginning of an era'of peace, concord, and prosperity. I maintain that the statement of the Attorney-General is entirely misleading and absolutely contrary to the facts.
  I now come to the second part of my Question. I ask the Government whether the law as administered has been found adequate to deal with the existing state of affairs. Again, I turn, in the first place, to the charges of the Judges. Mr. Justice Kenny, at the Roscommon Assizes, said—
  "From the information before me it would appear that binding to the peace is a very ineffective remedy for the state of things that exists:"
  and Mr. Justice Ross, at the Land Judges Court said—
  "This leniency is now interpreted as imbecility, cowardice, and connivance."
  Judge Curran, at Longford on 15th June, declared that—
  "Cattle-driving will never cease as long as the Government only binds to the peace."
  That is the opinion of His Majesty's Judges, and I ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to allow this state of lawlessness, which I have shown, is on the increase, to go on absolutely unchecked, certainly unpunished. Why will not the Government take proper steps to secure respect for the law, and to put an end to the present condition of lawlessness? I should like an answer to that question.
  The Attorney-General for Ireland, in the same speech at Liverpool, said—
  "The Liberal view was to associate the people with the administration of criminal law in such a way as to make them feel they were responsible for the welfare and good

  1073
  order of their own country. In this way the Liberal Party believed they would really gain to their side the whole mass of the people, making them feel that the law was their friend."
  Surely the way to associate the people with the law and order is through trial by jury. But what has become of trial by jury in Ireland? The Government have virtually admitted that trial by jury is an absolute failure. The law officers have told you that they have had plenty of evidence but could not get juries to convict the cattle-drivers, so great was the intimidation. Accordingly the offenders are brought before the magistrates, who simply bind them to the peace. Therefore I repeat that the Government have virtually acknowledged that trial by jury is an absolute farce.
  What steps do His Majesty's Government propose to take to remedy the present serious state of affairs? It is not for me to advise His Majesty's Government; but I would suggest that there is a very simple course before them, and that is to make use of the statutory powers they at present possess. Without the need of reviving the Crimes Act, which the Government seem so much to dread, cattle-drivers could be tried under the existing statutory law for riotous assembly before two resident magistrates and summarily convicted. It may be said, in the interests of the law breakers, "Oh, but they would receive a severer punishment." So much the better. Law breakers ought to be punished. I regret the absence to-day of the noble and learned Lord the Lord-Chancellor, as I should like to have appealed to him on this point. I am confident that if cattle-driving took place in this country the authors of it would be prosecuted for riotous assembly, and they would be liable to two years' imprisonment. If that is the case in England, why, I ask, are these law breakers in Ireland, who are equally guilty, to be let off by being bound to the peace, which the Judges tell you is a complete farce? I hope I shall have an answer to that question.
  I leave the question of cattle-driving and turn to that of boycotting. Boycotting, as the figure I have quoted so tragically show, is rampant in those counties to which I have referred to an extent which, to my mind, is a disgrace
  1074
  to those reponsible for the administration of the law in Ireland. We had difficulties with regard to boycotting at the time I undertook the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland, but by the administration of the Act of 1887, we entirely stamped it out. Why cannot that be done now? I noticed that Mr. T. W. Russell in a speech the other day asked—
  "How can the Crimes Act stop boycotting?"
  I shall show you very shortly that when the Crimes Act was administered by a strong Government, who recognised their responsibilities, boycotting was very soon stopped. But I will answer the Nationalist Mr. T. W. Russell, in the words of the Unionist Mr. T. W. Russell, who, speaking in the House of Commons on 21st August, 1889, as to the effects of the Crimes Act, two years after it had been in operation, said—
  "In October, 1887, the number of persons boycotted was—in Clare, 500; and in Kerry, 477; and on July 1 this year there were seven persons in Clare and thirteen in Kerry, wholly or partially boycotted. Now, if that does not indicate an improved condition of things, I do not know what would be called an improvement.… Now, if I take the whole country apart from these two counties, I find the facts showing an equal improvement."
  Mr. Jackson, who succeeded Mr. Balfour as Chief Secretary, and to whom the restoration of law and order was due, speaking in March, 1892, said—
  "In 1888, according to a Parliamentary Paper presented to the House, there were on 31st July, 1887, totally boycotted people in Ireland to the number of 870, and partially boycotted, 3,965. On 31st December, 1891, there was not a single person in Ireland boycotted, either wholly or partially."
  These are two conclusive testimonies of the success of the Crimes Act in stopping boycotting, yet Mr. Russell asks how the Crimes Act could stop boycotting. I know full well that there are considerable difficulties in dealing with very subtle cases of boycotting in Ireland. My own experience, and I was in the thick of it, demonstrated to me how difficult it was to deal with a certain mischievous class of boycotting; but in those days the Government recognised their responsibilities, and were determined that the law of the land should be effectively administered. I will give your Lordships a concrete instance of a case that occurred during the time I was Lord-Lieutenant. Certain

  1075
  men were prosecuted, and there was a great deal of comment at the time because it was stated that they were being proceded against for simply winking. It sounded a very trivial thing to be prosecuted for, but I will explain what that winking meant. There were a certain number of farmers on one of the campaign estates who were the victims of a ring of boycotters, and the general evidence was that they were systematically pursued by persons who gave this signal to intending purchasers, thereby rendering it absolutely impossible for them to sell their cattle or produce. Well, we prosecuted the boycotters, and our action resulted in a conviction and a smart sentence. The consequence was that the whole conspiracy collapsed, and these men were allowed to live in peace under the protection of the law. If boycotting in the shape of winking can be effectively dealt with under the Crimes Act I fail to see why, if you put it in force, you could not do away altogether with the present lawlessness.
  When I have previously drawn attention to boycotting in your Lordships' House I have been told that the important cases were very small in number, that the cases enumerated were minor cases, and that, therefore, it was not worth while reviving the Act of 1887. To the uninitiated in England a minor case of boycotting may seem a trivial matter. Let me quote a definition given by the Lord Chief Justice, who, at the Spring Assizes for County Clare, held at Ennis on 3rd March, last, said—
  "Let them take an instance of those so-called minor cases.… He would take the case of a man named Taylor. People did not speak to him or deal with him in any way, and he had to go to Limerick for all the necessaries of life.… There were five cases where people did not speak or deal with the parties, and they had to go considerable distances for the necessaries of life. These were in-stances of minor boycotting."
  Will any one tell me that cases of boycotting ought not to be taken notice of because they are minor cases only, when this intolerable treatment is meted out to the victims?
  When I last raised this question the Lord Chancellor said that the Crimes Act—
  "Would only inflame ill-feeling, and increase the volume of crime."
  1076
  I was surprised at that statement. If the noble and learned Lord studied the Irish papers as closely as I do, he would find that when men were prosecuted and, refusing to be bound over, went to gaol, they caused quite as much ill-feeling as would result from putting in force the Crimes Act. Again, I cannot reconcile the statement of the Lord Chancellor with the fact that when the Act was put in force by a Unionist Government the volume of boycotting was reduced. What has gone far to increase the volume of crime in Ireland is the action of His Majesty's Government and the statements which have been made by Ministers. I remember well that when Sir Edward Carson called upon the Chief Secretary last summer to take advantage of the law that existed or could be revived, Mr. Birrell replied—
  "I will not."
  I submit that that word did more to increase the volume of crime than anything that had been done for some time, and it carried joy to the hearts of the lawbreakers. I hope the Government, though rather late in the day, are realising the seriousness of the present state of affairs and will take steps to put an end to it. I have noticed that Mr. Birrell has never spoken very strongly of the disorderly conduct of certain parts of Ireland. He certainly said once that his fingers itched to prosecute the cattle-drivers or those who promoted cattle-driving, but his hands never grasped the offenders.
  The land settlement in Ireland is being suspended because the agreements for sale which have been signed are not being carried out. I maintain that Mr. Birrell cannot ride on two horses; he cannot say that the disorderly condition of Ireland is stopping the progress of land settlement, and yet at the same time take no steps to put an end to that disorder. When the last Unionist Government, of which I was a member, passed the Land Purchase Act, we never anticipated that it would be such a glorious success. It is now Mr. Birrell's duty to quell the present disorder and go on with the land policy, for in allowing lawlessness to continue, the Government are doing serious damage to the industrial prosperity of Ireland owing to the great

  1077
  charges that are placed on localities for extra police.
  On this occasion we have an advantage which we have not had before. We have now present with us Lord MacDonnell, who has been created a Member of your Lordships' House since we last debated this subject. Lord MacDonnell had been in Dublin while the serious increase of crime was going on. Of Lord MacDonnell I speak in terms of sincere respect. His friends have told me that he is a man of great ability, and a staunch supporter of law and order. With regard to the first description, I most cordially concur, and with regard to the second, I should like to hear his speech to-night before I form an opinion. Lord MacDonnell occupied the great position of permanent Under-Secretary at Dublin, and in that capacity he naturally had a large voice in the conduct of affairs. Doubtless he will tell us his experiences there at that time, and whether he concurred in the action of his Chief in permitting this lawlessness to go on.
  I have frequently been told that the condition of Ireland is not nearly so bad as it was in the dark days before the Act of 1887, when crime and outrage stalked unchecked. I fully admit that. But there exists in Ireland at present a state of demoralisation of those who are responsible for the administration of the law. There is demoralisation from the highest to the lowest. The Judges know it is no use charging juries, and benches of magistrates dare not sit for fear of the consequences. Their lives would be in jeopardy if they gave decisions contrary to the will of the United Irish League. The police themselves are in doubt when they are doing their utmost to maintain law and order as to whether they will be supported by their chiefs. Surely a state of demoralisation such as this is a scandal to a civilised country and ought not to be allowed to exist. It is the custom for English people to say: "Oh, it is only Ireland"; but I maintain that the life and property and comfort of Irishmen, no matter how humble, have a right to be protected. As the spirit of lawlessness is spreading in Ireland, so will it spread over the whole of the United Kingdom, and it is because I believe it to be to the interest of England
  1078
  as much as of Ireland that law and order should be maintained by those responsible for it that I have put down the Question which stands in my name.
  *LORD CLONBROCK: My Lords, I wish to support most strongly what has fallen from my noble friend who has just sat down as to the condition of a very considerable part of Ireland. I can assure the House that deep anxiety exists in Ireland both as regards the present time and as to what may happen in the immediate future, because we have it on very high authority that there is to be a renewal of agitation during this coming winter. As my noble friend has pointed out, eight counties out of the thirty-two are concerned. That is not only a quarter of the number of counties but it approaches very nearly to a quarter of the whole area of Ireland. A quarter of the whole area of Ireland is a little over 8,130 square miles; the area of these eight counties is 7,912, and we have seen in the public Press that the agitation is extending further south and east into the county of Tipperary.
  The Government are evidently well aware of the increasing amount of agitation, as we see from the step, about the only step they have taken, in the direction of increasing the police force in these several counties. In the half year ended 31st March, 1907, the amount charged to the counties for extra police was £799; on 31st March of this year the amount was £7,073. That shows the opinion of His Majesty's Government as to the requirements of the country in the way of police in consequence of this agitation. I must point out that this is a very heavy burden upon these counties, and that it falls chiefly upon the people who are injured by these illegal acts and outrages. In speaking of the police, I wish again to bear testimony to their admirable conduct, to the energy and activity which they have displayed under very discouraging circumstances; for it must be most discouraging to them, after all the hard work that devolves upon them in endeavouring to check cattle-driving and other outrages, to find that when they make an arrest the defendants are merely bound over to keep the peace. There are plenty more to take the place

