Sitting of 27 October 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: From Andover; Barkston Ash; Barnsley; Berkeley Vale; Birkenhead; Brighton and Hove; Bristol; Bury; Caerphilly; Chatham and Rochester; Chester; Derby; Festiniog; Forest of Dean; Gloucestershire; Graves-end and Northfleet; Hendon; Hey wood; High Wycombe; Hindley; Hitchin; Lambeth; Leigh; Liverpool; Loughborough; Maidstone; Middlesex; Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Nidderdale; North Northumberland; Norwich; Richmond (Surrey); Salisbury; Sleaford; South-East Essex; Stroud; Taunton and West Somerset; Tees Side; Walthamstow; and, Warwickshire; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Birmingham (three); Glasgow; Ilkley (two); and, Liverpool (three); to lie upon, the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CATTLE DRIVES (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 23rd October] to be printed. No. 310.]
  UGANDA RAILWAY.
  Copy presented, of Return showing I. the Capital Expenditure on the Uganda Railway: II. the Charge involved upon the Exchequer by the Capital Expenditure; III. the Gross and Not Earnings of the Line for each year since it was opened [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CROWN LANDS ACT, 1906.
  Copy presented, of Second Report by the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries as a Commissioner of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, by virtue of the Crown Lands Act, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  West Usk Gas Buoy—Cost of Upkeep.
  MR. MCARTHUR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade why he has sanctioned the erection of West Usk gas buoy on the offer of Newport port authority to contribute only one-third of the cost, seeing that it is an admitted principle that local lights should be paid for by the local authority, and it had previously been agreed by the Board of Trade, Trinity House, and the Advisory Committee that the light in question was a local one.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Under the Merchant Shipping Acts the Trinity House are (subject to the powers or rights of local lighthouse authorities) responsible for the superintendence and management of all lights throughout England and Wales and the adjacent seas and islands. It is sometimes a matter of considerable difficulty to draw the line between expenditure on light that should properly fall on the General Lighthouse Fund and that which should fall on local lightning authorities. Both the Board of Trade and Trinity House objected to the proposal to defray the whole of the proposed expenditure on replacing the West Usk buoy by
  44
  a lighted buoy out of the General Lighthouse Fund, on the ground that the buoy is within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Newport port authority and that the expenditure would be for the benefit only of ships trading to and from that port. As, however, the Trinity House already perform lighting duties within this district and maintain the West Usk unlighted buoy, which it is now proposed to replace, I considered that the General Lighthouse Fund and the port authority might properly share the expenditure, and eventually an arrangement was arrived at under which one-third of the cost is to be repaid by the port authority. The Advisory Committee consented to waive their objection to this arrangement, without prejudice to their views on the general principle.

  Housing Question—Case of George Barton, of Tendring.
  MR. LEVY LEVER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of George Barton, of Tendring, Essex, who is required to give up possession of his cottage after a tenancy of fifteen years, although he is unable to obtain another suitable dwelling in the neighbourhood; and whether the Housing Bill will make provision for such cases so as to enable the labourers to remain in the villages.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. My attention has not been drawn to the case referred to, but as regards the last part of the Question I hope and believe, as I have said before, that the result of the Bill will be that cottages will be provided by local authorities where they are required, and that, consequently, in any such case as that mentioned the tenant will be able to obtain another suitable dwelling in the locality.

  Housing, Town Planning, &c., Bill.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the President of the Local; Government Board if he can make any statement as to progress with the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Bill, in view of the fact that during the past ten days summonses to Members to attend the

  45
  Grand Committee have been twice issued and withdrawn.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am sorry that it was necessary to postpone the meetings of the Committee, but circumstances arose which rendored this unavoidable. I am glad to say, however, that considerable progress has been made with the Bill, and I hope that the consideration of the part of it which relates to housing will shortly be concluded.

  Loans for Public Works.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will give a list of the loans for works of public utility connected with the question of unemployment for which sanction has been given since August, specifying in each case the local authority and the amount of the loan; and if he has been furnished by local authorities with any approximate estimate of the numbers likely to be employed.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I will send my hon. friend a list of loans sanctioned since the 1st August in respect of works which the local authorities concerned have stated would afford work for the unemployed. My hon. friend will understand that the list is confined to those cases in which the statement referred to has been expressly made by the local authorities, and that many other loans have been sanctioned for works of public; utility during the period which will undoubtedly afford employment to persons who would otherwise be unemployed. The local authorities have not furnished sufficient particulars to enable me to give the estimate asked for in the last part of the Question.

  Unemployment in London.
  MR. GOULDING: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the estimated percentage of unemployed men in London compared with the adult male population.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) It is not practicable to estimate the number of unemployed men in London with any degree of accuracy; but I may state that the number of applications registered by the Distress Committee since the registers
  46
  were opened last month, up to the 21st October, was 16,910. Some of these may have found work in the meantime. The number of men on the registers of the Metropolitan employment exchanges on the 21st of this month was 7,952. I am also informed that 6,178, or 9·3 per cent., of the members of trade unions in London, making returns to the Board of Trade, were out of employment at the end of September. I am not in a position to state how far the same persons are included in more than one of those numbers. The number of male persons of sixteen years of ago and upwards in London is estimated to be 1,505,000.

  Speed of Motor Vehicles.
  MR. MACKAENESS: Te ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state how many applications made by local authorities since 1905 for the limitation of the speed of motor vehicles have been refused by the Local Government Board, and on what grounds they were refused.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) In some instances since 1905 where an order has been issued limiting the speed of motor cars, it has not extended to the whole of the roads included in the application, as on investigation this appeared to be unnecessary, but only two applications have been altogether refused. In one of these, the application related to the whole of an urban district. The district council subsequently made a further application confined to certain roads, and the order was issued. In the other case, the evidence at the local inquiry which I caused to be held on the subject was generally to the effect that there would be little or no advantage in the proposed limitation of speed.

  Keighley Distress Committee.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has received an application from the Keighley Corporation to form a distress committee; if such application was refused; and, if so, for what reasons
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The facts are as stated in the Question. It is not, I think, desirable to constitute a distress committee in the smaller districts unless the circumstances are such as to

  47
  render it essential that a special body should be set up to cope with the distress. In this instance it does not appear to me to have been shown, at present, that this is the case.

  Distress Committees.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board how many, and what, authorities asked to be allowed to create distress committees; and how many such applications were granted by his Board.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, distress committees were to be set up, outside London, in boroughs and urban districts, with populations exceeding 50,000. In boroughs and urban districts containing smaller populations distress committees could only be set -up on the application of the council, with the consent of the Local Government Board. Since the Act passed applications have been received from fifty-eight localities (thirty-two boroughs and twenty-six urban districts) for the establishment of distress committees. Orders setting up these committees have been issued in fourteen cases, in thirty-three cases they have been refused, and in the remaining eleven cases the application has been dropped or withdrawn by the local authority.

  Distress Committees and Relief of Unemployed.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will circularise all distress committees advising them generally as to what description of work might be usefully put in hand for the relief of the unemployed.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I do not think I could usefully issue such a circular as is suggested. The work which can be undertaken in a case in which there is exceptional distress must be determined by the circumstances of the particular place. In any such case the better course usually is for the town or urban district council to set on foot useful work which is needed in the locality, and for the distress committee to arrange with them to supply unskilled labour from workmen on their register.

  Unemployment—The President of the Local Government Board's Letter to the London County Council.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a similar letter to the one sent by him to the London County Council on the 28th September last was also sent to all other local authorities; and, if not, whether it is his intention to do so.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The reply to the Question is in the negative. I have had many opportunities, of which I have availed myself, of impressing upon the local authorities of distressed districts the importance of expediting the provision of work, but I have not thought it necessary to issue a circular to all local authorities on the subject.

  Old-Age Pension Regulations
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a man who had been in receipt of out-door relief, if otherwise qualified, would be able to claim an old-age pension if he, his relations, friends, or a charitable institution refunded the total amount he had received from the guardians.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) This matter, with some others which have arisen under the recent Act and which involve legal considerations, is receiving attention, but I am not in a position at present to give a definite answer with regard to it.

  Questions to Applicants for Work
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of simplifying and rendering less inquisitorial the questions put to applicants for work under the Unemployed Workmen Act.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I considered this matter shortly after I became President of the Local Government Board, and I caused the questions to be put to applicants for work to be modified. I do not think that any further modification is required. It is necessary that particulars should be supplied in some detail to the distress committees to enable them to discharge

  49
  the duty imposed on them of discriminating between applications made to them.

  Restrictions Under the Unemployed Workmen Act.
  MR. JAMES PARKER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in view of the fact that the removal of the restriction that no person must be found work under the Unemployed Workmen Act more than once in two years, and also of the disqualification attaching to the receipt of Poor Law relief, the number of eligible applicants will be largely increased, he is prepared to advise the Government to increase the proposed grant.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) As was stated by the Prime Minister on Wednesday last, the Government propose that the amount of the grant should be increased. The amount spent last year was about £150,000, and the Government propose in the first instance that a sum of £300,000 should be made available.

  Motor Car Speed Limits.
  MR. MACKARNESS: TO ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can say how many applications have been made at any time by local authorities under Section 8 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, for the prohibition or restriction of motor traffic on special roads; and in how many cases the applications have been refused.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Thirty-three applications have been received in all. Of those twelve have boon withdrawn or dropped and four are now under consideration. In twelve cases orders have been issued, and in five cases the application has been refused.

  Old-Age Pensions and Poor Relief.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if an Army or other public pensioner whose pension is paid quarterly and who receives from a board of guardians weekly relief between the receipt of his quarter's pension, such sums being deducted from the pension and handed to the guardians by the authorities, is thereby disqualified for an old-age pension on the ground of having received poor relief.
  50
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The point involved is included amongst those upon which I am at present taking legal advice, so that I cannot at this moment give a definite reply.

  Chinese Seamen and the Language Test.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, when the steamers "Marypark," "Ethelaida," "Aislaby," "Wilberforce" and "Gresham" were engaging a crew of Chinamen at the port of Barry, a number of Chinese seamen were rejected as they were unable to pass the language test; if he is aware that the same Chinamen were signed on the above-named ships at the port of Cardiff although rejected at Barry; and if he will cause inquiries to be made with regard to this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I understand that five Chinese seamen who came up for engagement on the "Wilberforce" were rejected at Barry, but that no rejection of Chinese took place at that port in the case of the other vessels named. The only one of the five vessels for which Chinese seamen were engaged at Cardiff was the "Aislaby." In that case seven Chinese passed the language test and twelve were rejected. The information received by the Board of Trade does not show that any of the seven Chinamen who passed the test had been previously rejected at Barry.

  Signing-on of Inexperienced Seamen.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that James Pinto, a Lascar, native of Karwar, India, was rejected at the Barry Mercantile Marine Office when about to sign on the steamer "Ethelreda" on the 25th July, 1908, on the grounds that he was unable to satisfy the superintendent that he had had sufficient sea service under Section 27 (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, to sign on as cook; whether he is aware that on the same day Pinto was allowed by the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Cardiff to sign in the same vessel as ship's cook; whether he is aware that the same James Pinto was discharged at Newport on the 14th September, 1908, being rated as ship's cook; and whether

  51
  he will cause inquiries to be made as to why this man was allowed to sign on when unable to comply with Section 27 (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906.
  (Answered, by Mr. Churchill.) I understand that the seaman referred to by my hon. friend attended the Barry Mercantile Marine Office for engagement as ship's cook on the ss. "Etheldreda," but did not then sign articles, as he could not prove that he was "duly certificated" within the meaning of Section (27) 2 of the Mercantile Shipping Act, 1906. He was, however, subsequently engaged as cook on the vessel at the Cardiff Mercantile Marine Office, the master explaining that he had endeavoured to obtain the services of a cook with the qualifications required by Section 27, but had failed to do so. The date and place of the seaman's discharge are as stated. The officers of the Board of Trade have no power to prohibit the engagement of an unqualified cook, but I am prepared to institute proceedings in cases where the master or owner of a ship has failed to comply with Section 27 without sufficient reason. In the present case, however, the superintendent at Cardiff has reported that, in his opinion, the master's explanation was a reasonable one.

  Estate Duty in Scotland.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Lord - Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that the decision in Gunning's case, 44 S. L. R., page 514, is being used in Scotland by the finance authorities, under the Finance Act of 1894, to the detriment of the people of Scotland as compared with the other countries of the United Kingdom; whether he is aware that the estates of widows which have been unrevoked donations between husband and wife are being called upon to pay double estate duty, whereas in England such estates would be called upon to pay only one estate duty under the Finauce Act; and whether he will take steps to advise the Exchequer to have this inequality removed.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) The inequality to which the question refers is a natural and proper consequence of the fact that the law of Scotland, unlike the law of England, gives a husband power to revoke at any time a donation made
  52
  by him to his wife. It is by reason of this power of revocation that in Scotland the donation forms part of the property of which the husband is at the time of his death competent to dispose within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1894, and is accordingly chargeable with estate duty on his death.

  The Stewardship of the Hundred of Uchaf.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury who is now the steward of the Crown Lordship of the Hundred of Uchaf, in the county of Carnarvon, and what are his emoluments.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) Mr. William Henry More, Crown Receiver for Wales, is steward of the Crown Lordship of Uchaf. He receives an allowance of £2 12s. 6d. for each Court held, which includes refreshments for the juries.

  New Scheme for Boy Clerks.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: TO ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when the new scheme governing the future appointment of boy clerks in the Civil Service will come into force.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I cannot state the exact date, but it is hoped that the new scheme will be brought into operation on the occasion of the next competition for boy clerkships.

  Extension of Lighthouse Jetty at Fair Isle.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the estimated cost of a harbour or breakwater at Fair Isle has been considered prohibitive, inquiry will be made if it would be possible, by arrangement with the Northern Lights Commissioners, to strengthen and extend the lighthouse jetty.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The islanders approached the Northern Lights Commissioners in December, 1907, and have been informed that on their furnishing plans, specifications, and estimates the question will be considered.

  Old-Age Pension Regulations.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has issued, or proposes to issue, regulations or instructions which would assist claimants to pensions or trustees of charitable funds with respect to the cases in which, and the extent to which, the receipt of a pension from a charitable fund would disqualify for a pension under the Act; if not, how is it contemplated to deal with the difficulties arising in such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George) No, Sir. The case of such allowances seems to me to be entirely governed by the provisions of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act, and there would appear to be no reason for differentiating a pension received from such sources from other money income. The question whether any particular allowance is one which a claimant may "reasonably expect to receive during the succeeding year" is one to be determined upon the facts in each case by the pension committee.

  Transfers of Inland Revenue Licences.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if a person dies who has paid the taxes due for carriages, dogs, etc., and those pass into the possession of a member of his family living in the house in which the deceased person had lived, it is the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue to exact payment of taxes from the new owner in the same year.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The general practice of the Board of Inland Revenue is in conformity with Section 26 of 32 and 33 Vic, cap. 14, whereunder establishment licences are transferable to the executors or widow of a deceased person, but to no one else.

  The Unemployed—Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer which departments would have to present the Supplementary Estimates made necessary by the proposals for dealing with the unemployed; and what would be the amount in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am not at present aware that any Supple-
  54
  mentary Estimate will be required in connection with those proposals, except the Estimate for the additional grant of £100,000 for expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, which in ordinary course will be presented by the Treasury early in next session.

  Position of Dr. Haffkine.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Dr. Haffkine has been reinstated in employment under the Government of India; and whether his duties are restricted exclusively to research work.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Answer to both parts of the Question is in the affirmative.

  Spread of Plague by Rats in India.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the observations of Lieutenant-Colonel A. Buchanan, I.M.S, on the propagation of plague in India by means of rats, and to his conclusion that the best way to prevent plague in India is the any this by keeping cats; and whether Government of India have formed opinion as to the soundness of conclusion.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Secretary of State is aware that Lieutenant-Colonol Buchanan, in letters appearing in the Indian newspapers, has recommended the public to set greater store on cats as the simplest way of keeping down rats. In urging this Colonel Buchanan is not opposed to other methods of prevention. The Secretary of State is not aware that the Government of India have formed any opinion on the subject.

  Legal Costs of Local Councils at Mullingar, Delvin, and Coole.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain and state the total law costs incurred each year and in the whole period since 1883 by the boards of guardians and rural district councils, respectively, of Mullingar, Delvin, and Coole, showing the amount of this chargeable to the

  55
  working of the Labourers Acts and the amount chargeable to other purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have sent to the hon. Member the information for which he asks. This information is contained in tabular statements comprising several pages of figures, with which it does not seem desirable to encumber the Parliamentary records.

  Artillery Range Accommodation.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is making any provision for the urgent need of more artillery range accommodation; and if he has considered the suitability of Cannock Chase for an artillery range.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Cannock Chase has not been specially considered for an artillery range. As I explained to the House on Monday last, the question of obtaining artillery ranges has been and is still being fully considered.

  Shortage of Subaltern Officers.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many subaltern officers have been got for the Special Reserve (old Militia), not already serving in the Militia six months ago, during the last six months and during the last throe months; and if he proposes to make it easier for young men who are going into a civilian profession to become officers of the Special Reserve.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Twelve subalterns have been appointed to the Special Reserve of officers during the last six months, of whom ten were appointed during the last three months. In reply to the latter part of the Question, I am advised that it would not be wise to lower the conditions of entry into the Special Reserve.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many subaltern officers is the Special Reserve short of its establishment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The shortage of subalterns amounts to a total of 1,595.

  Clubs and the Licensing Bill.
  MR. WALKER: To ask the Prime Minister when he will announce the terms of the Amendments to the club clauses of the Licensing Bill, which he adumbrated some months ago in reply to a deputation when he was still Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I hope the Amendments will appear in the Paper in the course of a few days.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Royal Marines Meritorious Service Annuities.
  MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, considering the encouragement which the annual grant of £400 a year in annuities not exceeding £20, and the granting of the right to wear a medal known as the long and meritorious medal, under Article 1191 of the King's Regulations, gives to the Royal Marines for distinguished or meritorious services, their Lordships can see their way clear to set apart a similar sum for petty officers of the Royal Navy.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouth, N.): There is no such provision made for petty officers in the Royal Navy. This is one of many differences between the conditions of service and privileges in I the Army and the Navy, and it is not proposed to make any change.

  The Channel Fleet Battleship Repairs.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the Channel Fleet battleships were in dockyard hands for repair on 21st October; and whether in withdrawing vessels from the fleets for repairs during the winter, he will take steps to secure, in compliance with Admiralty memoranda, that not more than two battleships from the Channel Fleet and one from each of the other fleets shall be withdrawn for repairs simultaneously.
  MR. MCKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is four. With

  57
  regard to the second part, I desire to take this opportunity of stating that in August last, the Admiralty informed the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet that in view of the great strength of the naval forces always now in home waters, we attach less importance than previously to the limitation of the numbers of ships of the Channel Fleet which are under repair concurrently. The previous statement to the effect that not more than two battleships were to be undergoing refit at the same time, may therefore be regarded as superseded; but it is intended that refits of these vessels shall be distributed as evenly as possible throughout the year. The special repairs to be undertaken this winter in accordance with the Prime Minister's statement of 21st October will not increase the number of ships absent from the Channel Fleet.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Then are we to understand that during the winter four of the battleships of the Channel Fleet are to be absent on repair?
  MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir; I said four were absent on 21st October, and added that the special repairs to be undertaken this winter would not increase the number of ships absent from the Channel Fleet.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: If it is proposed to substitute another rule for the salutary one that only two ships shall be absent at one time, will care be taken to frame the new rule so that the public may understand it?
  MR. MCKENNA: That shall be considered.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is this supersession of the old rule to apply only to the Channel Fleet?
  MR. MCKENNA: The communication was made only to the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet.
  MR. BELLAIRS: In view of that communication, of which today we hear for the first time, may I ask if the Commander-in-Chief will be given
  58
  an opportunity of exercising all these ships in home waters?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

  Battleship Speed.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what speed could have been safely developed and maintained on or about 9th October by each of the two battleships at Malta which were ready to put to sea with defective machinery.
  MR. MCKENNA: The "Ocean" could have safely developed and maintained on 9th October a speed of 15 knots, and the "Goliath" 13 knots.
  MR. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that satisfactory for these two ships?
  MR. MCKENNA: It would not be regarded so if it were their permanent condition.
  MR. ASHLEY: Have the defects been made good?
  MR. MCKENNA: They are being made good now.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the maximum speed developed when on trials by each of the three battleships which left Malta owing to the crisis in the Near East on or about 9th October; and what was the maximum speed which they developed or could have developed on the latter occasion.
  MR. MCKENNA: The maximum speeds developed on contractors' trials by these three vessels were:—"Canopus," 18·5 knots; "Glory," 18.124 knots; "Prince of Wales," 17.8. A speed approximating to this could, if desired, have been obtained in each case on the occasion in question.

  Mediterranean Fleet Cruisers.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty where was each one of the eight cruisers mentioned in the

  59
  Navy List as belonging to the Mediterranean Fleet on 9th October at the time of the crisis in the Near East.
  MR. MCKENNA: The "Lancaster," "Suffolk," "Diana" and "Philomel," were at Malta; the "Minerva" was at sea, and arrived at Malta the next day; the "Aboukir" was at Venice; the "Barham" at Constantinople; and the "Bacchante" was between Gibraltar and England on her way home.
  MR. ASHLEY: Then how could the eight cruisers have been at Malta within twelve hours as stated?
  MR. MCKENNA: I said that seven were in the Mediterranean at the time. The eighth was on her way home.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Was not the "Minerva" paid off at Sheerness on 13th September, and therefore away from the station for a month.
  MR. MCKENNA: I stated that the "Minerva" was at sea.
  MR. ASHLEY: Which are we to accept as the official Answer—that given to-day, or the one given last week?
  MR. MCKENNA: Both.

  Dockyard Employees and Territorial Camps.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, with regard to the question now under consideration, of empowering His Majesty's dockyard authorities to make to employees who have attended recent camps as members of the Territorial Army such residual payments in respect of time spent in camp as will provide that they shall not suffer loss through their action, he will be able to come to an early decision, in view of the prejudicial effect upon recruiting for the Territorial Army in Devonport and Plymouth resulting from the uncertainty upon this point.
  MR. MCKENNA: I hope that an early decision will be reached, but the hon. Member will understand that this is a
  60
  question that does not concern my Department alone.
  MR. MILDMAY: Have not such residual payments been made in the case of some army non-commissioned officers?
  MR. MCKENNA: That question should be addressed to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War. I am not aware of what has taken place in his Department.
  EARL WINTERTON: What is the reason for the delay in the settlement of this question?
  MR. MCKENNA: My Answer is as full as I can make it.

  Admiralty Expenditure.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state, approximately, the amount of under-expenditure upon new construction which has resulted, up to date, from the strikes in the shipbuilding trade or other unforeseen causes, during the current financial year.
  MR. MCKENNA: I regret that the figures asked for are not yet available.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when the figures will be available so that I may put down another Question?
  MR. MCKENNA: Not immediately.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: In a week's time?
  MR. MCKENNA: I should not think so.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give an approximate estimate of the extra amount of expenditure, beyond that originally estimated, that will be incurred during the current financial year by the earlier letting of tenders for the construction of nine destroyers and five unarmoured cruisers.
  MR. MCKENNA: I regret that the figures asked for are not yet available.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate estimate of the obligations he will have to meet in this respect during the current year?
  MR. MCKENNA: I estimate that the contractors will expend, before 31st March, a total of £300,000. I am, therefore, perfectly sure the liability of the Admiralty will not exceed £200,000, and it will probably be considerably less.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how he proposes to meet the extra expenditure that will be incurred during the current financial year by the earlier commencement of certain items in the programme of new construction and by the anticipation of repairs to the Fleet.
  MR. MCKENNA: I propose to meet it out of the total sums voted for naval services this year.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: On what items will the large savings be effected?
  MR. MCKENNA: Large savings will be effected owing to the strike. I cannot, however, give an estimate, as the figures are coming in almost daily. I am confident that the additional expenditure for laying down ships earlier than arranged will be fully met out of these savings.

  Rosyth.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state on what date the tenders for the main contract at Rosyth were invited and by what date will they be returnable.
  MR. MCKENNA: Invitations to tender, with full contract particulars, were issued on 23rd October. Tenders are to be sent in on 22nd December, 1908.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the bonus be of a substantial nature?
  MR. MCKENNA: I cannot give the exact figure. Much depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by "substantial."
  MR. JOHN WARDasked whether, in view of the bonus that was to be given, care would be taken to see that proper wages were paid to the workmen.
  MR. MCKENNA: It is already a condition of the contract that fair wages shall be paid.

  Ammunition for Rifle Clubs.
  MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will lay upon the Table a statement showing the conditions under which ammunition will be supplied to rifle clubs at reduced rates.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): As I stated yesterday the details are under consideration at this moment.

  Tinnevelly Sedition Trial.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the sentence of transportation for life passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly on Chidambaram Pillai, on 6th July last, for making seditious speeches, was appealed against; and, if so, whether the appeal is still pending before the High Court of Madras.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN, Perthshire, E.): The appeal of Chidambaram Pillai to the Madras High Court was admitted on 31st July last. The translation of the vernacular record took several weeks, and a further postponement of a fortnight was given on the application of counsel. The hearing began on 6th October, and is being continued de die in diem. Meantime the prisoners are being treated as under trial pending the final order of the High Court.

  "Seintan Sikha"
  MR. O'GRADY. I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for

  63
  India whether he is aware that a pleader named Ram Kanai Dutt, of Brahamanbaria, and his son have been arrested upon a charge of sedition for having written and printed a booklet entitled "Seintan Sikha"; and whether, in view of the fact that the booklet was written two years ago and has been in public use as a text-book in the lower classes of many national schools, he will order an inquiry into the matter, and, if the facts are as stated, make a request to the Government of India for the release of this man and his son.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject, but he will inquire.