  1079
  of the cattle-drivers who are bound over, and they are encouraged by the leniency shown with regard to this offence.
  My noble friend has well described the state of terrorism which can be produced by fear of outrage and boycotting. Boycotting could not continue to any extent were it not for the terrorism which is inspired and the fear of violent outrages. In the first six months of this year there were seventy-five cases of firing into houses and at people; and only a few days ago I read that in my own county about twenty shots were fired into a house in which two ladies resided, and, as usual, no arrests were made. The system of terrorism is so great that orderly and law-abiding persons are debarred from following their ordinary avocations in life, and they look, as I say, with the greatest possible apprehension to the future. I do hope, therefore, that it is not too late to urge His Majesty's Government to give up vague generalities, as to the state of Ireland being, on the whole, satisfactory, to consider how large the disturbed area has become, and to extend to peaceable, law-abiding citizens that protection which they have a right to expect in any civilised country.
  *LORD DENMAN: My Lords, once more we are embarked on a debate dealing with the question of law and order in Ireland, and once more the attack on the Government has been led by two noble Lords well qualified by their position to speak for the landlord party in that country. This is not the first time—no doubt it will not be the last time—that this question has been discussed in your Lordships' House during the life of the present Parliament. I notice that there is a certain similarity in the arguments and in the views which are put forward with those which have been put forward on previous occasions, and I think it possible that there may be a corresponding similarity in the answer which I have to give to-day.
  The noble Marquess dealt at some length with statistics, and I shall have a word to say on that matter. Formerly, when I have taken part in these debates, I have endeavoured to ground my case
  1080
  a good deal on the figures supplied to us by the police. I have endeavoured to show that if the number of outrages and crimes was not much worse in a particular year, say in the year 1906, than in the previous year, the state of Ireland even in the disturbed districts could not be so very bad, and I have been rather surprised, I am bound to confess, at the ease with which the figures I have given have been brushed away by noble Lords opposite either suavely or brusquely or contemptuously, according to the disposition of the speaker. A noble Lord would get up from the front Opposition bench and say: "What do I care about your statistics. I much prefer relying upon the opinion of Mr. So-and-so"; and it is a curious thing that Mr. So-and-so's opinion always coincided with his own. Then some other noble Lord, say, for example, Lord Mayo, would rise from the benches opposite and say: "After all, the number of these outrages depends upon the way in which they are ordered to be reported by the police."
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Hear, hear.
  *LORD DENMAN: The noble Earl adheres to that statement. Well, that knocks the bottom out of my statistics altogether. The noble Marquess has grounded his case to-day on figures and answers which have been supplied, I presume, by the Irish Office in the House of Commons. After my experience of statistics I had not intended to ground my case upon them to-day. The noble Marquess, however, has dwelt at length upon the state of the country which obtained when he was Viceroy, when he was a member of a firm and courageous Government, and I would like to quote some figures which will give a comparison of the state of the country as it is to-day with the state of the country as it was during the last year of the noble Marquess's occupancy of the office of Lord-Lieutenant. That, I think, was the year 1889.
  I find that the figures are as follows: In 1889 the cases of intimidation numbered 202; in 1908 they are 242. Offences against property were 132 in 1889; in 1908 they are 64. Offences against the person were 27 in 1889;

  1081
  in 1908 they are 18. Offences against the peace were 96; to-day they are 108—that is to say, we have a total of 432 cases to-day as against 457 when the noble Marquess resigned his office and at a time when the Crimes Act, to which the noble Marquess is so devoted, had been some two years in force. With regard to boycotting, I find that there were 53 serious cases in 1889; there were 26 in 1908. Therefore, I think we may conclude, if there is any force in the figures that I have given or that the noble Marquess has given, that the country is in no worse condition to-day than it was during the rule of the Government of which the noble Marquess was a member and after two years application of the Crimes Act.
  I was glad to notice one rather important admission in the speech of the noble Marquess. He told us that outside eight or nine counties the ordinary law prevails. I thank the noble Marquess for that admission. That is a very distinct improvement upon the attitude which he took up in the debate at the beginning of this session. What did he tell us then? He said—
  "To my mind, at the present moment the condition of Ireland is undoubtedly more serious than it has been during the past thirty or forty years."
  Now he tells us that outside eight or nine counties the ordinary law prevails, and that the condition of Ireland is, I presume, fairly satisfactory. Therefore, if we are to judge by this admission, the state of Ireland has certainly improved during the last few months.
  I have said that I do not intend to rest my case to-day on figures, but I admit that importance should attach to these figures. I have said so before, and it would only be consistent on my part to-say so again to-night; and if you judge by the figures I admit that certain counties in the west of Ireland are certainly in a bad condition to-day; indeed, I believe their condition is worse than at any time during which the present Government have been in office. But, having said this, I propose to dwell for a few moments upon the cause of the trouble, and I hope I shall be able to show that the state of things
  1082
  even in these districts is not really so bad as the admission I have just made would seem to imply. In the first place, as the noble Marquess and his colleague, Lord Clonbrock, I think, have admitted, the disturbance is confined within certain areas. County Clare, in which, I regret to say, the disturbance has lately spread and which is certainly one of the worst at the present time, is responsible for 149 out of 313 agrarian outrages and for 106 out of 536 cattle-drives. In other words, County Clare is responsible for half the outrages in the disturbed area and for one-third of the outrages in all Ireland; it is also responsible for half the threatening and intimidatory letters and notices. Of the other counties, Galway and Roscommon are the worst. As I have said, the trouble is confined within certain districts.
  As regards the steps which have been taken to cope with the disorder in those parts of Ireland, nine counties have been proclaimed for the purpose of increasing the police establishments. An addition of 750 men has been made to the constabulary force. The police in these counties, under difficult conditions, have done their best to deal with the disorder that exists. Half the cost is borne by the counties proclaimed. Signs are not wanting that the local authorities are beginning to be concerned at the cost which they will have to meet for extra police, and it is to be hoped that they may bring their influence to bear in the cause of law and order.
  To my mind there is one hopeful sign in the rather gloomy picture which the two noble Lords who have just spoken have drawn, and that is that we know, or at all events we believe we know, the cause of the disease. I believe it is generally agreed on both sides of the House that the cause of this disease is known, and once you know the cause surely it should not be entirely impossible to find a remedy, even though we may differ as to what that remedy should be. Of course the primary cause is congestion in the West of Ireland. You have poor people living in the neighbourhood of rich grazing lands which they covet for themselves, and, human nature being what it is, they have resorted to extremities in an entirely mistaken attempt

  1083
  to attain their ends. I do not wish for a moment to be thought to excuse or extenuate any of the crimes or outrages that have been committed in these districts. Nothing is further from my mind. Indeed, no language can be too strong to condemn them. But, at the same time, we know that this land hunger is a factor in the situation, and it is a factor which anyone attempting to deal with this problem will have to take into consideration.
  There is, I think, a reason why the land hunger in the West of Ireland is worse perhaps than it is in other parts, and it is to be found in the Land Act of 1903. The Estates Commissioners have bought untenanted land in different parts of Ireland, but owing to the high price of grazing land in the west I believe it is true that a comparatively small number of properties have been acquired there compared with other parts. The consequence is that people in these districts have seen untenanted land change hands in other parts of Ireland but not in theirs, and as a result the disappointment in those particular districts has been deep and bitter. The Government intend to lay before Parliament during this session legislative proposals for dealing with the question of congestion and with the points raised in the Report of the Commission presided over by Lord Dudley, and of which the noble Lord behind me, Lord MacDonnell, was a distinguished member. Of course, it would be impossible that at this stage of the session any Bill dealing with a question of this magnitude should be expected to pass through either House of Parliament. That is out of the question, but I think it is possible that when the people realise that the Government are in earnest in grappling with this problem of congestion it may do something to allay the disorder even in the districts where it is at present most pronounced. Then the noble Marquess asks us what we are going to do; and from the terms of his speech I gather that what he wants us to do is to apply the Crimes Act.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Hear, hear.
  LORD DENMAN: I have to tell the noble Marquess frankly that it is not the intention of the Government at the present time to apply the Crimes Act. They prefer to rely on the ordinary law, in the belief that their policy will result in the creation of a healthier state of public opinion, and that by refusing to resort to exceptional measures they will eventually enlist the sympathies of the people themselves on the side of law and order. If we want support for our policy of refusing to apply the Crimes Act to-day it is to be found in the weighty words which fell from the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, in a debate at the beginning of this session. And I would venture to remind the House that Lord Dudley was a member of the Tory Government, that he was himself responsible in part for the government of Ireland under a Tory Administration, and that if he were prejudiced it is not likely that he would be prejudiced in favour of the views which generally obtain on this side of the House. Lord Dudley, in the speech to which I have referred, described coercion as—
  "A policy which cuts at the root of all true union between England and Ireland, and which embitters public opinion in that country to such an extent as to render successful government difficult, if not impossible."
  He said—
  "It inevitably turns discontent into real disloyalty."
  And he went on to declare that—
  "There is no doubt that coercion under any Government means war to the knife in Ireland."
  If that is true of any Government, surely, my Lords, it is especially true of this Government, because the people of Ireland have been led to believe, by the utterances of leading members of the Liberal Party, that they will receive more sympathetic treatment than that which was accorded to them by their predecessors. Therefore, when the noble Marquess urges us to apply coercion in order to deal with the trouble in the disturbed districts, my answer is that it is not only a question of these particular districts. It is a question of whether you are to stir up this feeling in the country, whether you are to have war to the knife between the people and the Government of Ireland.

  1085
  There is considered something rather fine and brave and courageous about a policy of coercion. Why, goodness knows! For, if you come to look into it, really exactly the opposite is the case. It may, perhaps, be easy to govern for a time if you choose to resort to methods such as these, and to my mind I am bound to say the reputation for courage which coercion carries with it would be a temptation to some men to apply it on a very slender pretext. Were I, by any horrible concatenation of circumstances, to be Chief Secretary for Ireland—and I can imagine no more terrible fate—I would certainly be tempted to yield to any pressure, however slight, to apply the Crimes Act in order to acquire a reputation for firmness and courage on such absurdly cheap and easy terms. We are urged to apply coercion and to crush down any threatened disorder by force, or, at any rate, by coercive means. Well, this may succeed for the moment, though even this, as I think is clear from the figures I quoted of the state of affairs after the noble Marquess himself had applied coercion for two years, is open to question; but you would inevitably increase tenfold the mistrust and the hatred which so many Irishmen feel to-day for English institutions and English forms of government.
  If you only take thought for the present, what can be easier than for those charged with the duty of government to avail themselves of the weapons which a powerful country like ours places in their hands? Surely, my Lords, it is a far more courageous policy to look beyond the needs of the moment and to refuse to do anything which might intensify the bitterness of a people whose goodwill it is still possible you may gain, or which might, so to speak, have the effect of mortgaging the political future of the nation. Shrewd observers have given it as their opinion that before long in Ireland we shall come to a parting of the ways. Either we shall have to trust in the loyalty and the goodwill of the people of Ireland—and that there is not loyalty I, who have fought alongside Irish regiments in South Africa, refuse to believe—or we shall have to rely on government by force, which, if you are consistent, al-
  1086
  though the Government of Ireland never has been consistent, must inevitably result, as was pointed out in this House by the Lord-Chancellor, in Crown Colony Government.
  I venture, with all possible respect to noble Lords opposite from Ireland, to take leave to doubt whether these debates, after all, serve any very useful purpose either in Ireland or in this country. I am quite sure of one thing—that by constant repetition of these things, by constantly raising these debates in your Lordships' House, by reports in the Press, sometimes, at all events, exaggerated, the people of this country are beginning to think that the description of a particular parish, or a particular district, or a particular county in a disturbed condition applies to the whole of Ireland. The other day I came across rather a striking instance of this. A lady living in the outskirts of Dublin was engaging an English governess, and a few days before the governess was due to go over to Dublin to take up her position in this lady's household she wrote a letter stating that she was extremely sorry she was unable to go after all, as her mother would not let her, because she feared that her life would not be safe. That is the kind of impression which these repeated debates and newspaper paragraphs will, I believe, give to the people in this country.
  My Lords, I have no wish at all to minimise the disturbances in these counties in the West of Ireland, and I think that in the greater part certainly of Galway and Clare the property of the grazier, if you reckon cattle as being the bulk of his property, is certainly not as safe as it is in other parts of Ireland; and from our point of view one unfortunate aspect of the case is that these deliberate outrages and this criminal folly of cattle-driving will, if persisted in, alienate and exasperate public feeling in this country, and will set the tide of public opinion flowing against a policy of conciliation and sympathy, which I notice even such a stalwart Tory paper as the Morning Post recommends, and it is, of course, always possible that this Government may be driven to adopt the policy recommended by the noble Marquess.