  Indian Police.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in the matter of the public instituting criminal proceedings against the police in India, the appellant has not only to take the risks of wrongful proceedings set out in Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, but also to face the act that the financial resources of the Government are at the disposal of the police, and compensation paid though the charge be proven; and, if so, whether an assurance can be given that this matter will be inquired into, with a view of reverting to the previous position of the Government standing aloof and only compensating the police in the event of the proceedings against them not being successful.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State is not aware of any practice of paying compensation in the manner described in the Question, but if the hon. Member will give fuller and authentic particulars, he will at once consider the desirability of inquiring.
  MR. O'GRADY: I will do so.

  Salvation Army and Indian Industries.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Punjab Government has sanctioned the institution of an exhibition of handlooms, with a school of weaving, to be managed by the Salvation Army at Ludhiana, Amrit-
  64
  sar, or Sialkot; if so, has he any information as to the amount of money, if any, voted for the purpose; whether any of the money has been allocated to the Salvation Army for management; and, if so, on what grounds the Salvation Army were selected to superintend and manage the exhibition and school.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State has seen in the newspapers a statement to the effect set forth in the Question. He has no further information on the subject, but he will inquire.

  Trinidad Board of Agriculture.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State has advised that assent be given to the ordinances establishing a Board of Agriculture in Trinidad; whether taxation is being collected for the purposes of such a Board; and, if so, whether he will take steps to see that the creation of the Board is not longer delayed.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Colonel SEELY, Liverpool, Abercromby): The Secretary of State has agreed to assent being given to the Trinidad Board of Agriculture Ordinance, subject to an understanding on one point, as to which he awaits a reply from the officer administering the Government. The special tax referred to has been collected since 1st July, and is being carried to a suspense account in the local Treasury, pending a decision on the scheme of reorganisation, which has naturally required some time for consideration. The Secretary of State hopes that the Board will shortly be constituted.

  Barbados, etc, Cable Rates.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made towards effecting a reduction in the cable rates to Barbados, Trinidad, and Demerara.
  COLONEL SEELY: The Secretary of State regrets that he sees no immediate prospect of effecting a reduction in the cable rates to these Colonies.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the Secretary of State continue to use his best efforts to secure a reduction?
  COLONEL SEELY: Reductions of cable rates are always to be desired, but the present is not an opportune moment for pressing this matter.

  Sekgoma.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the case of Sekgoma, a native of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, who was arrested at Kimberley and detained as a prisoner without any charge being laid against him, whose application that he may be brought to trial and afforded an opportunity of defending himself has been refused, and concerning whom it is alleged that the High Commissioner for South Africa declined to give reasons for his detention; and whether His Majesty's Government will call for a Report on the subject.
  COLONEL SEELY: Yes, Sir, the case is well-known to the Secretary of State—Sekgoma, who claimed to be chief of the Batawana tribe, and who had for a considerable time acted in that capacity was removed from that position after an exhaustive inquiry on the spot by the Resident Commissioner of the Bechuanaland Protectorate in 1906. The Resident Commissioner found that Sekgoma was not entitled to the succession and that the majority of the tribe accepted the other claimant, Mathibi, as their lawful chief. The tribe was deeply divided on the question of the succession, and in the opinion of the Commissioner which was accepted by Lord Selborne and the Secretary of State, it was necessary in order to avoid the likelihood of bloodshed and tribal war to prevent Sekgoma's return. Sekgoma has, therefore, been detained in a different part of the Protectorate under the authority of a High Commissioner's Proclamation of December, 1906, which recited the reasons given above for the action taken

  Alleged Illegal Fishing in Cuban Wavers.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary of
  66
  State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, between 1st May and 20th May, 1908, inclusive, eight Bahamian turtling vessels were seized by Cuban Revenue cutters, that these vessels were towed into Cuban ports and the owners heavily fined on a charge of alleged illegal fishing, and that the owners of each vessel were also fined 500 dollars for infringing the quarantine regulations, although the vessels were forcibly towed into the ports where the alleged contravention of those regulations took place; and whether, seeing that it is the practice for these turtling vessels, when returning from the Pedro Cay banks to Nassau, to approach the Island of Cuba in order to be sure of their whereabouts, the Government has taken steps, and, if so, what steps, to obtain the remission of the fines, compensation for the three months detention of the vessels and their crews, and generally to protect the interests of this industry.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): The incident referred to by the hon. Member was fully reported by His Majesty's Minister at Havana at the time of its occurrence, and received the careful consideration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and of myself. As regards seven of the vessels seized and fined on a charge of illegal fishing, His Majesty's Government were satisfied on investigation that there were no sufficient grounds for interference on their part, as there appeared to be no sufficient evidence to rebut the allegation that the vessels were fishing Cuban territorial waters within the three mile limit at the time of their arrest. As regards the eighth vessel, arrested and fined on an additional charge of illegally transporting turtles through Cuban waters during the close season, His Majesty's Government were not prepared to dispute the right of the Cuban Government to prohibit such transport of turtles. Owing, however, to the representations made by His Majesty's Minister at Havana, the Cuban Government remitted the fine on this vessel and reduced the fines on the seven other vessels to less than half their original amount; the fine of 500 dollars on each vessel (which according to the information

  67
  received by His Majesty's Government, was on account of contravention of the Cuban Customs regulations and is presumably that to which the hon. Member refers), being entirely remitted. As it was not possible to refute the charge that seven of the vessels were engaged in illegal fisting at the time of their arrest His Majesty's Government do not consider the case to be one which calls for the payment of compensation to the owners of the vessels for the period of their detention. In the case of the eighth, no sufficient evidence has been brought before His Majesty's Government to justify a demand for compensation. After careful consideration, His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that the situation does not call for further action at present; but the hon. Member may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will always be ready to take such steps as may be necessary to protect the interests of this industry outside the limits of the territorial waters.
  MR. CARLILE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he has made no reference to the fact that it is the custom of these people to pass through these waters on their way to their own ports?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The only question is one of evidence as to whether they were or were not fishing inside the territorial waters. If the hon. Member has any evidence to produce on the subject I will consider it.
  MR. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit the justice of these people being fined for an infringement of the quarantine regulations?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I think I said in my Answer that the fine has been remitted.

  New York State Licence Revenue.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the amount raised on licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor in the State of New York in each of the years 1906 and 1907.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The amount raised in the year 1907 was 18,544,321 dollars, 56 cents. The figures for 1906 have not been received.

  Russia and Persia.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that among the copies of telegrams seized by the general of the Nationalist forces after the capture of the telegraph office serving the Royalist troops at Tabriz, were two telegrams from the Royalist general to the Shah of Persia, the first requesting His Majesty to give instructions through the Russian Legation in Teheran for the supply of from 10,000 to. 20,000 cartridges through the Russian Consul-General at Tabriz, and the second acknowledging the receipt of this order for cartridges; and whether such interference by the Russian Legation in Teheran in the internal affairs of Persia is in accordance with the tenour of the Anglo-Russian Convention.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information bearing out the accuracy of this allegation.
  MR. O'GRADY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the strong point he made against Members on these benches, when they raised the question of the King's visit to Reval, and his objection to the interference by one country in the internal affairs of another, the Government will move—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member is simply raising a debate.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to Persians managing their own affairs, he will make friendly representations to the Government of Russia to recall the Russian officers serving in Persia.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Russian officers in Persia are in the employment of the Shah, and have been so for several years past. It is a matter in which the Governments of Russia and Persia are alone concerned, but I am informed that

  69
  no Russian officers have taken any part in the recent fighting between Persian forces.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: Is there any truth in the Report that Russian troops have invaded Persia?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No, Sir; my information is that no Russian troops have crossed the Persian frontier. According to my information, what has happened is this. For some time there has been constant fighting between Royalist and Nationalist forces at Tabriz. Tabriz is very close to the Russian frontier. Russian trade has, of course, suffered. A Russian post was attacked, and one report is that lives of Russians were in danger. Russia then moved, I think, about 400 men to the frontier, but as the fighting had ceased, and it was stated that the danger to Russian lives had also ceased, the troops were ordered not to cross. I am informed that the Russian troops have orders not to cross the frontier unless Russian lives are in danger.
  MR. DILLON: Have the British Government consented to the Russian troops crossing the frontier?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: We have always claimed the right to take what measures we think fit when British lives are in danger, and we could not refuse the same liberty of action to others. But, inasmuch as the policy which has been pursued by both Governments is that of non-intervention, and as there has been considerable disturbance close to the Russian frontier, and the Russians have not sent troops across the frontier, I think I am justified in saying that they have acted in accordance with the spirit of the Convention.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now lay upon the Table Papers on the affairs of Persia.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Papers will be prepared, and the question of future publication will be considered when the present crisis in Persia has passed.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  70
  Foreign Affairs whether, during the entire period of the recent critical events in Tabriz, the British Consul-General, acting under instructions from His Majesty's Government, was absent from his post, while the Russian Consul-General was present throughout the struggle; and whether steps can be taken to secure that in future there shall be equality of representation as between Great Britain and Russia in this capital of Northern Persia.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative: the presence of His Majesty's Consul-General being urgently required at Urumia in connection with the Turco-Persian frontier dispute. During the absence of the Consul-General, the Vice-Consul was in charge. As to the second Question, the British Consul-General has now returned to his post, and there is no intention of withdrawing him.

  Licensing Local Option in Russia
  MR. R. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that the Russian Council of Ministers has sanctioned the introduction of a Bill giving to inhabitants of villages the right to close existing public-houses, to prohibit the opening of new ones, and to limit the hours of sale, by resolution of the local council; and, if so, whether Sir A. Nicholson will be instructed to make representations as to the evil example likely to be set to moderate and reasonable temperance reformers in this country by these ultra-democratic and faddist proposals.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not received any information to this effect, though I have no reason or wish to discredit that on which my hon. friend has founded his Question. I should, however, deprecate any representations such as he suggests. We can always profit by the example of other countries in liquor legislation, though whether this can best be done by imitation or by avoidance my hon. friend must rely upon the wisdom of Parliament to decide in each particular case.

  Great Britain, Russia and Persia.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he adheres to the statement that the British and Russian Governments and their representatives in Persia have absolutely abstained from all interference in the internal affairs of Persia.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Both Governments have maintained a policy of general non-intervention in regard to Persia; but they have united in recommending to the Shah the grant of a Constitution, as it seemed to them the best means of promoting peace in the country.
  MR. DILLON: Did they at the time they recommended the grant of a Constitution take any means of assuring the safety of the Persian delegates who might be elected?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: It is quite obvious that to give guarantees to either one party or the other in Persia of that nature would lead to direct intervention in the internal administration of that country.

  Licence Duties in the United States.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in which of the Colonies and Dependencies of the British Empire and in which States in the United States of America is the system of high licence duties on the sale of intoxicating liquors in force; and what are the rates or scales of such duties in each case.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): The information required by my hon. friend is too voluminous to be supplied in answer to a Parliamentary Question, but I shall be glad to supply him with any material in my possession if he will be good enough to confer with me upon the subject.

  Instructions to Pension Officers.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has issued, or intends
  72
  to issue, instructions to the pension officers directing them not to take into consideration in their Reports the fact that an applicant for a pension, otherwise qualified, has passed a short period in a workhouse infirmary; and, if not, will he undertake to issue instructions to that effect.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have not issued, and do not intend to issue instructions of the kind referred to by the noble Lord.
  LORD R. CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the reasons which have led him to arrive at that conclusion?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should hardly like to enter into them without notice, for the simple reason that every answer I have to give on a question of this sort may have the effect of embarrassing the decisions as they arise.

  Hop Industry.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the depressed condition of the hop market, and in view of the fact that no beneficial result will be obtained from the abolition of hop-substitutes or from marking of foreign hops during this season unless legislation is proceeded with at once, he can now state on what day he will introduce Bills dealing with these subjects.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot at present add anything to my Answer of the 15th instant to a similar Question by the hon. Member for the Rye division of Sussex.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS: Will the Bill cover both the abolition of hop-substitutes and the marking of foreign hops as recommended by the Select Committee?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Bill will cover the whole of the ground.

  German Tax on Electricity Rates.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any official Reports showing that the Secretary of State for the Imperial German Treasury is about to

  73
  introduce a Bill to impose a tax of 5 per cent. on the consumption price of electricity, whether for power or light, and the same tax on gas, also a tax on every gas or electrical burner sold, amounting to 50 or 60 per cent. of the present retail price, so that their cost for buyers would be increased in this proportion; and whether, in the event of the resources of free trade finance becoming exhausted, he will bear in mind this method of broadening the basis of taxation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I believe that the German proposals for new Imperial taxation have not yet been officially promulgated.

  Tobacco Growing in Scotland.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange to make a similar grant to Scotland as that given to Ireland, namely, £6,000 per annum for five years for the encouragement of the growth of tobacco in Scotland.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The removal of the restriction upon the cultivation of tobacco in Scotland is to take effect under the Tobacco Growing (Scotland) Act, 1908, "as from a date to be fixed by His Majesty by Order in Council as soon as Parliament has made provision for an excise duty on tobacco produced in Scotland." Parliament has not yet made this provision in the case of Scotland, and the restriction consequently is still in force. As regards the power conferred on the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Section (2) of the Act enabling them to authorise the growth of tobacco for experimental purposes in Scotland, I understand that they have as yet received no application for the grant of such permission.

  The Labour Gazette.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how much is spent upon the Labour Gazette annually; and whether the particulars given therein of the condition of trade and the state of employment and unemployment in the different trades can be enlarged and
  74
  improved upon at a moderate increase of outlay.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL, Dundee): The preparation of the Board of Trade Labour Gazette is so much involved in the general work of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade that it is impossible to state its cost separately. Every opportunity is taken to extend the information given as regards employment and trade, so far as trustworthy data can be obtained, and the Board of Trade would welcome any practical suggestion for enlargement and improvement that the hon. Member is in a position to make, bearing in mind the voluntary basis of the returns and their confidential character to a large extent. I do not think that a moderate increase of outlay would stand in the way of a really useful and practicable extension.
  MR. FELL: Is not the amount about £2,000? Was the cost of the inquiries made in Germany by a Departmental Committee charged against the Labour Gazette?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have said I cannot state the cost.
  EARL WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a Departmental Committee to inquire as to extending the usefulness of the Gazette?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am prepared carefully to consider any suggestions that may be made to me with a view to improving the Gazette.
  EARL WINTERTON: But will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Committee from both sides of the House to consider whether the usefulness of the publication cannot be increased?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think that at present such a Committee would produce more information than we already have.
  MR. FELL: Is not the cost about £2,000?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot give the actual figures, but certainly the information published in the Gazette could not be obtained for anything like the price the printing and publishing entails.

  Leeds Afforestation.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what proportion of the 1,514,300 trees planted in the Leeds afforestation scheme are alive or likely to thrive; whether their present condition is largely due to the want of familiarity of those employed in planting them with such work; and whether he can secure that in any future work of this kind better instruction and supervision can be given, and better results obtained.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): It is estimated that 1,101,500 out of the 1,514,300 trees planted during the past three seasons' work are living and thriving at the present time. The plantations are carefully examined each season, dead trees are removed and the gaps planted, so that at present there are estimated to be 1,500,000 thriving trees. The failures are reported to be due to the lack of knowledge of the men doing the planting, but I am informed that in some cases they are caused by carelessness and want of interest on the part of the men. I may add that for the present season an experienced forester has been engaged to assist the foreman hitherto employed upon the work. Both of these, together with seven men on the permanent staff, will instruct the men and supervise the work. It is hoped that in this way much better results will be obtained.
  MR. ALDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman furnish the House with full information regarding this and other similar experiments in afforestation?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Leeds City Council have published a Report on this experiment, copies of which
  76
  can be had on application to the town clerk.
  MR. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Papers on the Table?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: This is not a subject on which I am instructed to secure information in the ordinary way to lay upon the Table of the House, but if there is any general desire that some information should be given in a summarised form of this experiment I shall be pleased to consider it.

  Cirencester Vaccination Case.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board with reference to the three cases of injury resulting from vaccination performed by Dr. Cossham of Cirencester, on which the Local Government Board medical inspector reported, if the chancres produced by vaccination were those of simulating syphilis; and if the Local Government Board will send the Reports to Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson, F.R.C.S., for his opinion.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The three cases referred to were all vaccinated with calf lymph, and I am advised that it is impossible to communicate syphilis by means of calf lymph. The medical inspector who, however, saw the children some months after the vaccination, states that the scars of the sore places bore no resemblance to chancres, and, from the date of the origin of the complication, it is clear that it was caused by accidental contamination of the sore places which took place a considerable time after vaccination had been performed. I see no sufficient reason for adopting the course suggested in the last part of the Question.
  MR. LUPTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman will not submit the Reports to Dr. Hutchinson, who is a great authority on syphilis?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have nothing to add to my Answer.
  MR. LUPTON: Has it not been shown that syphilis is produced by calf lymph?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am otherwise advised.
  MR. ESSEX: Has the right hon. Gentleman not received information that the locality in which this child lived was in an extremely insanitary condition?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes, I stated that last week.
  MR. LUPTON: And has the right hon. Gentleman asked the vaccinator not to vaccinate cases in insanitary neighbourhoods or dwellings?
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the original source of Government calf lymph?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have nothing to add to the interesting correspondence I had with my hon. friend last year on this subject.
  *SIR W. J. COLLINS: That was rather negative.

  Runcorn Vaccination Case.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the Local Government Board has made any inquiry into the case of the nine weeks old female child of Mr. Edward Johnson, of 14, Albert Street, Runcorn, vaccinated on 29th September, inquest held on 16th October, death from septic poisoning; and if he will, in consequence, discontinue the wholesale dissemination of poisonous matter to be put into the blood of healthy children.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has not previously been drawn to this case. I have, however, now written for a copy of the depositions taken at the inquest, and upon receiving them I will give consideration to the matter.
  MR. LUPTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, when he sends an inspector down to investigate a case,
  78
  he will have him accompanied by a medical man who is an anti-vaccinator?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I attach no importance to the question whether a medical man is an anti-vaccinator or not. If he is in the service of the Local Government Board he is called upon to do his duty, and I hope he suppresses his personal views, as I have done on this subject.

  Warblington Urban District Council.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware of the position in which the Warblington Urban District Council finds itself as a result on the one hand of the judgment obtained against it by Mr. Foster in connection with the pollution of his oyster-beds by the existing system of local drainage, and on the other hand by the refusal of the Local Government Board to sanction the new scheme of drainage which has been prepared by the expert advisers of the council on the ground that such scheme would be ineffective; whether he is further aware that the council is extremely anxious to proceed with a new scheme of drainage at the earliest possible moment and as soon as it can secure the consent of the Local Government Board to the necessary expenditure; and whether he can indicate to the council the points upon which the scheme submitted by it is defective.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the position of the district council in, this matter, and that they are anxious to proceed with a new scheme of drainage. I have already indicated to the council the points upon which, as I am advised, the previous scheme was defective.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that further litigation-is threatened against this council for not proceeding with the drainage scheme? Cannot the Local Government Board give them some expert advice?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the peculiar difficulties under which this local authority is labouring, and I am doing my best to help them out of their troubles.

  Sewage Disposal.
  MR ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can hold out any hopes of his being in a position to introduce a Bill dealing with the disposal of sewage at an early date.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Reports of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal are receiving my consideration with a view to legislation, but I do not think it will be practicable to introduce a Bill on the subject during the present session.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Meanwhile, will the Local Government Board afford some protection to councils placed on the horns of a dilemma?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes, there are two or three councils in the same position as the one to which the hon. Member's previous Question refers, and I am doing my best to arrange some reasonable compromise or safeguard.

  Pensions and Poor Relief.
  MR. WALROND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a person otherwise qualified, who has been in receipt of poor relief within twelve months prior to 1st January, 1909, is eligible for receipt of a pension if the amount of the poor relief received by him has been refunded before that date.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. It is one which, with some others involving legal considerations, is at present under consideration, so that I am not at the moment in a position to give a definite reply to it.

  Abbots Bromley Postmaster.
  MR. THORNTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to a case of arbitration under Section 2 of The Savings Bank Society Act, 1876, heard on 19th June, 1908, by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, with reference to the misappropriation of a sum of £270 belonging to the Lord Bagot Lodge of the Manchester Unity of the Independent
  80
  Order of Oddfellows Friendly Society by the late Lewis Myatt, who committed, suicide in October, 1906, and who, while secretary of the Lord Bagot Lodge, was postmaster of Abbots Bromley in the sub-district of Rugeley, Staffordshire; whether he is aware that owing to his position as postmaster he was enabled to apply to his own use moneys entrusted to him by the lodge for deposit in the Post Office Savings Bank; and whether he or any of his staff consulted the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies or either of his assistants in any way on the matter previously to the case being submitted to the Chief Registrar by the directors of the Manchester Unity for arbitration.
  I beg further to ask the Postmaster-General whether, as the Post Office authorities desire that the directors of the Manchester Unity should call the special attention of its 4,000 branches to the necessity for extra vigilance while one person holds a fiducial position in the society and is at the same time postmaster, he will issue instructions to his officers that they are not to accept money for deposit from societies for which they may be acting unless it is tendered by an officer of the society who is not connected with the Post Office and on the Post Office premises when they are open for public business, in order that all entries in depositors' Post Office Savings Bank books bearing the official stamp of the office shall be evidence of the receipt by the Postmaster-General of the amounts entered.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The position of sub-postmaster held by the late secretary of the Lord Bagot Lodge of Oddfellows, did not in itself enable him to apply to his own use moneys entrusted to him for deposit in the Post Office Savings Bank. Frauds have been committed, in a similar way by officers of friendly societies who were not Post Office servants; and in all such cases they have been rendered possible only by the negligence of other society officials. The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies was asked in March, 1907, whether he could take steps to render more effective the audit of friendly society accounts; but apart from this, he has not

  81
  been consulted in any way in connection with the case by any officer of the Post Office. I am considering at the present time what can be done to prevent as far as possible frauds of this kind, whether by Post Office servants or by others.

  Women in the Post Office.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the increase of 1,753 persons made in the female staff of the Post Office in 1908 was made in the interests of economy; and how the wages paid to the 1,753 women compare with the wages which would have been paid to men for similar work.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It has for years past been the practice of the Post Office to employ women upon certain classes of work which are considered to be suitable for them to perform, and it has been found that efficiency and economy result from that practice. I may point out that the respective increases in the female and male staff in 1908 were 1,753 and 2,666. In the Post Office, as elsewhere, women receive a lower scale of pay than men.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Are some of the girls paid as low as 16s or 17s. per week?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It depends on the class of work. We are raising the wages of the typists considerably.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: But are some of the girls paid as low as 16s or 17s. a week?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot carry the wages list in his pocket. Notice must be given of the Question.

  Cooper School, Marston Sicca.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what is the present position of the trust estate of the Cooper School, Marston Sicca, Gloucestershire; what is its annual net income, and to what purpose is that income now devoted.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury): A scheme has been drafted for this Foundation, but its publication has been postponed pending the receipt of the observations of the trustees thereon. They have been informed that the Board will proceed to publication unless their observations are received within a fortnight. The local education authority have expressed their approval of the draft scheme. So far as can be ascertained, the net income of the Foundation is about £100. As the school has been closed, the income must continue to accumulate until a scheme has been established.

  Northleach Grammar School.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether a scheme has been decided upon for the use of the trust funds of Northleach (Gloucestershire) Grammar School in educational work in that town and its neighbourhood; and, if not, how do the affairs of the trust now stand.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No scheme has yet been drafted for the administration of the Northleach Westwood Grammar School. A local inquiry was held by Officers of the Board on 22nd July as to a proposal to utilise the endowment for the establishment of a higher elementary school. On 7th September the Board addressed a letter to the local education authority with regard to the prospects which such a school, if established, might be expected to have, and to this letter they are now awaiting a reply.

  School Building Grants.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will give a Return showing the number of applications and decisions of the Board during the last six months in respect of applications for building grants from the £100,000 voted by Parliament, in continuation of the previous Parliamentary Paper.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I hope to lay a statement on the subject during the course of next month.

  Small Holdings in Gloucestershire.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state how many applications for small holdings in the county of Gloucestershire have been made to date; how many of such applications have been approved; how many of such applicants have been granted such small holdings; whether the compulsory powers in the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts have been put in force; and, if so, in how may cases and in what districts.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.): 548 applications for small holdings have been made in Gloucestershire, the great majority of which have been approved. The requirements of seventy of the applicants have been satisfied. Compulsory powers have not as yet been exercised in the county.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Of the applicants approved, how many are bona fide agricultural labourers?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question. The hon. Gentleman could hardly be expected to answer it offhand.

  Redenham Village Green.
  MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board has taken any steps to prevent the enclosure of the village green in the parish of Redenham, Hants, or whether the Board has any information upon the subject.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Board have made inquiry locally, and have also been in communication with the Commons Preservation Society on this matter, but they have no power to take any action in regard to it.

  Imports of Foreign Fodder.
  MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as
  84
  representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the reasons for prohibiting the importation of foreign hay and straw have now disappeared; and, if so, whether it is proposed to revoke the order.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The object of the order to which my hon. friend refers is to safeguard this country from the risk of the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease by the importation of hay or straw imported from countries where that disease exists, or where the circumstances are such as to afford insufficient security against its introduction. The order must, therefore, be regarded as of a permanent character.