  1087
  It seems to me that you have to look at this question from a broad and wide aspect, for, in spite of all the things that have been quoted, Ireland at present is hopeful and is looking for the dawn of a better day. In other parts of the world, indeed, one might say all the world over, the claims of nationality and the demand for self-government are making themselves heard. In other countries, in our own Colonies, you applaud these things; you deem them fine and noble aspirations, and if it lies in your power you do what you can to assist in their realisation. But to Ireland, with all the bitter memories of the past still rankling in her mind—to Ireland, if we adopt your policy, we are in effect to say, "Let there be war, and war to the knife between the Government and the people," and all this in order to allay temporary disturbances and check local disorders, grave enough, I admit, in themselves, but symptoms, after all, of a still graver disease which only years of patient, sympathetic, and courageous treatment can ever hope to remedy or cure.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I listened with close attention to the speech which has just been delivered by the noble Lord who represents the Irish Government, trusting that he might have been able to hold out some hope that the Government had realised at last that it was necessary to do something. That was not a very extravagant expectation, but what have we had? All that the noble Lord did was to express the hope that when the people of Ireland realised that the Government were in earnest—they appear not to have realised that up to the present—we might then expect to see some tremendous change. Then the noble Lord intimated that it would be an appalling thing to have war to the knife, and that the Government would not resort to a policy such as that, at all events for the present.
  Now, what are the realities of the situation? Are we to lose sight of the speech of my noble friend the noble Marquess beside me? The noble Lord who has just sat down indicated a great desire to make a contrast between the
  1088
  state of the country in 1889 and in 1908, but that is not germane to the question. The contrast I would make is between the time the present Government came into office, three years ago, and the present moment. The question is, Why have the Government allowed the country to get into such a state; and what are they going to do? The noble Lord used the word coercion. It is a word that some people like to use as if it meant a great deal more than in substance anyone can ascribe to it. It is not suggested that all the clauses of the Act of 1887 should be applied. Attention has been drawn over and over again to one particular clause in that Act which enables two magistrates to deal with unlawful assembly and riot. If that clause had been applied, cattle-driving would have ceased in a week, and Ireland would now be absolutely quiet.
  The contrast I make is between December, 1905, and the present time. Mr. Long was then Chief Secretary. He is the last man in the world who would seek to have praise given to him, but it cannot be denied that he proved himself a straightforward, manly English gentleman who knew his own mind and was direct in his purpose. When Mr. Long was in Ireland, law and order were held in respect. It was known that the people administering the Government would not tolerate disrespect of the law. When the Government of which the noble Lord is a member came into office it found Ireland comparatively quiet; there was no coercion that could be so-called; the clause of the Crimes Act to which I have referred was in occasional operation whenever needed; the police were not discontented; and all this was taking place at a time when there was no Irish Nationalist sympathy with the Government. We could not rely upon the popular sympathy which the present Government have done so much, they think, to enlist. But when I turn to the Irish Nationalist Press and read the reports of meetings that take place in Ireland, I do not find that the absence of anything effective to maintain law and order has won for the Government a single particle of popular esteem or sympathy.

  1089
  No one can question the position in which the Government found Ireland when they came into office. Is not Mr. Bryce's testimony written large? Mr. Bryce's testimony before he went to America—he was, I have no doubt, very glad to go there, and I am not at all sure that Mr. Birrell would not like to follow him—was that when he came into office the condition of Ireland was satisfactory. Later on, when it came to Mr. Birrell's turn to raise his voice, he left Mr. Bryce nowhere. He said that Ireland had not been so peaceful, contented, and tranquil for 600 years. This was the testimony of your own Minister. I do not know a people in the world who can take the measure of a man quicker than the Irish; they know when they are face to face with a man who means to govern and knows how to govern, and when they are face to face with a man who cannot or will not govern. Therefore, after a time lawlesssness naturally assumed a prominent position, and crimes, intimidation, and boycotting developed daily. Then came a new form of crime in the shape of cattle-driving, which advanced by leaps and bounds. If cattle-driving had been faced and met with resolute action in the first month of its existence it would have been promptly put down.
  When attention was called to the matter in Parliament, Mr. Birrell said he would have nothing but the ordinary law. Give him time, he said, and he would be able to achieve the necessary result by the ordinary law. Abundant time has been given; the ordinary law has been tried and has failed, as everyone knew it would fail; jurors cannot be relied upon, and ordinary magistrates cannot adequately deal with the situation. The state of the country has become worse and worse, and there is a kind of paralysis in the administration of justice. Is this to go on for ever? Will not the Government try the section of the Act to which their attention has been drawn and which is known to be efficacious, instead of pottering with the ordinary law, which they know is inappropriate, and furbishing up Statutes of Edward III. and William IV.?
  The noble Marquess has referred to the statements of Judges that binding to the peace is not efficacious, and it
  1090
  has been declared by one Judge to be an imposture. Surely this is a very serious state of facts, bearing in mind that it is not suggested by Lord Denman that it is intended to do anything more vigorous in the future than has been done in the past. Meanwhile open contempt of the law is expressed in Ireland and scorn for those who will not govern but leave matters to go on as at present. I read recently a statement by the Recorder of Galway, who, speaking with great knowledge on the subject, said it was impossible now to get process servers on account of the fact that men acting in this capacity carry their lives in their hands. That is the state of things we are asked to accept tranquilly whilst the Government are waiting to be thought by somebody to be earnest about something. Can your Lordships appreciate the state of things in some parts of Ireland? Have you ever tried to realise in your own minds what boycotting is? The victim is not allowed to be supplied with the necessaries of life, he is not to be spoken to by his neighbours, he is shunned in fair and market.
  The noble Lord boasts that all Ireland is not in such a terrible state as the eight counties. Are not eight counties enough to be in the awful state that has been described? The other day I read of an application made to the vacation Judge sitting in Dublin that some other method should be adopted for serving writs as no process server could be found. The post was mentioned, but the postman's life would not be safe if it were known that his bag contained writs, and permission was sought to serve by posting in some public building in the locality. And this is going on within a few hours travel from London, and the Government have said nothing to indicate that they intend to grapple with and put an end to this scandalous state of things. Lord Denman referred to uneasiness about congestion. That will not do. Congestion is a word we are getting very familiar with. When we see the Report upon congestion we will deal with it in debate, and deal with it, I hope, adequately and efficiently. I will not now enter into any discussion

  1091
  of Lord Dudley's language. I had the responsibility of following him in the debate to which reference has been made, and I expressed my opinion with reference to his words then, though on consideration, I think I might have said more. What has been said on the subject of congestion does not meet the case. We are now dealing with cattle-driving and lawlessness. Meath was one of the quietest counties in Ireland; it was most sparsely peopled, it had splendid land, and was crimeless; yet under the beneficent sway of the Government who are always waiting for something to turn up it became, last year, one of the most lawless parts of Ireland without any congestion to rely upon for the scandalous and repeated cattle-drives that took place there.
  I never enjoy figures, though I once had the honour of being connected as hon. secretary with a statistical society; but I will give one figure because it is very symptomatic. I read, a couple of days ago, an answer given in the House of Commons in which it was stated that from March to September, 1905, the awards for malicious injuries amounted to £506, whereas in the corresponding six months of this year, under the beneficent sway of the present Government, that sum had gone up to over £10,000. Can your Lordships conceive a more significant fact than that? Is it not also strange that while the Government are hoping everything and doing nothing the people who have not yet come to believe they are in earnest will not stay in the country? While in 1905, emigration reached the very large figure of 31,000, last year the figure had gone up to 39,000. The noble Lord said something about the police. The police in Ireland are a splendid body of men. I hope they will never have to lose confidence in the Government. It is they who ensure respect for the law. Let them feel that they can respect the Government. The result of waiting and doing nothing has been that lawlessness and outrage have increased, and the maintenance of the police cost an additional £47,000 last year. It is very expensive not doing the right thing. If the Executive had applied the one section
  1092
  of the Act of 1887 to which I have referred, much of that would have been saved and Ireland would be quiet.
  Is it fair to keep Ireland seething in the present state of lawlessness? Has any Government a justification to keep it in that state when they have a remedy ready to their hand if they would but use it? The noble Lord said it was a sign of splendid courage not to use it. Many a man has been shot for such courage after a battle. It is said that it is no sign of courage to use the coercion Act. I do not say it is. I do not claim any praise for the Government of Mr. Long for using the clause I refer to, but every Government, I care not what it may call itself, should rise to the dignity of trying to do its duty, and the first duty of a Government is to maintain law and order. His Majesty's present Government have not done that. They have asked for time to try the Statutes of Edward III. and the ordinary law, and Ireland is now in the state which my noble friend has described.
  It is never too late to mend. Although Ireland is, in many of its counties, in a bad state, I believe that if the remedy the Government have at hand were applied with nerve and energy peace and quiet would return, but the Government must realise that something has to be done and done at once. It will not do to tell us to wait for the debate on the Report as to congestion. It will not do to wait until the people find out that you are in earnest. It is necessary to act now if you want to cope with the disorders that exist. The Government have been looking on for a long time doing nothing. Do they not think that the time has arrived when they might cease talking of a future that may never come, and try to act in the living present to restore some respect for the administration of the law?
  *LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, I did not come down to the House this evening intending to take any part in the debate on the maintenance of order in Ireland, although it was my intention to ask your permission to make a few remarks on another aspect of the Irish question. But, responding to the invitation of the noble Marquess,