  The American Beef Trust.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that foreign meat is fraudulently sold as home-grown and that the price of all beef bought and sold in this country is ruled and fixed by the American Beef Trust, he could see his way to introduce legislation to prevent this injury to our farmers and working people.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The provisions of the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 and 1891, and the Merchandise Marks (Prosecution) Act, 1894, already empower the Board to deal with cases in which false trade descriptions of meat are given. It is not proposed to initiate further legislation in the direction suggested.
  MR. HUNT: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that it is a fact that foreign beef is continually sold as British?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: My Answer did not deny that. It is a matter for the Board of Trade to deal with.
  MR. HUNT: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to allow the American Beef Trust to go on robbing the people of this country?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not contained in the Question of the hon. Member.
  MR. G. D. FABERinquired whether the Board of Trade took cognisance of this imposition upon the public.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYreplied that undoubtedly the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture carried out the duties entrusted to them by statute.
  MR. G. D. FABER: Have they ever prosecuted?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.

  Charitable Pensions.
  MR. LLOYD-MORGAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he can state the aggregate amount paid out of charitable funds (under the supervision of the Commissioners) in respect of pensions; and whether the Charity Commissioners propose to issue any general instructions to trustees and others administering charitable funds, with reference to existing pensioners or to the granting of new pensions after 1st January, 1909, or in anticipation of that date.
  MR. SOARES: In a Memorandum prepared by the Local Government Board last year and presented to Parliament (Cd. 3618) it was stated that the Charity Commissioners calculated that the total amount applicable to pension and almshouse charities in England and Wales was not less, and was probably more, than £661,000, and it was estimated that the annual amount distributable by weekly pensions was about £370,000. Having regard to the diversity of the trusts and the circumstances under which pensions are payable out of charitable endowments, the Commissioners do not propose to issue any general instructions on the points referred to. In cases where the trustees have a discretionary power under their trusts it will be their duty to exercise it, and in
  86
  all cases it is open to trustees to obtain the advice of the Commissioners in the particular circumstances and, if necessary, a new scheme.

  Scottish Fishery Cruiser.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now in a position to give information with regard to the new Scottish fishery cruiser.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): The new cruiser has been contracted for and is being built.

  Traffic in Firearms in Ireland.
  MR. MACCAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police authorities have directed the attention of the Irish Executive to the traffic in firearms in various parts of Ireland since the recent withdrawal of the Peace Preservation Act; and, if so, will he state what is the purport of the representations so made.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave, on 19th instant, to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it not the fact that the burden of the reports of the Judges, stipendiary magistrates and the police is to the effect that the withdrawal of this Act of Parliament has been productive of the harm all round?
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not think so.

  Irish Rural District Law Costs.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Return of Law Costs of Rural Districts (Ireland), of which notice stands on the Order Paper, can be granted.
  MR. BIRRELL: The reply is in the negative. I have communicated to the hon. Member the reasons why the Return cannot be given.

  Arrears of Land Purchase Annuities.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of land purchase annuitants sued by the Land Commission for arrears of annuities within the present year; the results of the proceedings; have the farms been offered for sale in all cases in which the amount of arrears has not been otherwise recovered; have bona fide farmers bought them subject to arrears and accruing annuities; and have the net losses in all cases been, or will they be, made good out of funds otherwise devoted to relief of Irish rates.
  MR. BIRRELL: The annual Report of the Land Commission for the year ending 31st March, 1908, gives full particulars as to the payment of instalments by tenant purchasers, the number in arrears, and the proceedings taken to enforce payment whether by sale of the holdings or otherwise. The farms of defaulting annuitants are sold subject to the annuities, and the arrears due at the time of sale have, in all cases hitherto, been discharged out of the purchase money realised on such sale. There has been no final loss in respect of arrears in any case up to the present. If such loss should arise it would fall on the guarantee fund.

  Irish Cattle Drives.
  MR. GEORGE CLARK: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what proportion of the total number of cases of cattle-driving reported by the constabulary down to the end of September, 1908, have been recorded in the official statistics of crime; and will he state what are the considerations that regulate the inclusion of some only of such cases in, and the exclusion of others from, these statistical returns.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General informs me that of 908 cases of cattle-driving reported up to 30th September last, sixteen cases in which proceedings were taken on indictment were recorded in the Returns of Serious Crime, under the head of Unlawful Assembly. In addition, the cases in which compensation was awarded for malicious injury accompanying cattle-drives were
  88
  recorded under the proper heads, but the Inspector-General is unable to state the number of cases so recorded without a detailed examination of each particular case. The principles which govern the recording of serious offences were fully explained in the Answers given to Questions put on 26th February and 18th March last, to which I would refer the hon. Member.

  Firing Outrages.
  MR. GEORGE CLARK: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the official statistics of cases of firing at the person or firing into dwellings afford no indication of the number of shots which are ascertained by the police on investigation to have been fired either by a single individual or by numbers of armed assailants; and will he quote this information in respect of the cases so recorded during the past three months.
  MR. BIRRELL: The official statistics do not contain the particulars referred to in the first part of the Question. In some cases it is reported to the police that more shots than one have been fired, but the information usually obtainable on the subject is not sufficiently trustworthy to be embodied in statistics. It is to be remembered that most of the offences of this kind are committed at night, and that the assailants are not seen.

  Firearms in Ireland.
  MR. GEORGE CLARK: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the provisions of the ordinary law that regulate the possession of firearms in Ireland; and whether he has any official reports from the police as to whether such provisions provide effective restrictions upon the acquisition of firearms by persons who have no legitimate use for the same.
  MR. BIRRELL: There is no law which prohibits or regulates the possession of firearms in Ireland. In this respect Ireland is in the same case as the rest of the United Kingdom, save that the Pistols Act of 1903 does not apply to Ireland. I understand that the law as to taking out gun and game licences

  89
  is the same throughout the kingdom. In reply to the latter part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to the similar Question which was put by the hon. Member for MidArmagh on the 19th instant.

  District Council Law Cost.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the attention of the Local Government Board for Ireland has been called to cases in which costs awarded to a district council by a competent Court have been received by the council's solicitor but not paid to the council's treasurer nor brought into the council's accounts, and in which no document has been put before the auditor to apprise him of the fact that costs have been awarded; and whether he will say what steps, if any, have been or will be taken by the Local Government Board with a view to protecting the ratepayers from loss in such circumstances.
  MR. BIRRELL: The attention of the Local Government Board has not been called to any case of the kind referred to, but if any such case should be brought to their notice they will make full inquiries into the matter.

  Mullingar Labourers' Cottages.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three labourers have recently been evicted from their cottages at the instance of the Mullingar Rural District Council on the sole grounds that they continued to work for two owners of property who have incurred unpopularity in the neighbourhood; and whether the Local Government Board sanctioned these evictions.
  MR. BIRRELL: I refer to the Answer which was given to the Question on this subject put by the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh on 17th June last. The Local Government Board did not sanction the evictions. Their sanction is not necessary, nor have they any power to interfere with the action of the district council in the matter.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will the Local Government Board take some steps to
  90
  prevent labourers being evicted from these cottages simply because they work for an unpopular person?
  MR. BIRRELL: They hold the cottages weekly. It would be most improper to serve notice to quit for any such motive as that attributed in the Question, but it is extremely difficult for the Local Government Board to form itself into a Court of Inquisition to deal with these matters.

  Boycotting in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that, during the periods when the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act of 1887 was in operation, effective relief was afforded to boycotted families in Ireland by the institution of proceedings against persons participating in acts of boycotting, and the consequent restoration of public confidence in the supremacy of the law, and having regard to the increase in the number of persons affected by boycotting since the beginning of 1906, he will consider the expediency of adopting the exceptional measures of relief which proved so beneficial in former periods.
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not propose to enter upon a discussion of the highly debatable point made by the hon. Member in the first part of the Question. The Government have no present intention of adopting the exceptional procedure of the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, but will continue to take all possible measures within the ordinary law for the prevention and punishment of offences.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked if under the operation of the Act the number of cases was not reduced from over 4,000 to—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Notice must be given. The right hon. Gentleman cannot carry the figures in his head.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The hon. Member knows his figures are wrong.

  Intermediate Education Board.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to their late presentation to Parliament, the rules made by the Intermediate Education Board frequently come into operation before headmasters and others interested have an opportunity of examining them in print; and whether, having regard to the constitution of the Board and the desirability of enlisting for its work the co-operation and support of all activity engaged in education, he will take steps to ensure that in future the rules shall be laid before Parliament at an earlier period of the session and printed as soon as possible thereafter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of Intermediate Education are not aware of any case in which their rules have come into operation before those interested have had an opportunity of examining them in print. I would remind the hon. Member that under the statute the rules must lie before Parliament for forty days before becoming operative. The rules at present in question lay on the Table of this House for forty days before the recent recess, and no exception was taken to them. I will consult the Board of Intermediate Education as to the possibility of laying the rules before Parliament at an earlier date in future.

  Threatening Letters.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that the receipt by individuals of threatening letters, or affecting whom or the classes they represent intimidatory resolutions have been passed by branches of the United Irish League, or denunciatory language has been used at meetings of that organisation, has not infrequently been followed by overt outrage on the persons or property of such individuals or classes; and whether he will state what measures have been adopted, or are in contemplation, for the more effective suppression in future of acts and occurrences which directly lead up to and are conducive to outrage.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary
  92
  informs me that it sometimes happens that offences are committed against the person or property of people who have received threatening letters or have been the subject of intimidatory resolutions or speeches as reported in the Press. In the future, as heretofore, all possible measures within the ordinary law will be taken for the punishment of persons against whom there is evidence of using intimidation, and I may add that the police invariably take every necessary precaution for the protection of the persons and property of individuals who may have been subjected to any form of intimidation.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how long the Government intend to carry on the ordinary law, which has proved ineffective?
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: And may I ask whether the inactivity of the Irish Government in following up crime of this sort is part of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman of associating the people of Ireland with the administration of justice?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

  Illegal Use of Firearms in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the condition of affairs indicated by the progressive increase since January, 1907, in the volume of crimes committed with firearms; whether he is aware that between the years 1881 and 1906 the enforcement of the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act of the former year by successive Governments was accompanied by a large decrease in this form of crime; and whether it is proposed to continue to rely upon the provisions of the ordinary law in the expectation that an improved condition of affairs in this respect will result.
  MR. BIRRELL: As I have already stated, I am aware that during the past two years there has been an increase in the number of offences in which firearms have been used. It is also

  93
  the fact that between the years 1881 and 1906, while the Peace Preservation Act was in force, there was a large decrease in the number of offences of firing at the person and firing into dwelling-houses. How far, if at all, that decrease may have been due to the operation of the Peace Preservation Act rather than to the general improvement in the state of the country is a matter of opinion, but I would call attention to the fact that during the same period there was an even greater proportionate decrease in all forms of agrarian crime, and this latter decrease can scarcely be attributed to the Act.
  EARL WINTERTON: Are we to understand that it is the view of the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a gradual increase in the peaceful state of the country since the present Government came into power?
  MR. BIRRELL: If the noble Lord reads my Answer he will find I did not say that.

  Judge Curran and Irish Crime.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the Mullingar Quarter Sessions, on Monday last, Judge Curran stated that, since he last sat there, there had been some eighteen cattle-drives, and boycotting, malignant, systematic, and vindictive, has been carried on against several families in one district, the members of which seemed to have been abandoned to their fate by those whose bounden duty it was to protect them; and whether it is intended to institute proceedings against those who are responsible for the boycotting in these cases.
  MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been drawn to the statement referred to. The cases of the boycotted persons are being closely watched by the police, who are affording them constant protection. One man, charged with intimidation, has been sent to prison for six weeks in default of bail, and the renewal of the licence of a publican who declined to supply the boycotted persons, has been refused by the magisstrates at the instance of the police.
  94
  In all cases in which evidence of a criminal offence is available proceedings will be instituted.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks of County Court Judge Curran at the Mullingar Quarter Sessions on Monday last; and whether he will state the reasons for depriving chairmen of Quarter Sessions and Grand Juries of information respecting the state of the county with which they were formerly supplied.
  MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the remarks of the County Court Judge. I have, however, nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question on the subject on 14th instant, which, I am informed, correctly states the facts.

  Crofters' Commission Expenditure.
  MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he still adheres to his statement that the average cost of fixing of fair rents by the Crofters' Commission was something like 1s. 6d. per case; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing how this figure was arrived at.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): My statement was perfectly accurate. I referred in my speech to legal and not to administrative expenses, and I believe it to be quite correct to say that the legal expenses to crofters do not average more than 1s. 6d. a case. The hon. Member will find the matter fully explained in a speech delivered in this House on 30th April, 1907, by my right hon. and learned friend, the Lord Advocate.
  *MR. COCHRANE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not refer to the expenditure of £3 or £4 in similar cases in Ireland and compared that with the 1s. 6d. paid in the case of the Crofters Commission? May I further ask whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the Secretary for, Scotland that the

  95
  average cost of fixing fair rents by the Crofters Commission was £4 11s. 4d., and not 1s. 6d.
  MR. ASQUITH: What I referred to was the legal and not the administrative expenditure.

  LICENSING [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the Remuneration and Expenses of the Licensing Commission, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906 (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.—(Mr. Whitley.)