  1093
  I venture to say that I have listened to the debate with feelings of great depression. I listened to the impeachment of the noble Marquess and to the defence of the noble Lord, both of which were conducted with accustomed ability, and the impression left upon my mind was that the cause of good government in Ireland would be furthered neither by the impeachment nor by the defence. I know the West of Ireland well—I have recently had an opportunity of perfecting my knowledge regarding it—and I can assure your Lordships that the feelings which animate the people in that part of the country are due, not to any innate wickedness of their nature, or to disloyalty to the Crown, but entirely to the slow operations of land purchase, especially in regard to congestion.
  As to the policy pursued by the Government in regard to crime in Ireland, I think that a sharper method of treatment for those who instigated cattle-driving would produce better results. But there may be doubt as to whether it is better to ignore men of that description, fanatics and instigators of misconduct, or to treat them sharply in the beginning and so suppress them. My own feeling leans to the latter method of treatment; but, whatever your Lordships' judgment on that question may be, I feel that it must be in any case a judgment on a side issue. The real issue which to my mind is raised by this debate is not whether cattle-driving or boycotting should be treated in one way or another, but how best to push on and complete the work of land purchase in Ireland. I firmly believe that in coercion you have no substitute for land purchase, and that in land purchase you have a complete remedy. Therefore is it not better and more statesmanlike and more profitable for the Empire, that, instead of wasting your time on such debates as these, you should endeavour to rescue the Government from the impasse to which they have come with regard to the provision of funds for land purchase? I came down to the House with the intention of making some observations on that subject. I do not know whether I should be in order now in pursuing my comments. If I am considered to be in order I propose doing so.
  1094
  What is the present position of affairs in regard to land purchase? Briefly it is this: when the Act of 1903 was passed it was thought by the Government of the day that £100,000,000, with the grant of £12,000,000 as bonus, would suffice; but experience has shown that at least £150,000,000 will be required to complete the work, and the root difficulty at the present time is how this money should be provided. Up till now £25,000,000 in round numbers have been actually paid to landlords under the operation of the Act, leaving £125,000,000 still to be provided. Of that sum of £125,000,000—I speak in round figures, but I do not think I shall be out in any case more than a £1,000,000—agreements covering some £45,000,000 to £50,000,000 have been deposited with the Estates Commissioners. This question divides itself into two parts—first, how should those agreements be financed; and, secondly, how should the remaining £80,000,000 be provided. I will submit to the House my view with regard to each.
  I presume that the agreements now deposited with the Estates Commissioners must be dealt with under the strict terms of the Act if the landlords, or the vendors, insist upon it; in other words, the money must be provided and cash paid unless the vendors agree to a variation of the contract. Assuming that no variation in the terms of the contract is agreed to, the difficulty is how to provide the cash. It is understood that by the end of this month a time will have arrived when a different course to that hitherto followed must be pursued in regard to land purchase finance. To the course to be followed later, I will presently refer. But limiting myself to the period before the 1st of November I think that if the balance of the bonus fund which, amounting to £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, would remain after the distribution on the Agreements now deposited had been made, is allocated for the flotation of loans, the Government will be able to pay off the £45,000,000 of deposited agreements, and to consider what new arrangements should be made to promote land purchase. The consideration of that problem should, I think, lead it to conclude that—after the 1st of November—it will be impossible

  1095
  to pay the landlords in cash. But if a scheme were devised under which a loan at 3 per cent. could be floated, which would stand at about par, the landlord could be paid in stock from which if he did not wish to keep the stock he might readily realise the price to which he was entitled for his land.
  The floating of a loan at 3 per cent. would necessitate an additional charge upon the tenants; their annuity would be 3½ per cent. instead of 3¼. On the other hand, the probability is that the landlords would receive from one to two years purchase less than they had received hitherto; but I cannot regard that as a substantial hardship. It never was expected when the Land Act of 1903 was being framed that prices would go so high as they have. It was always thought that the average price would be about twenty-two years purchase, which, with the bonus, would be about twenty-five years purchase, a higher price for land than had been paid in Ireland theretofore. If this scheme is accepted the Government will be able to raise its loans with less or at very little less and pay the landlords a price of about twenty-five years purchase.
  The only thing required to make the arrangement complete is that the Treasury should be a contributing party. If the landlord and the tenant both contribute something, it is only fair, when a great national settlement of this sort is under consideration, that the Treasury should take its part. I do not think it will be a satisfactory settlement if differential treatment of landlords is introduced, giving a larger bonus to those who sell before a particular date and a smaller bonus to those who sell afterwards. If the Treasury would come forward and secure that the same amount of bonus should be paid to the landlords in the future as has been done in the past, by advancing another £6,000,000, more will be done for the peace of Ireland than by any number of Coercion Acts. Coercion as a remedy has always failed. My experiences in the West of Ireland have burnt this into my soul, that coercion will only exasperate still more the people who are now imploringly stretching out their hands to this country, in
  1096
  the hope that at last peace and amity may dawn for them.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, after the interesting speech of Lord MacDonnell on the subject of the finance of the Land Act of 1903, I desire to bring the House back to the question put to the Government by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, regarding "the lawless condition of certain parts of Ireland." I do not wish to do so in any Party sense. I would much rather talk of other things than the condition of certain counties in Ireland, but we who live in Ireland cannot sit still and say nothing while the responsible Government take no steps to suppress the disorder. Lord Denman made the important admission that the present state of certain parts of Ireland was worse than at any time since the present Government had been in office. I think that is an important admission to have got from my noble friend. Personally I live in a part of the country that is quiet, and in peace with my near neighbours, my late tenants. Others are not so happily situated.
  This is no question of religion, which is so often in Ireland the cause of discord, hatred, and even outrage, for during the time the present Government have been in office a priest's house has been fired into and a priest's cattle have been driven off his lands. This only shows that a lawless spirit has crept into the minds of the young men which did not exist before. I ask, Who is responsible for the state of certain counties in Ireland? Nine have been proclaimed under the Act of William IV. There is one man, and one man alone, who is responsible—the Chief Secretary; and I often ask myself what evil genius sent us the present Chief Secretary and what demon of unrest possessed the souls of those who appointed him.
  What has happened during the rule of the present Chief Secretary? From March to September, 1905, the malicious injury claims amounted to £506; from January to June, 1908, they amounted to £10,178. These are claims made upon the counties for injury done through driving cattle and burning barns and hay sheds, etc.

  1097
  The police have been increased by the present Government by 750, at an annual cost of £47,000. It has been pointed out that half of this cost is charged on the counties; but the other half is borne by the Imperial Exchequer, and that is a point to be remembered by the English taxpayer. The Chief Secretary, speaking in England, has over and over again tried to throw dust in the eyes of the English electorate by saying that Ireland was never more peaceful than it is at present. At Halifax, on 26th April, 1907, in what is known in political circles as the "carrion crow speech," the Chief Secretary said—
  "Ireland is at this moment in a more peaceful condition than for the last 600 years."
  It is quite true that Irishmen are not being ruined and murdered as they were under the Tudors, nor is there a Cromwell in Ireland burning and slaughtering the people. Comparisons are odious. Surely in the twentieth century we may expect civilised rule and law, order and progress to be maintained in the land. Only the other day—on 18th July—at Port Sunlight, the Chief Secretary said, speaking of Ireland—
  "Now we got a great body of impartial persons, presided over by the late Tory Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and he and all his companions, Tory landlords among them, combined and came to this unanimous conclusion, that, after all, these poor people were right and the Government were wrong in withholding the land.
  First, let me say a word with regard to the Tory Lord-Lieutenant. Your Lordships heard Lord Dudley's speech before he left this country to go to Australia. I do not think it gave us the impression that he was a Tory Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. The reference to his companions, the Tory landlords, includes, I suppose, Mr. Kavanagh, who was a member of that Commission. Mr. Kavanagh now represents a Nationalist constituency, and will, no doubt, vote for Home Rule like noble Lords opposite. Therefore I contend that the Chief Secretary's statement was made to throw dust in the eyes of the English electorate.
  It is an outrageous thing that a man in the position of Chief Secretary should practically say to the people of Ireland that to agitate to get what was not their
  1098
  own by means of boycotting and outrage Was a right thing for them to do. That is how it was construed. I hold that that is a monstrous creed. The power of the Chief Secretary is absolute. He has officials under him who have to obey his behests with the utmost subserviency. He can make or mar a man's career in Ireland, and he has, besides, enormous patronage. Now let me state how he discriminates in precisely similar offences between different classes of citizens. Mr. Farrell, M.P., held a meeting on 4th October at Moydon Cross Roads in County Longford, and openly advocated the boycotting of Mr. Henry Bruce Armstrong, a local landowner who declined to hand over his property to the League. As the direct result of his speech Mr. Armstrong's cattle were driven off his farm. This is precisely what occurred in County Clare in the case of Mr. Dermott O'Brien, who was arrested by the police and is now in prison in default of giving bail to be of good behaviour. Up to the present the Chief Secretary appears to have taken no action in the case of Mr. Farrell. Why on earth is not a Nationalist M.P. who is guilty of inciting to boycotting treated in the same way as Mr. O'Brien? It is difficult to conceive on what principles of law or equity a Member of Parliament in Ireland can defy the law with impunity, while other persons are put into prison for practically the same offence. This is one example of the present Chief Secretary's rule in Ireland, and of his method of dealing with boycotting and the driving of cattle. In answer to a question on the subject of boycotting, the Chief Secretary informed Mr. Long the other day that on 29th February last there were thirty-seven persons wholly boycotted, whilst on 31st August last the number had gone up to seventy-five, or more than double. The happier era which has been referred to will only come in Ireland when the law is properly administered and these blackguards are kept in order. We wish these plague spots adequately dealt with. It is because the Government think that a little cheap popularity will go a long way with the Nationalist Members in the House of Commons that this is not done. I will quote what an Irish Judge, Mr. Justice Kenny, said

  1099
  at Galway, on 20th July on this subject. He said—
  "It is lamentable to think of the perpetual dread of outrage, misery, and wretchedness that must enter into the lives of these unfortunate people who have to pass their existence under such conditions."
  I know from my own knowledge that some of these places are a "hell upon earth." Lord Denman told a story of an English governess. I know of a case of a lady's maid who went over to spend her holiday with friends in Ireland. She said she walked alone, being afraid to speak to any one on the road in case that person had been boycotted. She said the place was like a desert, everybody being suspicious of everybody else, and her holiday, such as it was, very soon came to an end. I put that alongside the noble Lord's story.
  I have other instances in my hand showing the failure of the "ordinary law" and how this leniency has been interpreted as cowardice and connivance, but I will not delay your Lordships further. The only conclusion at which we can arrive is that it would be better for Ireland if the present Chief-Secretary—I speak of him only in his official capacity—could find some more congenial work in another political sphere. I am sure he would be less harassed, and we in Ireland would be greatly relieved. What is wanted is a Chief Secretary who is not afraid to administer the law—a strong man who will and can rule, and not a witty cynic.
  VISCOUNT MASSEREENE: My Lords, the noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government commented upon the fact that once more we had listened to speeches about lawlessness in Ireland, and that there was much similarity in the remarks. No one regrets more than I do the fact that your Lordships had to listen to those speeches. I can assure the noble Lord that we who come from Ireland do not consider it a pleasant task to speak in this House upon the condition of certain parts of that country. We do not do so from any sense except that of duty. The noble Marquess who initiated this discussion knows Ireland well and is fully competent to call attention to this matter. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government one question. There are nine
  1100
  counties proclaimed in Ireland, and extra police engaged who are costing the people of Ireland a certain amount of additional money. How many more counties will have to be proclaimed before the Government take stronger steps to put an end to this lawlessness, assuming that the disorder does travel to additional counties?
  There is one aspect of this case which I do not think has been presented, and I would put it in this way. Ireland is not a rich country, she has no great manufactories, no coal, no iron. Almost her staple industry is that of the raising and selling of cattle. This cattle-driving is doing that trade enormous harm. It is affecting a considerable number of people, and the trade is going down in many parts owing to these outrages. How long, I ask, is this to be allowed to continue? We see the trade gradually diminishing and the people who live by this industry becoming bankrupt. It seems to me that that is a most serious aspect of the case. Speakers far more able than myself have dealt with this question, but I should like specially to direct the attention of the Government to the financial loss that is accruing to the whole community in Ireland owing to the fact that one of her staple trades is at the present moment in a critical condition.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I have no desire to cavil at the facts and figures put before your Lordships by my noble friend who opened the debate, and I certainly have no intention of expressing any opinion on the very difficult subject as to what is precisely the best way of dealing with, the unfortunate, but, after all, sporadic cases of disorder that are occurring in Ireland. I only wish to say two or three words in protest against the inference that I fear is sure to be drawn from this debate in England as to the general condition of Ireland.
  When a debate on this subject, of which we have had a great many in this House, is introduced by so important a member of the late administration and inaugurated from the front Opposition bench, the attention it attracts in the country must be very

  1101
  great, and the people of England are naturally unacquainted with the real condition of Ireland. It is perfectly true that the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, confined himself in his Question to the lawless condition of certain parts of Ireland, but it is exceedingly difficult to confine one's remarks to any particular area. Even my noble friend himself in his speech spoke on several occasions of the "disorderly condition of Ireland," when, of course, he meant certain districts only.
  The fact that these debates are raised and that literature is constantly cast upon the people of Great Britain narrating every conceivable, occurrence in Ireland which by any possibility can be considered to be disorderly must have the effect of presenting a perfectly false picture of the general condition of Ireland. It is the easiest thing in the world to do that. Supposing anyone made out a list of all the lawlessness and disorder that had occurred in Great Britain itself during the last few years, they could convey a quite erroneous impression of the general state of this country. It would have to be stated that thousands of respectable householders in Great Britain refused to obey the law as a protest against the Education Act, and only the other day nearly the whole force of the Metropolitan Police was engaged in protecting the sacred precincts of Parliament. In regard to unemployment, council chambers have been stormed, and riot and disobedience to the law have been openly preached and riots have occurred not only in London, but in the provinces as well. Then there have been cases of gross municipal corruption. What inference would anyone not knowing England draw after hearing of these things?
  I do not say one word condoning cattle-driving or the other offences referred to, but there is one peculiarity with regard to cattle-driving which ought to be mentioned. It has been denounced from the altar—that is not singular; but I think it is singular, though, perhaps, not absolutely novel, that it has been denounced also from the platform. Politicians, leaders of
  1102
  the people in Ireland, have spoken out strongly against cattle-driving, and it is not at all a popular pastime in Ireland. The great bulk of the people are against it. They see the idiotic folly of it and realise the expense it involves on the rates.
  It ought not to be quite lost sight of that Ireland is passing through a great revolution in land tenure, and even if that revolution had been allowed to conduct itself as it might have done perfectly quietly, it would be almost, I think, unreasonable to suppose that so great a change could be accomplished without any sporadic cases of disorder occurring. Unfortunately the Land Act of 1903 has not had a fair chance. It has been violently opposed by forces in Ireland whose main desire seems to be to keep that country in a condition of perpetual disorder, and it has, unfortunately, been allowed to become blocked for want of sufficient financial support, and sufficient staff, and possibly through faulty administration. It is inevitable that the deadlock that has taken place in the Land Act must have caused an accentuation of crime in the direction of agrarian disorder. I agree with every word that Lord MacDonnell said on that point, and I most sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will realise how completely the whole future of Ireland—social, industrial, and economic—depends upon the Land Act of 1903 proceeding with unnecessary friction and with reasonable speed. I think these matters ought to be considered.
  It should not be lost sight of that, after all, there is, according to population, less crime in Ireland than in any other of the component parts of the United Kingdom. I do not desire to labour the point. I merely rose to make my protest against the inference that will be drawn from this debate. I agree with Lord MacDonnell that your Lordships on this side of the House would be better employed in centreing all your energies on endeavouring to persuade His Majesty's Government of the necessity of removing the deadlock in regard to the Land Act. I hope that in the report of my noble friend Lord Londonderry's speech the reporters will be careful to make it perfectly plain that he was referring only to certain districts

  1103
  in Ireland, for otherwise I feel sure that throughout England generally the impression will be formed that the whole of Ireland is in a state of considerable disorder. The popular party in Ireland, the people who want peace, conciliation, and quiet development of their business, and who are in favour of law and order are strong and are becoming stronger day by day, but they have a hard fight before them, they have considerable forces to contend against, and it is absolutely necessary, at any rate it is most desirable, that they should have the sympathy and support of the people of Great Britain on their side. Consequently I deprecate anything that could possibly present a false picture before the people of Great Britain as to the state of Ireland, and which might have the effect of alienating their sympathy.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who represents the Irish office observed early in the debate that in his opinion these discussions on Ireland served no useful purpose. That is true up to a certain point. I am afraid that, so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, these debates do not serve any useful purpose, because the Government are, if I may be allowed to say so, impervious and incorrigible. We have had to-night all the old formulas to which we have so often listened as to the iniquity of what Ministers are pleased to call coercion and, worse than that, we have had again the use of that equivocal language which almost in the same breath condemns these outrages and offers an excuse for them.
  The noble Lord told us with unction that he did not excuse or exculpate the individuals who were responsible for these deeds, but he went on immediately afterwards to draw a picture of the state of Ireland which was evidently intended to produce on our minds the impression that, while these poor people might be very misguided, yet there was, after all, a good deal to be said for their view of the case. But although I am afraid these discussions may not produce any great effect upon His Majesty's Government, I think they are useful so far as the impression which they will produce on the
  1104
  public mind is concerned. They will enable those who read the reports to judge for themselves of the manner in which His Majesty's Government have discharged the important trust committed to their hands in Ireland. My Lords, there has been no attempt to challenge the statement of facts laid before the House by my noble friend who sits behind me. The noble Lord who spoke for the Irish Office admitted very frankly that the condition of that part of the country about which we are speaking to-night is at this moment worse than it had ever been during the time in which His Majesty's Government have held office. That is my noble friend's case, and we have it admitted by the representative of the Irish Office. He could not do otherwise, because my noble friend confronted him with the statements made by the learned Judges in Ireland one after the other—statements which went to show that disorder in that particular part of Ireland was more prevalent than ever, and that the amount of immunity attending it was greater than it had ever been. You cannot brush aside evidence coming from such a quarter as that, and therefore, I say my noble friend behind me has proved his case and proved it up to the hilt.
  My noble friend who spoke just now, Lord Dunraven, insisted that we should, be very careful to avoid misleading the public as to the condition of other parts of Ireland. But the noble Marquess was careful throughout his speech to make it clear that he was only talking about the particular eight counties in which cattle-driving prevailed. The noble Lord opposite told us, indeed, that one single county was responsible for the greater part of these disorders. If that is the case surely there are two conclusions that one may draw. The first is that if the symptoms of disease are so acute, and are concentrated in this particular district, it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to deal with these occurrences just as a sanitary authority would deal with a particularly insanitary, although, perhaps, small area in a great city; and the second is that the mere fact of the trouble being concentrated in a particular district, not, perhaps, a very extensive one, renders

  1105
  it easier for the authorities to deal effectually with it if they set their hand to the task. When, however, we admit that these occurrences are limited to certain parts of Ireland, let us remember that cattle-drives naturally do not take place in parts of Ireland where there are no large herds of cattle to drive. Therefore, I rather doubt whether His Majesty's Government are entitled to take so much credit as they do for the peacefulness of other parts of the country. There is another consideration which should never be lost sight of when we are discussing these matters, and it is this—that there are parts of the country in which things are comparatively quiet, for the reason that intimidation prevails so completely in them that there is no friction or apparent trouble on the surface.
  We lay the responsibility for the condition of things in these eight counties to the charge of His Majesty's Government, because, in the first place, they have most unwisely allowed it to appear that they are to this extent in sympathy with these cattle-driving operations, that the goal which the organisers of those operations desire to reach is the same goal at which they also desire to arrive. That has been laid down again and again in distinct language by the Chief Secretary. At the beginning of the present year he announced that what really occupied his mind and caused him most anxiety was how the grass lands of Ireland could be broken up and distributed among the people who required them for a livelihood. That was, to my mind, a very incautious and thoughtlessly proclaimed policy, because the breaking up of the grass lands all over Ireland means the breaking up of a particular form of industry without which the agricultural system of Ireland regarded as a whole cannot possibly be successful. That is one reason for which we regard His Majesty's Government responsible.
  But there is another reason—a reason which has been dwelt upon by previous speakers this evening. His Majesty's Government have deliberately abandoned the means with which Parliament has provided them for putting down these illegal operations. They have given up the Peace Preservation Act, which one Chief Secretary after another has re-
  1106
  garded as indispensable for the government of Ireland and which they found in operation when they assumed office in certain districts which had been proclaimed, not by Unionist or Conservative Governments, but by Liberal Governments and by Liberal Chief Secretaries. They gave that up. The result is that you find a marked increase in the number of outrages in which firearms have been used. Everybody knew that that result was likely to happen, and it did happen.
  Then there is their failure to avail themselves of the provisions of the Crimes Act and their fatuous desire to rely exclusively upon what they are pleased to call the ordinary law. The Crimes Act is part of the law of the land; it is on the Statute-book, and there are parts of it—parts which would be most effective for putting down cattle-driving—which can be made use of without any proclamation and without resort to anything which can properly be described as inconsistent with the ordinary law of the land. Instead of using this effectual measure, His Majesty's Government are relying upon old Acts of Parliament which differ in this from the Crimes Act that, while their procedure is in certain respects less favourable to the person put upon his trial, on the other hand the penalty imposed is an ineffectual and derisory penalty, while the tribunal is a less efficient tribunal than that to which you can appeal under the Crimes Act. That is the difference between the two. His Majesty's Government have deliberately preferred an old and ineffectual law to the law which is ready to their hand, and which would give them an effectual remedy for the trouble with which they have to deal.
  We were told that on former occasions the application of the Crimes Act had not had the desired effect, and noble Lords opposite declare that they are afraid of setting it in motion because they think its application is likely to increase the volume of crime. My Lords, did it increase the volume of crime when it was set in force before? It has been shown, on the contrary, that the application of the Crimes Act resulted in diminishing the volume of crime. We had an interesting speech, and one which, if no other speech did so, would render

  1107
  this debate memorable, from Lord MacDonnell, and I hope that your Lordships will take note of the statement that fell from him at the outset of his remarks. He told your Lordships, speaking with intimate knowledge not only of the facts as the public knows them, but of the under-currents which were then moving in the Irish political world, that he personally would have been in favour of using what I think he called sharper methods in dealing with the principal instigators of these crimes. But the advice of the trained administrator was brushed aside, and His Majesty's Government preferred to be guided by the advice of their Attorney-General.
  We know what the policy of the Attorney-General in regard to this question has been. It is the policy founded upon what His Majesty's Government are pleased to describe as sympathy with the Irish people. Let me tell them that I for one am deeply convinced that what the Irish people sympathise with more than anything else is a strong Government that knows its own mind. I doubt whether your so-called sympathetic treatment has won you very much genuine affection, certainly not very much genuine respect from the people of Ireland. The noble Lord who spoke for the Irish Office gave us, however, a very candid and very interesting piece of information as to the real reason for which this policy, this feeble policy, was preferred by His Majesty's Government. He told us that the people of Ireland had been led to believe by the public utterances of leading Members of the Liberal Party that His Majesty's Government would refrain from coercive measures. So that it really comes to this, that disorder is to be allowed to remain rampant in eight counties, honest people are to be persecuted and their lives made unbearable, because, forsooth, presumably, before they took office, the leading Members of the Liberal Party had announced that it was their intention to refrain from using those weapons which lay ready to their hand.
  I venture to describe that as a fatuous policy. It is a policy which was initiated as an experimental policy, but the experiment has been a miserable failure. It was recommended by the Attorney-General
  1108
  on the ground that he desired to associate the people with the administration of the criminal law. My Lords, I wonder whether His Majesty's Ministers seriously believe that in County Clare you are likely to get efficient administration of the criminal law by associating the peasantry of that county with that administration. Can the noble Earl who will follow me lay his hand upon his heart and say that with his knowledge of Ireland he believes for a single moment that an attempt to associate the people of County Clare with the administration of the criminal law is likely to serve the interests of order and justice?
  There are not many ways in which you can associate people with the administration of the criminal law. You can make some of them magistrates. You have made a good many of them magistrates in Ireland; some of them are magistrates ex officio. Will the noble Earl tell us that he has found these ex officio magistrates very valuable allies in the administration of the criminal law in County Clare? Another way—and a very valuable way—is to employ the people as jurymen. What do we know of the result of trial by jury in that part of Ireland? Whenever you do associate the people with the administration of the criminal law the result is that they make the criminal law of no effect. I am told—I believe it is the case—that there has not been a single conviction for agrarian crime by a common jury in the West and Midland counties since His Majesty's Government came into office. As to juries, the Irish Government have ceased to rely upon them. They do not dare to put an accused person before a jury. The result is that there have been 413 cases of cattle-driving reported in six months, and in no single case has the accused person been put before a common jury. That is an illustration of the results of endeavouring to associate the people of a disorderly district with the administration of the criminal law in that district.
  We have been told that the object of His Majesty's Government in this exhibition of extraordinary and misplaced leniency is to produce a healthier feeling in the disaffected parts of Ireland. I confess I see no signs of the growth of