  LICENSING BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 10:
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 6, line 14, to leave out subsection (1).—(Mr. James Hope.)
  Question again proposed, "That lines 14 and 15 stand part of the clause."
  MR. MONDsaid that in the remarks which he had the honour to address to the Committee on Friday last, he made the statement that under the last administration it was prophesied by a member of that administration that under the Act of 1904 2,500 licences would be reduced every year. He was challenged on that point by an hon. Member opposite, and he would, therefore, like to quote a passage from the statesman who made that remark. It was made by the late Lord Salisbury in another place and these were his words—
  "Under this Bill we propose to change that possible and occasional 200 into a constant number of nearly 2,500, which is an enormous change in the direction of suppressing those licensed houses which ought to be suppressed."
  He might point out that Lord Belper speaking for the Government on 2nd
  96
  August, 1904, estimated that the fund would enable in one year no less than 2,240 licences to be done away with, and the late Home Secretary, speaking in the House of Commons on 10th May, 1904, held out the hope that 2,000 licences per annum might be abolished. Lord Lansdowne, speaking in another place, confirmed the late Lord Salisbury's statement that a large number of licences were to be done away with. He might point out in passing that during the passage of that Bill the reduction of licensed premises was held out as a great temperance reform, and it was now, when the Liberal Party proposed to carry out a scheme which approximated to the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition's own Government, that they were constantly informed that the reduction of licences would have no effect on drunkenness. He mentioned these figures because the question of numbers was intimately connected with the question of compensation. What had prevented the figures which were held out to both Houses as a great licensing reform being reached? Why, instead of 2,500, did they only get an average in the three years of 1,100 cases? It was owing to the Kennedy judgment upsetting entirely the basis on which all those calculations were made. The compensation fund was now insufficiently large to enable these reductions to take place. He would like to say a few words on the question of what the late Government intended and what Mr. Justice Kennedy's decision did. He had in his hand a report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners for 1905, and a very interesting memorandum by Sir Henry Primrose dealing with the question of how the valuation of licensed premises for the purposes of compensation should be dealt with. He would like to know whether the instructions of the Inland Revenue Department were or were not based on any information supplied to them by any responsible Minister who had taken part in the passing of the Act of 1904, and whether that memorandum had official sanction or not. This was what Sir Henry Primrose said, speaking of the value of licensed premises. He endeavoured to ascertain how the Commissioners must interpret the words

  97
  in the Act of 1904, and came to the conclusion that—
  "They mean not more than the price which in the opinion of the Commissioners the owners of freehold premises might expect to obtain for them qua premises enjoying the privilege of a licence if sold in the open market. The Commissioners consequently are of opinion that for the purposes of their determination of the value of licensed premises any claim by the occupier of the premises, whether he be the owner or the tenant, for compensation on account of loss of trade cannot be admitted into consideration, and still less can the Commissioners take into consideration any claim on the part of the brewing owner of a licensed house in respect of brewery profits on beer supplied by him to the houses."
  That was very important. The Kennedy judgment entirely reversed that last sentence. Mr. Justice Kennedy was dealing with exactly the same point in the case of the "Crown." If they looked at the letter in which the valuers for the brewers made out their statement of compensation they would see that they worked, it out at the number of barrels sold and the profit made by the brewery, the total brewing profits being 16s. per barrel of beer. They added to that a profit on the right to compel the tenant to sell such spirits as the brewery company might like to supply him with, a profit of 2s. 6d. a gallon, which came to £18 a year, and it was a curious fact that such an amount should be put in an estimate of compensation, considering that as a matter of fact no spirit had ever been sold in the house. They added depreciation and fixtures and the actual amount the tenant was paying them, and they arrived finally at about £2,400. What Sir Henry Primrose and the Inland Revenue Commissioners were trying to ascertain was the rack rent value of licensed premises, and it was obviously a difficult proposition. What Mr. Justice Kennedy ought to have done was this: he should have asked himself what would the brewers have given for these premises. Let him work out whether a brewer would have given for the premises the amount claimed for compensation.
  MR. YOUNGER: The hon. Member was confusing two things. In the calculation of 16s. he had included both the retail and the wholesale profits. He would be glad to know of
  98
  a brewer who made a profit of 16s. a barrel.
  MR. MONDsaid the Judge himself did not believe that the brewers were making such a profit, and he gave them nothing like that amount. The experts said 16s., another party said 8s., and it was given at 11s. It did not include retail profits. If they had the details of the case before them they would see there was a special valuation of £224, tenant's interest for retail profits, added to the amount he had mentioned. He was not astonished that the hon. Member opposite was amazed at the assertions of brewers' experts when they claimed compensation. He had worked out a little sum. The profit which it was alleged the house made annually was £167 19s., and the amount of compensation paid for the premises was £2,000. If they took £2,000 at 5 per cent. interest, and 2½ per cent. depreciation and repairs, they got £150 a year. Did any hon. Member say that if he was the happy possessor of licensed premises and if he went to a brewer and said: "You can make £167 19s. on this house; give me £2,000, for it," the brewer would undertake the risk of the business, the trouble of manufacturing the beer and the risk of losing his business for the purpose of making £17 19s., while he (the hon. Member) made £150? He would do nothing of the kind. He would say: "How much more can I get in a tied house than in a free house; how much more beer can I sell owing to my owning this house than I could sell without owning it?" Taking that into consideration, he would make a fair offer. Mr. Justice Kennedy never allowed in the least for the fact that all the beer, or a portion of it, might be sold somewhere else. He estimated the whole trade of the brewery as being extinguished. He said they made a profit, of so many shillings per barrel, and he capitalised that at so many years purchase and awarded a lump sum. That was an absolutely fallacious calculation as he would point out. Nobody would compensate the distillery whose whisky was not sold; the distiller was not the owner. Surely the rack rent of the premises was not

  99
  the profit of the manufacturer plus the retail profit? But that was the figure which had been taken and which vitiated the whole of the calculation. Had the Government of 1904 intended that they could never have presented the figure of reduction of licences which they did. It had been said that this was largely a domestic question, but for all that, as the State had undertaken the obligation of seeing that the trade was not taxed too highly for compensation levies, and that a man whose house was closed did not get an unfair advantage out of the man whose house was not closed, the State must see that the compensation paid was reasonable, and that was absolutely what the Government was trying to arrive at. They were trying to arrive at the true rack rent, and in most cases, in the case of dwelling house property, the assessment to Schedule A was a very fair guide to the annual rental value. If they wished to get the rack rent—and he did not think that could be controverted—the decision of Mr. Justice Kennedy was based on a misapprehension. He could not see a fairer method than that adopted by the Government. The one reason why licensed houses were under-assessed was the remarkable method adopted in carrying out the accounts. The principle of nominal rents charged to tenants of licensed premises, rents which did not represent the real amount, had been adopted in order to make it difficult for assessment committees to find out the true rent. If a fair sum were returned for the purposes of assessment the ratepayer and the taxpayer would get what they ought to have had long ago. The fact that they had been able to escape proper taxation for so many years was no excuse for continuing it or for abusing everybody who wanted them to pay their fair share towards the rates and taxes. The unfairness of the decision became more obvious if they took the case, which was a common one, of the owners not being brewers at all; the owner who was not a brewer would probably charge to the tenant a pretty close rack rent, and he would certainly not make anything like the profit which the brewer was making by the supply of beer. Under the present system the
  100
  owner of licensed premises who was not a brewer was in actual practice receiving less compensation than the owner who was a brewer. The hon. Member for Kensington said "No," but he (Mr. Mond) did not see how they could avoid that conclusion, if they followed the same line of assessment as was laid down by the Kennedy judgment. Another point which he thought was of considerable importance was this: There were only two options open. If they wished to get the number of reductions which was not in dispute between the two sides of the House, that number of reductions which the Leader of the Opposition wanted in 1904 and which the Government wanted now, there were only two methods of arriving at it. They had either to increase the compensation levy or to reduce the amount now being paid for compensation. He did not see himself, in view of the fact that he could not see any distinction between what was arrived at in 1904 and what was aimed at now as regards reduction, that there was any other course open. It seemed to him much more reasonable to go back to the more reasonable form of assessment than to raise the high compensation levy which had already inflicted a very great injustice on a large portion of the trade. In his constituency he had a gentleman interested in the trade who owned one of the finest hotels in North Wales, a hotel which under no conceivable circumstances could lose its licence, and he had to pay a large compensation levy in order to pay for the extinction of a number of small beerhouses which he had assured him himself ought not to exist at all. He (the speaker) had never been able to see that that was a very equitable arrangement, and it would not be equitable to increase the compensation, levy on the man with a good hotel for the benefit of the owner of a small beerhouse. Therefore, he thought the Government were quite right in adopting the latter of the courses he had named, and in endeavouring to get the compensation down to a reasonable level. He thanked the Government for the Amendment they intended to move on behalf of the licence-holders, who had not had a very happy time of it under the Act of 1904. It was very interesting to see how different was the position of

  101
  the licence-holder when he was being used as a weapon to beat the supporters of the Bill, and when he was wanting money from the people who were so very fond of using him as one of their most effective electioneering agents. The licensee in the "Crown" case had been there for eighteen years. He had an unblemished character; his conduct was good; he was making £224 a year, and the brewer's representative thought he was very generously treated if he got £250—little more than twelve months profits after eighteen years hard work in that public-house. He was certain that all those who took an interest, as many of them did, in the man behind the bar, hoped that he would get now at least the minimum amount, and that his compensation would be assessed as a separate item, and not mixed up as in the past with the compensation that was being paid to the owner of the house. He hoped that there would be some further explanation of the Government Amendment as to the maintenance of the lease owing to the proposal that the monopoly value should not come into operation until seven years after the expiration of the time-limit. It would very much simplify the Bill if the Government, in addition to the exclusion of the monopoly value for seven years, would also make a close time for reductions for the seven years following the time-limit, so that there might be a peaceful time for the trade during that period. Having made the one concession it seemed to him that the other should follow; it would simplify the proceedings they proposed to adopt. Of course, a con-sequential Amendment would be necessary. So far as he had been able to make out, after a careful study of the Kennedy judgment, he thought it clear that it could not stand. It was based on a false principle. It was a contravention of the idea which underlay the Act of 1904, and would have to be amended; therefore the question which remained to the Committee was very largely whether the Government proposal did or did not provide the best manner of amending it. The more argument was in this direction, and the less in the direction of pure denunciation, the greater progress they would make, and the more likely they would be to arrive
  102
  at a settlement. After all they were discussing a very serious and a very important question.
  "The evils of drink come home too bitterly to the hearts and consciences of all classes of the community. There is probably not a man or woman here—there is certainly not a man or woman here who has not had painful opportunities of seeing all the tragedies—the domestic tragedies, the ruin of home life, the destruction of a great and honourable career, the misery brought upon individuals and families by the reckless use and misuse of alcoholic beverages. This great and ever present tragedy—"
  The noble Lord laughed.
  EARL WINTERTONsaid he was amazed at the hon. Member's method of reading his peroration.
  MR. MONDsaid that if the noble Lord had waited a moment he would have seen that he was reading not a peroration but a quotation.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Amendment.
  MR. MONDsaid he was just going to conclude. He was quoting from a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Albert Hall on 25th June, 1908. He knew he was a little wide of the question. They got very few opportunities of speaking, owing to the conditions under which the discussion was carried on. But he must say that those words of the right hon. Gentleman were noble sentiments which were much more finely expressed than he could hope to express them. He felt that instead of the cynical and flippant observations they had had during the Committee stage of the Bill—[Cries from the OPPOSITION benches of "Oh"]—with the single exception of one speech from the hon. Member for Gravesend, he had not heard one speech which rang with the words of the right hon. Gentleman.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is getting too wide. These are not the kind of remarks which should be made on an Amendment in Committee.
  MR. MONDresumed his seat.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that at the close of the hon. Member's observations he expressed the hope that hon. Members on that side of the House would address themselves more closely to the question before the Committee, and cease their denunciations, but he fell so far from his own precepts that he was twice called to order by the Chairman.
  MR. MONDsaid he really thought that that was a most unfair observation. He was going to make an appeal to hon. Members opposite when he was called to order because he was irrelevant. It was an unfair statement, because if he had been allowed to conclude his remarks he could have borne out what he intended to say. In all sincerity he asked hon. Members to aid in carrying through a great social reform.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the hon. Member's observations were irrelevant and couched in language which was quite needlessly offensive to hon. Members on that side of the House. The hon. Member said that with one single exception the whole of the speeches made from that side of the House were cynical and flippant. The very fact that when the hon. Member quite irrelevantly, but for the first time in the course of his speech touched on the question of temperance, he was obliged to come to the Leader of the Opposition for a really touching appeal on that subject, ought to have shown him that the interests of temperance were as dear to hon. Members sitting on that side of the House, even if they did not approve of the manner in which they were being promoted by the Government.
  MR. LUPTONon a point of order asked whether the manners of the hon. Member were relevant to this discussion.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman was leaving the point now.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he quite agreed that the manners neither of the hon. Gentleman nor of himself were relevant to the question at issue,
  104
  which was indeed one of the gravest that they had had to consider in the course of these debates. The particular clause and subsection on which the Committee were engaged did not raise the question of the desirability of an arbitrary statutory reduction of public-houses. If it did he would point out in answer to the hon. Gentleman that there was no inconsistency in their attitude in saying that such a reduction as was proposed was a very different thing from a reduction made on the merits in each individual case judged by those most competent accurately to understand the local circumstances. They were not discussing a question of temperance, but the treatment they would award to any trade or any individual whose property or trade they disturbed or destroyed in the supposed interests of the public at large. Even the Government and the hon. Gentleman himself would admit that the principles they should apply in the compensation of this property were the same whether it was the property of a licence-holder or any other kind of property. That the nature of the interest of licence-holders was different from freehold property was admitted by his right hon. friend and was recognised in the Act of 1904. The hon. Member for Chester summed up his argument by saying that the Kennedy judgment could not stand, and by repeating the words of the Under-Secretary to the Home Office that if the Kennedy judgment did stand the compensation levy was not sufficient to suppress the number of licences they desired to suppress and that therefore as the money would not go round on the basis of the Kennedy judgment they must alter that judgment. They must cut their coat according to their cloth, and make the compensation according to the amount of money at their disposal. That was the argument of the Under-Secretary, though not so concisely put.
  *THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,): No, Sir; that was not at all my argument.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Gentleman, did not in the course of his very interesting speech, which was