  1109
  that healthier feeling. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell us whether his diagnosis differs from mine. But whilst His Majesty's Ministers are waiting for that healthier feeling to grow up, law-abiding citizens are being ill-treated and persecuted and the public is losing that respect for law and order which is a condition of civilised government all over the world. In order to promote that healthier feeling we are to have more Irish legislation. A Bill is to be produced, founded upon the Report of the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Dudley. I shall, of course, not attempt to anticipate the contents of that Bill. I will only say this, that I hope the framers of it will read, mark, learn and inwardly digest not only the main Report of the Commission, but also some of the documents attached to it, and notably the separate Report made by my noble friend on the back benches and another extremely valuable document attached by Sir John Colomb.
  My noble friend Lord Dunraven referred to legislation of another kind, with which I confess I am much more in sympathy—I mean legislation dealing with the question of land purchase. I do not think I should be quite in order if I were to enter at length into that subject. I only desire to express my entire concurrence with what fell from Lord Dunraven and from Lord MacDonnell when they told us that it was all important that no interruption in the steady progress of the purchase of land in Ireland should be allowed to occur.
  But before I sit down let me say this one thing with regard to Irish legislation. Do not believe that any legislation, whether it is the Bill which we are told to expect, dealing with the question of congestion, or any measure dealing with the question of land purchase—do not expect that any legislation affecting Ireland will succeed unless the Government of the day make up their minds to maintain law and order in that country. Your remedial measures will fail if you allow the attention of the public to be distracted from them by the kind of occurrences which are happening every day in Ireland at the present time. Those who are respon-
  1110
  sible for the government of Ireland must be aware that, even in regard to the particular matter of relief for the congested districts, it may be necessary for them to deal with a very firm hand indeed with the forces which operate in Irish agricultural society. It has already been made abundantly clear that there is likely to be a fierce and bitter struggle for the possession of these grass lands between the people who inhabit the congested districts in other parts of Ireland and those who, living in the grazing districts, have not got farms themselves and are described as the landless men. You will have a fierce struggle between those two, and unless you are prepared to hold the balance with a firm hand your legislation will fail. I daresay some of your Lordships may have seen in the newspapers an account of a visit paid by a Government inspector to some untenanted land which had been acquired by His Majesty's Government for the purpose of finding room for people from congested districts, on which occasion the men on the spot rose and I believe, hunted the inspector off the land in such a manner that he had to retire without completing the duty which he had been set to perform. The first duty of His, Majesty's Government is to see that the law is respected and to protect those who obey the law, and if they fail in the future, as I am afraid they have failed in the past, to secure obedience to the law, then I do not believe that any of their remedial measures are likely to have fair play or to be successful.
  *THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, it would be affectation if I were to pretend to be surprised that the subject of the administration of Ireland should once more be debated in your Lordships' House. I make no complaint of the action of the noble Marquess in introducing it, although I am in general agreement with my noble friend behind me and also with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there is some risk that harm may be done both in Ireland and in England by debates of this kind.

  1111
  But on one specific point I do make a very distinct complaint against the noble Marquess. In the course of his speech the noble Marquess challenged my noble friend behind me, Lord MacDonnell, to state his opinion and give a justification of the policy which was pursued when he was Permanent Under-Secretary in Ireland. To do that would be, to my mind, a breach of political propriety. I would like very much to know what the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition would say if, on a question of foreign politics, we were to appeal to Lord Sanderson and call upon him to justify the foreign policy of the Government at the time he was Permanent Secretary. We are all proud to see in this House men like my noble friend and Lord Sanderson, who have filled high positions in the Civil Service, but I do not think any of us are entitled to cross-question them as to the policy pursued by the Departments of which they were formerly members.
  I fully admit that, so far as certain districts in Ireland are concerned, a condition of very considerable gravity prevails, and that, as my noble friend behind me frankly admitted, the condition there is less favourable than it has been during the last two years. But it is necessary to make certain reservations on that point. The noble Lord spoke of eight counties as though the whole were in a condition of active disturbance. That is not the case. The disturbances are sporadic. They break out first in one place and then in another. There are parts of some counties which were much disturbed a year ago and are now in a state that may properly be described as quiet; on the other hand, there are new districts in which disorder has broken out to an active extent. It is necessary, therefore to make that caution.
  It is also necessary to make another caution. The noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Ashbourne, spoke as though crime in Ireland were a fixed quantity, and as though the liquid rose and fell in the tube according to the application of particular legal measures; but crime in Ireland depends, and always has depended, on the particular condition
  1112
  of things at a particular moment. Therefore comparisons of one period with another are of very little value. The noble and learned Lord said triumphantly that when Mr. Long left office Ireland was in a peaceful condition. At that time what I may call the glamour of the Purchase Act was still over Ireland. That glamour has, I am sorry to say, to a considerable extent passed away, particularly from those districts where most disorder now prevails. It would, of course, be a gross exaggeration to speak of the Act as having broken down, although I think one may say that its finance has broken down. There is no doubt that the particular parts of Ireland in which disorder most reigns are not those in which the Act has operated most, or most to the advantage of the inhabitants. Men hear of and see large sales of great estates going on in the prosperous parts of Ireland, while sales in their immediate neighbourhood are conducted slowly and with great difficulty, and this creates a feeling of unrest which at any time is liable to lead to disturbance.
  Then there is a new element in what is called the grass-land question, on which the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition and other noble Lords have spoken. In one sense, at any rate, that is a new question. When Lord Londonderry or I was in Ireland the possibility of dividing up any part of the grazing lands and turning them into holdings was, so far as I know, never contemplated by anybody. Therefore, when you are speaking of criminal statistics you must consider these points of cause and effect. This question of the grass lands has grown up gradually. It was recognised in Mr. Wyndham's Act; Section 8, I think it is, of that Act deals with untenanted land. Then you have had the operations of the Congested Districts Board; and I think it cannot be denied that the provisions of Mr. Wyndham's Act and that action have given an impetus to the feeling, often exaggerated and certainly finding vent in most reprehensible and criminal acts in some cases, that the policy of dividing the grass lands is a policy adopted, not only by this Government, but by the late Government, and

  1113
  that almost any man may hope in time to get a share of a grass farm. It is unfortunate that that should be so.
  I fully recognise the special difficulty of dealing with the whole question to which the noble Marquess who spoke last drew attention. If legislation were passed to-morrow I admit that you do not settle the question as to who the particular people are who may properly be supplied with farms formed out of untenanted land, and you cannot guard against people wanting farms which ought under no circumstances to be turned from the grazing purpose to which they are now put. But we have to admit this grass hunger, if I may use the expression, and it is, so far as I know, responsible for the whole of the disturbances in these eight counties.
  The noble Marquess spoke of the increase of outrages with firearms, and blamed us for having dropped the annual renewal of the Peace Preservation Act. I think we admitted at the time that that was a policy which might very fairly be argued against, and that it might be said by some to be an imprudent step, but I do not think it is possible, as a matter of fact, to establish any connection between the dropping of that Act and the firing outrages which have taken place. After all, when that Act was in full force there were many more, and much worse, firing outrages than there are now. It is perfectly true that the very odious and contemptible form of intimidation known as firing into dwellings has seriously increased. The increase has very largely been in the county of Clare, to which allusion has been made. That county has for many years past had a character of its own. I think we should all have said of County Clare what I daresay my noble friend the Secretary of State for India would say of such a place as Poona—namely, that if there is trouble there it is of a more deep seated and worse kind than in any other part of the country. That has always been the case, certainly within the last forty years, in County Clare, and I will not pause to inquire into what the causes of that may be. As regards the cases of firing into dwellings, it is quite true that people have not been brought to justice. That is because they have not been arrested.
  1114
  It is an offence extremely difficult to bring home to the perpetrator, and therefore it cannot be said that our system of dealing with prosecutions has had any effect so far as this particular class of outrage is concerned.
  Now I come to cattle-driving; and I believe that when the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, said that cattle-driving was anything but a popular practice, he was speaking the whole truth. I think at first cattle-driving was regarded somewhat leniently by a great many people in the districts where it took place; they regarded it as a sort of practical joke, of a violent kind no doubt, but still not much more than a practical joke. I think that what has happened since, and in particular the charge placed for extra police upon the counties, has caused a great many people in the neighbourhood to regard it as anything but a joke. The noble Marquess asked whether in regard to these cattle-driving cases we had been able to obtain any assistance from popular feeling, and he quoted a statement by the Attorney-General for Ireland that if we could associate the people with the administration of justice it would be a very desirable thing to do. The noble Marquess named two instances—the presence on the Bench of ex-officio magistrates and the service of citizens upon juries. As far as regards jury service, I am afraid we cannot profess to have found much improvement. It is a deplorable fact, and has been for many years—certainly in the time of the noble Marquess—that for a very large class of crimes you cannot get juries in Ireland to convict.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: You can if you change the venue, as we did.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid not always then.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: We did.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the noble Marquess must have had his share of failures, too. As regards ex-officio magistrates, it no doubt has been the case that in some instances the presence of

  1115
  ex-officio magistrates who do not do their duty has interfered with the administration of justice. But I am able to give an instance to the contrary which, to my mind, is an encouraging one, because it took place in that very county to which the noble Marquess alluded—County Clare. These forty-three young men, all by general consent respectable—that is to say, I suppose, that they belong to the more or less solid farmer class—were brought up and charged with cattle-driving. The resident magistrate and two ex-officio magistrates, if I remember rightly, were present. The defendants were all bound to the peace and in default of giving the securities all went to gaol, and one of the ex-officio magistrates made a short statement in which he denounced the practice of cattle-driving and declared his adhesion to the principle of the sentence. Of course, noble Lords may say that the sentence was not a severe one, and that this does not amount to very much, but I think it means a good deal considering the circumstances under which it happened, and the place at which it occurred, and to my mind it is a very hopeful sign of a revived spirit of independence among those who are called upon to administer justice in this way.
  We are asked once more why we did not revive, at any rate, one of the provisions of the Act of 1887. The Act of 1887, is one of those measures which is regarded with almost romantic affection by its authors. Both the noble Marquess and the noble and learned Lord have had affectionate experience of that Act, and they would like to see it put into free use. Their regard for it is of the same nature and quality as Mr. Balfour's regard for the Education Act of 1902. The noble and learned Lord is one of the most practised debaters in this House, and in that capacity he went through the familiar operation of begging the entire question. He assumed that if we had applied this particular provision of trial by two magistrates at the beginning of the cattle-driving disorder it would have immediately ceased. That is an assumption about which it is impossible to argue, simply because each person must maintain his own opinion. I do not say that it would not have been
  1116
  possible. Of course, it would have been possible to have put a few more people in prison. But the real force of what the noble and learned Lord said must depend upon what the strength of the movement really was. Lord Clonbrock asked—
  "What is the use of binding people over to peace, for if they do go to gaol, there are always others ready to take their place?"
  It is a remarkable fact that the people who have been bound over to keep the peace have very seldom appeared again in these transactions. Would not that argument also hold good if you sent people to gaol? Does it not show that there is this very large body of people who are prepared to engage in this practice, and it does seem to me an unwarrantable assumption that simply because you were able to send a certain number of people to gaol with hard labour you would necessarily—
  LORD CLONBROCK: They are very often bound over and remain at liberty. They do not go to gaol.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: That is true; but those who are bound over do not take part in subsequent cattle-driving. It seems to me that the assumption is one which the noble and learned Lord is at liberty to make, but one which is not, as a matter of fact, supported by the past history of the country.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: It is supported by the entire history of the administration of the Act.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord there, and I think it is necessary to give one caution, because what fell from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition may in one point be misunderstood. I understood my noble friend Lord MacDonnell to say he would have approved of stronger measures being taken at the outset against those whom he described as the instigators of these outrages. By that I take him to mean the Members of Parliament who made speeches. But do not let it be thought that my noble friend advocated the use of the Crimes Act, because I understood him to say that that is exactly what he did not do.
  LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: Situated as I am now, I would have approved of the more sharp method of dealing with these people. But I did not intend to make any reference to what my approval or disapproval was when I was a servant of the Irish Government.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My noble friend was, I understood, speaking of the instigators of the movement. He did not say anything about different treatment of those who actually took part in the cattle-driving. The alternative which we have chosen and which we maintain is that of the provision of extra police, and we do believe that, as a considerable part of the cost falls upon the districts, it will have a certain effect in turning public attention in the direction of the maintenance of law and order. I should be very sorry to have it supposed that we regard this method or any other method as a panacea, or a perfect system for entirely stopping crime in Ireland. I think the whole history of Ireland shows that whenever there has been an outburst of crime and outrage in relation to a particular movement such as this, accounted for as this can be in all its features and in all its stages, no method has been discovered, and, after all, it is not surprising, for completely dealing with such ebullitions of public feeling. But we think that there is at any rate one method of action which can have no effect. There may be advantages attaching to what we call coercive measures, and there are advantages, as we think, attaching to the plan which we follow; but I am quite certain there can be no advantage in hovering backwards and forwards between the two.
  In this matter you have to take a line and stick to it. As I understand, the line which noble Lords opposite would take would be to repress, and, I suppose, if the repressive measures adopted were not sufficient they would have to apply more repressive measures still. We have taken the line which was, I think, very fairly described by my noble friend in a phrase to which the noble Marquess objected. My noble friend did not say that we were in any way bound, by any obligation to anybody in Ireland, to adopt
  1118
  any particular policy with regard to this matter. That, of course, is not so. We are bound to nobody. But we are anxious, it is perfectly true—and we are not ashamed of it—to administer the Irish Government so far as possible in a sympathetic spirit, and we recognise the very intimate connection which exists between these deplorable and sporadic outbreaks of crime and the question, which has somehow got to be dealt with or solved, of the relief of congestion and, so far as possible, the allocation of at any rate some of the grass lands in Ireland to those who are now insufficiently provided. That, as I say, is the line which we have taken, and to that line we must adhere. It is not the least indifference to the claims of the law or any carelessness about the preservation of order which make us decline to adopt a particular remedy upon which noble Lords opposite lay so much stress.

  INDIANS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  *LORD AMPTHILLrose "(1) to call attention to the imprisonment of Mr. Ghandi and other members of the Indian community in the Transvaal, and to inquire what communications have been received from India by His Majesty's Government on the subject of the treatment of British Indians in South Africa; (2) to inquire whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received any complaints to the effect that Indians thus arrested have been harshly treated and inadequately and improperly fed in the prisons, and, if so, how be has dealt with such complaints; (3) to inquire whether the Traders' Licensing Bills passed by the Legislature of Natal have been submitted for Imperial sanction, and, if so, what action His Majesty's Government intend to take; and (4) to move for papers." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not think me unduly pertinacious in bringing up this question again and will believe that nothing would be more painful to me personally than if my action were so regarded. I feel bound by every consideration of honour, and in pursuance of my duty as a former servant of the Crown in India, to refer to this subject so long as I can hope that

  1119
  any useful purpose may be served by so doing. I wish that I could persuade your Lordships to see this question in the same light in which it appears to me. I do not doubt for one moment that your Lordships feel exactly the same as I do, that you are animated by the strongest sympathy for the Indians in the Transvaal and very sincerely regret that they should have any cause to complain of their treatment under the British flag, but what I do wish is that I could persuade any large body of your Lordships to give expression to those feelings in such a manner as would not only help His Majesty's Government but would also convince our fellow-countrymen in the Transvaal that there is a strong feeling in this country on the question. I see in the continued failure to solve this problem a source of danger to the Empire at large and which may ere long become absolutely uncontrollable. It is the breach in the dyke which is becoming wider and wider—a breach which might in the first instance have been repaired with a few spadefuls of sand, the work of a small child, but which will now require the fevered labour of many people even if it be repaired at all and be made fit to keep out the torrential inrush of the sea.
  What are the broad facts of the situation? I will confine myself to those facts, not only on account of the lateness of the hour, but also because it is the broad facts which are beyond possibility of dispute. I think that they are these:—one of the ostensible reasons why the South African War was waged was the redress of the grievances of our Indian fellow-subjects in the Transvaal, grievances which formed the subject of the most indignant protest on the part of our leading statesmen. The result of the South African war was to place the Imperial Government in the position of being able to redress those grievances. But what has actually happened? It is clear that the grievances still remain and that they must be a great deal more acute than they were before. Under the rule of the South African Republic the Indians were discontented, but there was no question of their having to suffer imprisonment, deprivation of property, banishment,
  1120
  and every kind of indignity rather than submit to the laws. That, my Lords, is what they are doing now rather than submit to laws which have been passed under the British flag, under the British Government. These Indians are not suffragettes or Socialists who are encouraged in a political agitation by the certainty of notoriety and of the applause of a considerable body of people. They have nobody to applaud them, they can hope for no notoriety which would be any satisfaction to them. Theirs is not a struggle for any sort or kind of political rights. They know full well that it would be absolutely futile for them to attempt anything of the kind. No, what they are fighting for, what they are struggling for is their very existence.
  The tendency and, I am bound to say it, the real object, as it seems to me, of recent legislation in the Transvaal has been nothing more nor less than the extermination of the community of Indians who are resident there. With each successive surrender of the Imperial Government, with each successive diplomatic defeat, the success of this policy becomes more and more assured, and it is because its success has become so very nearly complete that the Indians have been driven to these courses, to suffer anything in order to save their community from actual extermination. What is the professed policy of the Colonial Government? I will endeavour to state it as nearly as I can in the actual words of the High Commissioner, Lord Selbourne, who was good enough to write to me on the subject. He said—
  "Our policy is to treat the Indians who are now resident in the Transvaal with every possible consideration, but not to admit any more, that is, of course, subject to reasonable exceptions."
  Now the Indians themselves have no objection to that policy. They are perfectly ready to accept that policy, and that being so there is no reason why we should not accept it ourselves. All that they ask, and all that those who think with me ask on their behalf, is that that policy should be actually carried out, and that the methods by which it is carried out should be fair.
  Now we come to the question as to what are the methods. How is con-

  1121
  sideration shown to the Indians in the Transvaal? It is shown to them by legislation which has driven them to passive resistance, and to a ready acceptance of all the cruel consequences of their passive resistance. How has the question of immigration been treated? It has been made, what it never was before, absolute; that is to say, not limited by any real exception. There is a nominal exception, it is true, and that is in favour of ruling chiefs from India or high officials of Asiatic descent. But is it conceivable that any Indian chief, that any ruling prince of India, would pay a visit to Natal in order, forsooth, to be insulted as a "coolie," for even the Ministers, the statesmen of the Colony, do not hesitate so to stigmatise the well-born, highly-educated men of high caste who lead the Indian community. It follows from what I have just said that there are two questions. The first is that of the treatment of the Indians resident in the Colony, the treatment of Indians who have a right to be there, who were there before the war, and whose right to be there has been admitted over and over again. The second question is that of future immigration. Those two questions must be kept absolutely separate, and I do not propose, on account of the late hour, to enter into details of either of them, but I will go on at once to what would have been the conclusion of the argument on which I should otherwise have embarked. I will ask you how could the present situation have been averted in regard to each and either of those two questions?
  In regard to the first question, that of the treatment of resident Indians, I say that the present situation might have been averted by the repeal of the registration law. Why should that registration law not have been repealed? Your Lordships will remember that the Indians voluntarily submitted to giving the finger-impressions and to registering as the result of a compromise which was arrived at in January. They say that the condition on which they made this voluntary agreement was the repeal of the Registration Act. The Colonial Ministers say that no such promise was made. It is, therefore, a question
  1122
  of which of the two sides you believe. I have no hesitation whatever in believing the Indian statement as to the conditions and I hold that on prima facie evidence it is hardly to be doubted. On what other conceivable condition could the Indians have voluntarily submitted to that which they have declared to be intolerable and humiliating to them under the compulsion of the Act unless it was the repeal of the compulsory law which caused them such indignity and humiliation? So far as I can see that is the only possible understanding on which they could have submitted to that compromise.
  But even supposing that no promise was made, why should this Act not have been repealed during the last few months? It is no longer needed. The Transvaal Government have got all the Indians entered on their register. They know how many there are in the Colony for they have all come forward and submitted to registration. That, I think, was the original purpose and only professed intention of the Government—to ascertain how many Indians there were, who they were, and what they were. They have got that information, and so the Act has served its purpose and might very well have been repealed. If there were any goodwill, if there were any generosity towards the community, who have no votes, no political power, and are absolutely in the hands and under the control of the white colonists, surely that might have been done in order to avoid the present deplorable situation.
  In regard to the question of future immigration, how might the present situation have been averted? I think that might have been done by allowing reasonable exceptions to the restriction of immigration. The position is this. The Indians are quite content to abide by the immigration law of last year as interpreted by the Courts, and if not worked in connection with this Registration Act, the repeal of which they say was promised. They are not only prepared to abide by the educational test, but they go further. They say: "Make that educational test as strict as you like; add to it if you will a condition that only a limited number of Indians, even as few as six, may enter

  1123
  in any year, and we shall make no further complaint. We shall feel ourselves bound by honour not to ask for more, and to agree with what you have done. All we want is that those few people who are necessary for the continued life of our community, without whom our community must perish, that is to say, the few doctors and lawyers and priests whom we require, should be allowed to enter the Colony. That is all we ask." I think this a concession which might have been made.
  Now I pass rapidly to the question which is naturally asked by every thinking man with whom you discuss this question. What can the Secretary of State, what can His Majesty's Government, do? I appreciate to the full the difficulties in which the noble Earl finds himself placed. His position is that all the opportunities of refusing consent to the progress of oppressive legislation have already been given away, and all the opportunities of bargaining which formerly existed have equally been lost. But, nevertheless, knowing the noble Earl as I do, I do not despair of his being able to make use of those great qualities which we have learned to know and to admire in this House. The noble Earl has behind him the general power and influence of the Imperial Government, and that power and influence would exist even if in the case of Indians it were not most specially reserved under the Constitution which was granted to the Transvaal Colony.
  But supposing there were no reserved powers; supposing that we had not even that shadowy power of "suzerainty" by which we were able to oblige the South African Republic to treat Indians moderately, we should still have the power which we should exercise in the case of a foreign country with which, as might be imagined, we had a treaty or agreement that they should treat the citizens of the British Empire with justice and consideration. Or, imagine even that we had no such treaty and that in any foreign country our fellow-subjects were ill-treated, oppressed, driven out of the country, banished, deprived of their means of livelihood, of the fortunes and incomes they had built up during the course of many years residence; supposing that these things were done to
  1124
  them, do your Lordships imagine for one moment that we should not take such steps as were necessary to bring about a fairer treatment of those fellow subjects of ours? But surely, my Lords, we should not be taking any of the risks which would be involved in so dealing with a foreign country if we were to negotiate with the colonists of the Transvaal. We take risks, as your Lordships know, on behalf of persecuted communities and oppressed nationalities for whom we have no responsibility whatever. We are willing to take risks, the most extreme risks, if it is a matter, say, of persecuted Armenians or of natives of the Congo, but surely we run no risks of that kind in dealing with the colonists of the Transvaal. If they are indeed British, as we have been so loudly and frequently assured they have become since they received their Constitution, surely they have the honour of our race at heart; surely they have the honour of this nation, of the Imperial Government at heart, and would never wish to bring about the violation of pledges which have been made before the world and civilised mankind over and over again. Surely they must see that it cannot be to their interests to jeopardise the peace and the security of the Empire by producing, as I tell your Lordships with all sincerity and earnestness I believe they may do, very much greater and far more serious discontent in India than exists at the present time.
  But even if they do not see these things, if they do not regard—and I think they must if it were put to them rightly—these questions of honour and expediency, surely they must know that it cannot be to their own ultimate and larger interests that there should be disturbance of internal peace and that there should be controversy within the British Empire.
  I know that a Blue Book has just been published; I have only just obtained a copy and have not had time to read it; but, nevertheless, I have thought it best not to postpone my several specific questions because I hold that a statement from the Secretary of State will be more widely read and will carry greater weight than the official despatches in any Blue-Books. I