  105
  useful to both sides of the House because it was perfectly lucid and clear and left them in no doubt as to its meaning, use any argument to show that the Kennedy judgment was wrong. The hon. Gentleman did use an argument to show that the anticipation of the late Government as to the value of the houses was not realised. He said that the late Government anticipated that the value would be less and that the number of houses closed for a certain sum of money would be greater. But the calculations of the late Government necessarily depended on anticipations as to the class of houses likely to be closed. In many cases a much more valuable class of houses had been attacked than was anticipated in the earlier stages of their Rill. But let them put that on one side, and take it that they were wrong. What did that prove? It proved that they miscalculated the value of the houses, but it did not prove that Mr. Justice Kennedy was wrong in the principles which he laid down, and the Under-Secretary, with a single exception, which he had shown was not an argument, did not attempt to show that Mr. Justice Kennedy's judgment was wrong. All the hon. Gentleman attempted to show was that the compensation levy, as at present made, was not sufficient to buy in the number of houses which they had to exchange for it, and they had only two alternatives, either to increase the compensation levy or diminish the compensation. The Government thought and the hon. Member for Chester agreed that the better and easier way was to decrease the amount of compensation. The hon. Member talked about cynical proceedings, but a more cynical proceeding he had never heard than that, when they wanted a man's property which he was not willing to sell, they should acquire powers, and then when they had not money enough to pay him the value of the property they should say they must define the value in a different way, meaning a definition of value which would come within the money they had. That was what the Government were doing by this clause, and the importance and seriousness of the clause was not merely that it affected directly a very large interest, but
  106
  it indirectly threatened every man who had property, business, or trade, which might, at any time, be interfered with in the course of public improvements, or be required for the purposes of the State. Could they be surprised if there was a feeling of insecurity abroad; that men were loth to engage in new expenditure, or to make large investments here, when they saw old investments treated with this levity, and people dispossessed of property with this cynical disregard of every canon of justice? The hon. Member for Chester did, in the earlier portion of his speech, unlike the Under-Secretary, attempt to dispute the merits of the Kennedy judgment. Would the hon. Member permit him to say, without meaning to be offensive, that he thought before anyone could advantageously argue the merits of a case against a judgment, he must understand it, and the hon. Member had wholly misunderstood the judgment. He would undertake to say that the hon. Member would not find a legal authority who had looked up this case who would support his interpretation of Mr. Justice Kennedy's judgment, and if the hon. Member repeated to that learned Judge the arguments he had used as being those of Mr. Justice Kennedy, his lordship would fail to recognise them. The hon. Gentleman made two statements which were, he thought, of some importance with regard to that judgment. He said that what Mr. Justice Kennedy ought to have asked, in regard to the brewer, was what value the brewer would give for the house in the open market. That was exactly what Mr. Justice Kennedy did. He asked that, and nothing more. He took evidence as to profits, and so far as he admitted it, he took it only for the purpose of ascertaining what a problematical buyer in the open market would bid. What he was asked to do was to exclude the brewer, who by the necessities of the case was the man to whom the property was most valuable, and who was likely to be the best purchaser in the open market. The learned Judge said the result surely was that the tribunal was to assess the amount of compensation by finding the price of the licensed premises in the open market, adding to that the sum, if any, for

  107
  trade fixtures, and deducting from the total the price which the premises would fetch in the open market if unlicensed. Therefore the whole task of the tribunal in the opinion of Mr. Justice Kennedy was to find the price of the premises in the open market, and he had done so. The learned Judge then went on to deal with the various items which would influence the judgment of a possible buyer, and to say that these must be taken into account. He submitted that the definition which Mr. Justice Kennedy gave of that which was the subject of compensation was one which throughout this debate there had been no attempt to dispute or to disprove, and which could not be disputed, for it accurately defined that which was the subject of compensation, which they were taking away, and for which they ought to give full value. He was not concerned to say that in the interpretation and application of the judgment to every particular case the amount of compensation awarded has been right. It might have been too high or too low, because there were circumstances in the cases which were not capable of being met by fixed rules, but which might affect the price in individual cases. Some hon. Members had spoken as if Mr. Justice Kennedy's judgment fixed a particular profit and a particular term of purchase applicable to all licences. That was not so. Those were individual circumstances which must be considered in each individual case, and as Mr. Justice Kennedy said, they had to estimate the annual profit which, according to the ordinary course of the brewery trade, might be treated as being likely to be derived from the supply of liquor in the licensed premises. There was to be added in order to get the basis of the market value the rent which might be obtained from the tenant—the annual sum which he would be willing to pay in anticipation of profits which he would receive from the retail sale of the liquors supplied to him by the brewers. The annual rent having been obtained, there still remained, in order to obtain the licensed value, the capitalisation by a number of years purchase which would be affected by the circumstances of the locality, the particular business
  108
  and premises, and the state of the market for this class of property. Could anyone lay down more clearly the principles by which they should arrive at the value of that which they were taking away? Mr. Justice Kennedy confessed he was unable to see in what other way the market value of licensed premises could be arrived at than that which he had pursued, and he (Mr. Chamberlain) called the attention of the Committee to the fact that there had been no attempt during the whole of the debate, by anyone conversant with what Mr. Justice Kennedy's judgment was, to dispute the principles laid down. He said that they were the only principles upon which they could act, and if too great compensation had been given in particular cases it was not the fault of Mr. Justice Kennedy's judgment; it was because, after deciding on the number of years' purchase that should be allowed, other matters, which varied with each individual case, had entered into consideration, and the tribunal had over-estimated the allowance to be made in the case then under consideration. He would refer to another observation of the hon. Member for Chester because it contained a widespread misapprehension on the benches opposite as to the effect of the Kennedy judgment. The hon. Member said that the owner of licensed premises not being a brewer got less for his interest in those premises than the brewer got for his smaller interest. That was not true. The measure in each case was not the profits of the brewer, but the value of the premises in the open market in which the brewer was a possible purchaser of a house already owned by the brewer, or of a free house owned by a tenant, or of a house owned by another brewer. The brewer only came in as a possible buyer, but owing to the circumstances he happened to be the purchaser who would give the best price. [Mr. MOND was understood to dissent from the interpretation put upon his words.] The hon. Gentleman did not attempt to argue that Mr. Justice Kennedy's principles were wrong at all; he only said that in his opinion the prices paid were too high. They often found that prices which were paid were said to be too high. There were those who said

  109
  that that paid by the National Gallery for a picture was too high, but the question was, would it fetch that price at Christie's? One further observation on the question of fact as to whether or not the values paid had been too high. Were they higher than were paid for similar property altogether outside this Licensing Bill? He would undertake to say that, so far from being higher, they were lower than the prices paid when a public authority desired to acquire a licensed house, for some public improvement, under compulsory powers. The Government did not attempt to argue that the judgment of Mr. Justice Kennedy was unfair. They simply said the money would not go round, that they would have to provide a different measure of value for compensation, and they chose Schedule A assessment as that measure. Why? The Committee was sometimes told that it was the basis that the Inland Revenue Commissioners worked upon in the Memorandum issued by them in the last days of the late Government. It was suggested that the late Government had some responsibility for that circular or had given some assistance or guidance or aided in its circulation. As he had before explained to the Committee, if any member of the late Government could have been responsible for the circular it would have been himself as Chancellor of the Exchequer. But in this particular instance the Act of 1904 had placed upon the Inland Revenue a judicial function as against their ordinary administrative functions, and it would have been a very great breach on his part if he had attempted to direct them as to the way in which they ought to act. As a matter of fact, he received from the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue a copy of the circular, already in print, on, he believed, the day before it was issued. He told the chairman that though he should read it with great interest it was a matter, not for him, but for the Board of Inland Revenue. The late Government had no responsibility for the issue of that circular. If they had disagreed with it they could not have altered it. It would have been obviously improper for him to dictate to the Inland Revenue and say that they should not take a line
  110
  which they thought was right. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department drew the inference that if the late Government were not officially responsible for this Memorandum, it might, at any rate, have regard to what was in their mind at the passing of the Act of 1904. What was in the mind of the late Government, on the passing of the Act of 1904, was that those who were interested in the licences that were to be destroyed should be compensated on the basis on which they were taxed. They were taxed on the market value of the interest they held, and it was intended that they should be compensated on that interest. Would this circular of the Inland Revenue compensate on that basis? He had before him the cases of a dozen houses which fell to pay estate duty between the years 1901 and 1908. He believed they were all London houses. Among the twelve two were freehold, and were accordingly assessed for death duty as freeholds. For the purposes of comparison, he had converted the value of the non-freehold premises into what it would have been had they also been freehold. The total freehold value of those twelve licensed houses was £288,600 odd. That was the amount on which they would be taxed by the Inland Revenue in proportion to the interests concerned. When they came to assess their value for the purposes of compensation they assessed the value of these houses at £168,500. The Government, not content with that rather severe cutting away of the value, had actually reduced the amount to £51,400. Could anything be less equitable?
  MR. LEIF JONESasked was the value in the licence alone or in the premises, in the structures, and the effects that went with them.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the value for death duties was, of course, the whole value, but the hon. Gentleman's observation did not affect the argument. In the case of compensation, they had to allow for the interests not dealt with. But whatever allowances were made there was no possible manner in which it could

  111
  be shown that when a man's property was taken away in this manner he should be paid compensation which did not in any way approach the scale upon which he was made to pay taxation. The Schedule A basis was a totally inadequate basis to take for the payment of compensation. Upon this point the Under-Secretary for the Home Department on the previous Friday attempted to make a case for the Government, a thing which no one had before attempted. The hon. Gentleman said that a great part of the business was goodwill, and that goodwill was of two kinds; that in so far as it was personal to the tenant it was compensated in a provision of which too little had been said. But the compensation made to the tenant was only the compensation made in the Act of 1904. In this Bill it was less than that, and it was only by Amendments made by the Solicitor-General, who had incorporated words from the Act of 1904, that the compensation had been made equal to the compensation given in the Act of 1904. The hon. Gentleman said that, so far as the goodwill was the result of the tenant's personality and activity, it was compensated for, and that, so far as it was attached to the house, it ought to appear in Schedule A. and would be compensated for when it appeared in the schedule. But only a very small part would appear in Schedule A. The greater part would appear in Schedule D. They should compensate under Schedule D.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Whose Schedule D? The owner's or the licensee's?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid both the owner and the licensee. Undoubtedly the main portion of the goodwill appeared in Schedule D and paid tax under the guise of income-tax on profits. How ludicrously unsuitable therefore, was the schedule a basis for the Government's purpose. Let hon. Members turn to the list of licensed premises in the London County Council area and deal with the assessment of those premises under the Licensing Act. The assessment of licensed houses in London under Schedule A was singled out
  112
  as being a good assessment different from that in the country. The assessment was established on practically the same basis throughout the Metropolis. If, therefore, the Government was right in assuming that the Government assessment bore some relation to the value of the property, then it would be found that this value was given in the purchase price of the house. But the number of years purchase of the rateable value given to these houses in the schedule varied from three years to 128 years, and touched almost every immediate figure according to the circumstances of each particular house. Under Schedule A the assessment in London was extremely well done, in the opinion of competent authorities, at any rate one of the best authorities in the country—but no possible reason could be given which did not show that assessment under Schedule A was an untrue test of the value of a licensed house. The Government, however, had chosen it, he did not know why, except that it would greatly reduce the compensation to be paid, and that it enabled them to do what they would not otherwise be able to do with the funds at their disposal. The only justification they had given was this Memorandum of the Board of Inland Revenue, which, when the brewers took it into Court, the Law Officers could not support. The legal adviser of the Inland Revenue abandoned it, and declared that it was not his, and that he had not been consulted about it. The Judge rejected it, and the Government wisely refrained from any appeal against the judgment. What was the value of that document which was quoted to them as showing the way in which they were to arrive at the valuations? It was really ridiculous as an argument in favour of the course pursued by the Government. This was in many respects a very technical question and they who were laymen feared to tread in these perilous legal paths; but he thought the subject was made more complicated than it need be by reason of the manner in which it had been discussed in Committee. The Opposition reduced the question so that every Member of the House could test it for himself. Their contention was simply that when they took property away for the public interest, they were