  1125
  trust that that which the Secretary of State may have to say will be of an encouraging nature and may lead us to hope that even now, in spite of the latest most anxious and disquieting news, there is hope of some generous concession on the part of the Transvaal Government, something that may lead to a solution of this most difficult, and to my mind most anxious problem.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the imprisonment of Mr. Gandhi and other members of the Indian community in the Transvaal."—(Lord Ampthill.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry that the noble Lord was obliged to bring this matter on at so late an hour, partly because I should have liked him to have had a fuller House in dealing with this very interesting subject, and partly also because the fact that a Blue Book was published to-day does seem to me to make it a little premature to raise a discussion on this subject in the House. At the same time I quite appreciate the noble Lords' desire to hear a statement which, under the circumstances, will be a very brief one, by me upon the subject. I think, if the noble Lord will forgive me, there is need for great caution in approaching this question. Of all unfortunate things that could happen, it seems to me the most unfortunate that we should appear to be taking sides over this question, either in this House, or elsewhere, and divide ourselves into two classes of pro-English and pro-Indians. That would be, in my mind, an entirely false way of looking at this which is an instance of one of the very greatest of the difficulties that confront those who have to take part in the government of this great Empire, viz., the relations between the white and the coloured races that inhabit different parts of it.
  I do not know that at this moment there is a more difficult and anxious problem of government than that, and I am sorry therefore, that the noble Lord, whose enthusiasm on behalf of those whom he served so well, I can quite comprehend, seemed to go somewhat far, I will not say in taking sides, but in making imputations against the Colonial Govern-
  1126
  ment in this matter. For instance, the noble Lord said it appeared to him that the object of the Transvaal Government was to exterminate the Indian colony there. I have followed closely, of course, the various phases of the difficulty, and I do not think that is an expression which can in any way be justified by what the Colonial Government have done. In the second place, the noble Lord alluded to a difference of opinion on a matter of fact which had taken place between the Indian leaders and the Colonial Secretary for the Transvaal. The noble Lord said that obviously one party was not speaking the truth, and the party he believed was not the Indian party. I think the noble Lord might have reflected that where a diametrically different account of a conversation or of conversations is given by two parties, it is possible that the fact may be due to a misunderstanding and not to wilful mendacity on one side or the other, and I am sorry that the noble Lord should have made a charge of that kind, which I am certain it is impossible to support.
  So far as the imprisonment of Mr. Gandhi, which I very greatly regret, is concerned, I have no official knowledge of it, no knowledge of it beyond what I have seen in the newspapers, but I have telegraphed to the Transvaal in order to find out what the particular circumstances connected with Mr. Gandhi's imprisonment were. I assume, of course, that he has been taking part in that passive resistance campaign and that he has paid the penalty which no doubt he intended to pay for a breach of the existing law. I do not desire at this moment to enter into the very complicated question of the controversy which has taken place, and I do not think it would be fair of the House to do so, but I should like to say one word upon what fell from the noble Lord with regard to the question of exceptions of entry in the cases of Indians who were not domiciled in the Transvaal before the war. I have not been able entirely to understand whether the Indian community demanded generally the entrance of those who were able to pass an education test, or whether, first, they adopted the very much milder proposal which, I understand, the noble Lord makes, viz., that a very small number

  1127
  of Indians should be admitted to fulfil certain functions which obviously could not be filled by replacing from the community—such classes as lawyers and priests. So far as I am able to judge from seeing the papers for a considerable time the demand was for a general entrance of Indians who were able to pass a high education test, and that, I fancy, is a point on which it would be altogether impossible to induce the Transvaal Government to give way, and I understand that the noble Lord, on behalf of his friends, abandons that.
  But as regards the admission of a few people of a special kind, the case in my opinion is an entirely different one. The noble Lord spoke of exceptions as applying only to native chiefs of high rank and persons of distinction, but the noble Lord will recognise that in the last Act there is power given to the Governor to make exceptions of a general kind, and I think it would be very reasonable, and I have expressed that view in communicating with the Government, that some kind of undertaking might be given that the people specially admitted by the Governor, that is to say, by the Government acting in Council, from time to time should comprise a sufficient number of those of the professional classes to supply the wastage which from time to time must take place in the community. That is a point on which I hope a really satisfactory arrangement may be reached.
  The noble Lord next asks whether we have received any complaints to the effect that the Indians arrested have been harshly treated and inadequately fed in prison. I did receive a complaint of the kind stating that there had been cases of great hardship, including that of old persons and children at various places having been placed in rooms which were not clean and not having had the food that they required. I immediately telegraphed the Governor of the Transvaal to find out what the truth was of those statements and to ask for a report by telegraph. I have not yet that report; when I receive it I shall be happy to communicate it to the noble Lord opposite.
  Then the noble Lord asks a third question on which he said nothing, but
  1128
  which, perhaps, he might like me to answer. It refers to the Traders' Licensing Bills passed by the Legislature of Natal. Three Bills were introduced into the Natal Legislature. The effect of the first was to prohibit indentured labour from 30th June, 1911. That was a Bill which undoubtedly would have lain within the competence of the Natal Government to undertake, but the Bill has, as a matter of fact, been dropped altogether. The second Bill, which we have not yet seen in its complete and final form, forbids any licence to trade being given to an Indian after 31st December, 1908, and the third provides for the total extinction of all Indian licences after the lapse of ten years. As soon as I received the intimation that those Bills had been introduced I wrote a despatch and sent it to the Governor of Natal drawing attention to the nature of the Bills and explaining that it was exceedingly improbable that we should be able to advise His Majesty to assent to the provisions of the last two. I thought it desirable to give a warning of that kind immediately, but I have not yet received the Bills in their final form, and when they do arrive we shall be able to give them our full attention. The noble Lord finishes up by moving for Papers, but he will understand that he has just got one lot and will not be in a hurry to ask for any more just at this moment. We will keep him supplied with all the information we can.
  Motion by leave, withdrawn.

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS ACT.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, who had given notice to ask whether Treasury instructions issued in regard to the Old-Age Pensions Act are held to have the force of regulations; and, if so, whether such instructions will be laid on the Table of the House," said: Your Lordships will remember that under the Old-Age Pensions Act a large part of the administration is to be effected by means of regulations which were to be drawn jointly by the Treasury, the Post Office, and the Local Government Board. A certain set of regulations have been promulgated and have been laid on the

  1129
  Table in due course according to the provisions of the Act. But the Treasury has issued certain instructions. I am not now speaking of instructions to servants or officials of the Treasury—that is a different matter altogether—but of instructions which are issued to pension committees and sub-committees, and also, indirectly, to county clerks. I want to know whether those instructions are held to have the force of regulations, because if so it would appear that they ought to be laid upon the Table, and if they are not to have the force of regulations then I should like to know whether they have any force at all.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: The Question that my noble friend has asked is a very natural one because it relates to a matter which is of very great interest and importance to every authority under the Pensions Act in the country, and is being, undoubtedly, very closely watched and for obvious reasons, by them. Under the Pensions Act, as my noble friend has pointed out, there are certain regulations which are made under subsections 1 to 3 of Section 10 of the Act which deal with a very great number of important matters in the administration of the Act, or at least mainly deal with important questions in the administration of the Act by those authorities. It stands to reason that those authorities, in administering the Act, will incur certain expense, and the question has immediately arisen whether the local authorities are going to be kept in pocket by the Treasury, or whether they, in the first instance, have to bear the pecuniary burden and then, as in other instances, be recouped by the Treasury.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Is not that done in a regulation and not by instructions?
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I am coming to that. I am only explaining, in the first instance, what the regulations are. It stands to reason that there must be some method and form in regard to the payment and repayment of these sums, and it is in regard to this matter of the repayment of the sums by the Treasury that these instructions have been given. They are not regulations under subsections 1 to 3 of Section 10 of
  1130
  the Act, and therefore, they do not come within the rule which my noble friend has mentioned, viz., that they ought to be laid before Parliament. But a copy of the instructions is being presented to the other House, and as I have said they deal exclusively with the amount of the administration expenses of the committees, which may be charged against the Votes of the House of Commons, and the manner in which such expenses are to be paid. It is not usual in a case of this kind, which deals with a purely financial matter, for a document of that kind to be laid before this House. That I am informed on high authority. But the instructions are going to be laid before the other House, and at the same time I shall be exceedingly glad, on behalf of the Treasury, to communicate a copy of the instructions to my noble friend, if he desires to see them, at once.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Earl has not answered the second part of my Question. As these instructions are not regulations and it is not necessary to lay them as he says on the Table of this House, what force, if any, have those instructions? They are not regulations under the Act. In what way has the Act authorised the issue of those instructions; and those instructions, being, as I know them to be, not merely relative to finance, but giving directions not only to pension committees and sub-committees, but also to officials of the county councils, have they any force?
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I was in hope I had made that clear. The Treasury has power to issue instructions under the general power which the Board has in all cases to give instructions of that kind where it is dealing with monies voted by Parliament. The Treasury is the great financial office of the country, and if my noble friend will refer to subsection 4 of Section 10 he will find that the matter is dealt with.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But the money is the money of county councils; it is not public money.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: The instructions are drawn up to regulate the repayment to the county councils of

  1131
  money spent in the first instance by them, and, of course, it is entirely to the advantage of the county council to have those instructions issued by the Treasury. The county councils—I am speaking, for a moment, as a county councillor—naturally desire to get the money back as soon as they possibly can, and to be informed at the very earliest day as to what method they are to pursue in order to get that money back.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I will not pursue the matter further now, but shall probably take an early opportunity of calling your Lordships' attention to these instructions before they were issued to county councils. I received one myself as chairman of a county council, and I merely wanted to know whether there is any necessity on my part to pay any attention to them.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: The answer to that is that the county councils desire to get their money back, and to get it back as soon as possible. It is entirely in their own interests to comply as rapidly as possible with the instructions which have been issued by the Treasury with a view to getting the whole of this matter forward as quickly as possible.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Allow me to ask the noble Lord what power has the Treasury to demand advances from county councils. The noble Lord says that these instructions are for the repayment of certain monies spent by the county councils. What I want to know is, what authority the Treasury has to command money to be advanced by the county councils.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I believe the Treasury take the view that the sections of the Act to which I have referred, and the Act of Parliament as a whole, gives them the power of making that regulation, but if either of my noble friends has any doubt on the question he is, of course, fully justified in raising it in this House, and I shall do my best to give him a further reply.
  House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.