  113
  bound to pay the owner of that property the price for which he might have sold it in the open market. They asked for no more, and they contended that they should have no less. The fact that a man belonged to a trade which was unpopular with hon. Gentlemen opposite afforded no justification for treating him differently from his fellow men. Such treatment could only raise among the holders of other property and other securities a feeling of uncertainty and alarm which had no little to do with the distress which they were discussing the previous night, and would continue to react disadvantageously upon our industrial position as long as the Government persisted in measures so inequitable and unjust as the clause which they were considering.
  *MR. MONTAGUsaid the right hon. Gentleman, had begun with a discussion of the Government's attack on property, and his observations sounded like a faint echo of the speech which he might have delivered yesterday. Those on the Government side of the House differed from the Opposition in their interpretation of the conditions on which a licence was held. The Opposition alleged that the licence-holder had in the licence a property which would be renewed for ever, whereas they on the Government side looked upon it as, in fact and in law, a licence granted for one year and no longer. That had been stated over and over again in the debates. Between these two views a compromise, based on the facility with which a prudent trader could get out of his investment, had been incorporated in the Bill, namely, the fourteen years time-limit. The right hon. Gentleman had been discussing this subsection as though Section 3 of the Bill had never been passed. It seemed to him to be absolutely necessary to take into consideration the fact that what they had to compensate for under this Bill was the loss of a licence held subject to good behaviour, for fourteen years. That had been determined by Section 3 of the Bill. Having decided that, was it not fair to say that this Bill gave to the licence-holder and to the owner of the licensed property fourteen years of an absolutely secure possession of his licence in exchange for the one year's precarious
  114
  tenure which he had previous to the Act of 1904? If in the fourteen years the holder lost his licence for any other reason than misconduct, he was to be compensated, and for every year of that fourteen years security the holder was deprived of, he got a further instalment of compensation. Upon what were they to base this compensation? Why, surely, the annual value of what they took away.
  MR. YOUNGERasked the hon. Member if that argument applied to licences in Wales under Clause 9. They might be taken away to-morrow.
  *MR. MONTAGUsaid that compensation would then be given. The annual value of what they took away partly accrued to the owner of the property and partly to the tenant. So far as he understood, the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the comparison he made, omitted to take into account that over and above the difference between the two schedules, with and without a licence, suggested by the Government, there would, at any rate, be something payable to the tenant or employee. Under the Act of 1904 there was nothing for the tenant or employee, and what he got was carved out of the compensation given to the owner. Under this Bill it would be something additional, and in his judgment a considerable amount should be taken into consideration in respect of the tenant's interest in the comparison which the right hon. Gentleman had made. He did not think that anyone who had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln on Friday last could remain in doubt that there was a very good case made out for the statement that throughout the country licensed premises habitually escaped their fair share of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman had been most eloquent on the subject of the Kennedy judgment, and on the fact that they had not proved that judgment to be wrong, but he had admitted, or, at all events, had not denied that what the Kennedy judgment awarded to dispossessed licence-holders was far in excess of what his friends intended under the Act of 1904.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I certainly did not say anything of the kind.
  *MR. MONTAGUsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not denied nor was it controverted after the quotations and figures given to the House on Friday by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, that during the whole course of the debate the statement was constantly made that it was not the anticipation or intention of the promoters of the Act of 1904 that compensation should be so large as it had been under the Kennedy judgment. If it was contended that the Kennedy judgment was fair, then it might be held that those who were responsible for framing the Act of 1904 intended that there should be higher compensation. The right hon. Gentleman had gone on to say that one of the great fallacies of the scheme of compensation for which the Government was responsible was that it did not take into consideration the profits under Schedule D. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain what he meant. There were no owner's profits in the public-house returns under Schedule D. The profits under Schedule D would be compensated for in what was given to the tenant. These were the general brewery profits under Schedule D, but the Government would not concede that the wholesale profits of the brewers returned under Schedule D should be taken into consideration at all. Such profits were independent of the particular licence, and a large portion of them might have be gained on some other licensed property, so that it would be absolutely illogical and unfair that they should be taken into account in considering compensation. Having made that exception of the wholesale profits of the brewers, there was nothing left which would not be included in a fair assessment, under Schedule A, of the value of the licence. Therefore, having regard to the fact that at the end of fourteen years the licence was to be granted as a new licence, he asserted that no real criticism which would hold water had been made on the Government proposal as to compensation. Under the concessions foreshadowed by the Prime Minister, which might be inserted on the Report stage, there was to be a modification of Section 3 of the Bill which affected this subsection (1). Something more was gven to the licence than the fourteen years
  116
  security given in the Bill as it stood. It was not twenty-one years security; it was fourteen years security, with seven additional years to run, about which there were two elements of risk. One was the possibility, to his mind the not very probable possibility, of the carrying of a local option resolution. He attached very great importance to the recognition of the, to him, incontrovertible principle of local option, but it was too much to expect that the first, or even the second, time a local option vote was taken it would be successful. After all, there were only to be two, or in exceptional cases, three occasions on which a local option poll could be taken in the seven years, and even the most sanguine temperance reformer who hoped most from local option would agree with him that even the third time there was not a very large probability of local option being carried. The good which was to come of it would have to be done by an arduous course of education of local and general public opinion.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Amendment. The question of local option can only come in as affecting the question of compensation. The hon. Member seems to be going beyond that.
  *MR. MONTAGUsaid he was going to suggest that any one of the seven years coming after the end of the reduction period was not to be considered of equal value to the tenant or owner of licensed property as any one of the years coming in the reduction period, because there was a slight risk of local option, and he was going on to argue that as the local option risk was, to his mind, a very small one, the value of each year was greater than it had been sometimes argued ought to be attached to it. He was going on to suggest that in view of this extra seven years a few extra years purchase should be added to the compensation outlined in the Bill, not based on a certain extra run of seven years, but on the slightly diminished value of that run owing to the risk, which he argued was slight, of the carrying of a local option Resolution. He should like to ask the late Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his opinion,

  117
  the Schedule A valuation of licensed premises was on the whole at the moment a fair one, and whether he considered there was no room for the revaluation laid down in the Bill. After he had answered that, he would ask him whether he considered there were any elements in the value of the licence which were not included in the proper Schedule A valuation except these Schedule D profits which he did not understand otherwise than as the Schedule D profits of the brewery as a whole. If these two matters were cleared up, they could hope to come to some agreement instead of constant assertion on one side and denial on the other.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will answer the second question first. I consider the elements which have to be taken into consideration, in determining the value of that which we take away when we close a licence, ought not and cannot appear in any shape or be represented in any form in Schedule A. Therefore, it does not matter whether Schedule A is a fair or unfair assessment, because, in my opinion, even if it is a perfectly fair assessment it cannot be used as a basis for the calculation of value.
  *MR. MONTAGU: Then all I can say is that the repeated efforts of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have failed to identify these mysterious items which are not and cannot be included in Schedule A value.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid the question before the Committee was how much compensation was going to be paid under the Bill for houses whose licences were taken away during the reduction period. Hon. Members said the Kennedy judgment was wrong, but it was not appealed against. Why not? The Law Officers of the Crown agreed with the Judge. He under tood they actually gave up the argument. The Lord Chief Justice, in a case he had heard this year, said of the Kennedy judgment—
  "So far as it is necessary to consider that judgment as bearing upon Section 2 of the Act of 1904, I do not see how it can possibly be attacked. It must be taken to be good law."
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: No one here would presume to say that Mr. Justice Kennedy's judgment was wrong in law. All we say is that the principles on which it is founded are principles with which we disagree.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTScontended I that those principles were right. What had the Court to decide in that case? The object was to arrive at the value of the licence which was taken away; that was to say, the difference between the value of the premises licensed and unlicensed, plus something for depreciation of fixtures and fittings. Under the Act of 1904 it was provided in Section 2 that if the parties should not agree upon the price, it was to be fixed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Under the Finance Act of 1904—
  "The principal value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, such property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the death of the deceased."
  The Commissioners thought, as a matter of convenience, they could arrive at the value by capitalising the annual value, as determined by the income-tax assessment under Schedule A. and generally they capitalised it at 4 per cent., namely, twenty-five years purchase. The Judge in the Kennedy case said the value did not depend upon the assessed value at all. The assessed value had nothing to do with the market value. What it depended upon was what the property would fetch in the open market, and inasmuch as brewers generally were the large buyers of these houses they must let the opinion of these brewers come into the matter as to what profit they would be likely to expect if they purchased the property. That was the principle which was laid down by the Royal Commission, whose Report said—
  "While the fact that the house is licensed may be considered to some extent in the assessment, it is tolerably certain that the goodwill cannot be considered at all, but the licence and the goodwill are the things for which compensation is given and not the building, which the owner would retain."
  Under the decision of Mr. Justice Kennedy the "Crown" at Cobham was valued by the Court at £1,497. The

  119
  Commissioners had fixed the value at £455, but under this Bill the value would be only £52—one-thirtieth of the value which was found by the Court. He was simply quoting that figure to show what a very great difference there would be between the compensation paid under the Bill and the compensation arrived at by the Courts. There were forty-three London houses dealt with last year. The actual compensation was £104,000. Under this Bill, in the first year of the reduction period, that would be reduced to £18,000, and in the seventh, to only £10,000, or one-tenth of the amount actually given last year. The Government proposed to give the value of an annuity of the annual value of the House. The average period of the annuity would be five and three-quarter years, and that would have to be taken as the multiplier, as compared with twenty-five years which was taken generally as the multiplier before Mr. Justice Kennedy's decision. It was totally inadequate in every way. It worked out in practice in various ways according to the situation of the houses. It might work out to be a half or a twentieth of the true market value, and in some cases the value might be nothing at all. There were cases where the public-house might be of the same value with the licence as without it. In such a case the compensation was nil. He quoted that to show the injustice. There was a fully licensed public-house in Clerkenwell. This case was vouched for by valuers of experience. It was closed during last year under the Act of 1904. The total amount awarded was £2,424, of which the owner got £2,020. As the estimated income-tax assessment of the premises was the same, whether licensed or unlicensed, the compensation under the Bill would be nil, the goodwill having been destroyed by the State. Was that justice? If property was taken away, the ordinary rules of justice prevailed in this country—that the market value must be given. They were paying this compensation out of moneys contributed annually to the Compensation Fund. It had been stated that when the Act of 1904 was before the House it was understood that compensation would not be arrived at on those lines. A little circular was published by
  120
  the Home Office in May, 1904, signed by the Under-Secretary to the Home Department, and it laid down that the valuation of licensed houses came under the general rule applicable to all properties under the Finance Act of 1894, which was the price the property would realise if sold in the open market. Therefore, it was in the mind of the Home Office that the ordinary rules of valuation would be applied in fixing the compensation. Under the present Act the minimum was fixed, but under this Bill that was not so, and there was no right of appeal. He was aware that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue might add something to compensate the publican, but there was no express obligation upon them. About 11 per cent. of the total amount of the compensation allowance under the present law had been given or allotted to the licence-holder, and where the licence-holder had no substantial interest in the premises it amounted to about 10 per cent. They had received no information from the Government upon this point. Hon. Members opposite had expressed sympathy, and had urged that they should receive more, but they had been given no information as to how they were to receive more. No appeal and no minimum had been fixed. He hoped that the Government, even at the last moment, would decide that if they took property for public purposes compensation ought to be allowed at the full market value, and if full value could not be given out of public funds it ought to be given by the trade itself.
  *MR. LEIF JONESsaid they had heard a great deal about the Kennedy judgment, and the interpretation to be placed upon it. Although the opinion of one who was not a lawyer on a legal judgment could not carry much weight, still he brought to bear upon it ordinary common sense, and he ventured to assert that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire had not put the whole meaning of the Kennedy judgment before the Committee in the extract he had read. That judgment also laid down that—
  "In the case of an owner who is not a brewer and who let the licensed premises to a tenant you may be able to find the market value by capitalistion of the annual value based upon the true rack rent."

  121
  That showed that Mr. Justice Kennedy had in mind exactly the same thing which the late Government had in view when introducing their Bill in regard to free houses, and which the present Government had embodied in this Bill. That was clearly the intention of the Government of 1904 when they introduced their Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: Not at all.] He did not wish to repeat extracts from the speech of the late Solicitor-General and the ex-Home Secretary who introduced the Bill. The right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had put forward the peculiar doctrine that because no words had been quoted on this point from speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition, therefore the remarks of the other members of the late Government carried no weight as a guide to the intentions of the Government of the day. The late Prime Minister himself spoke in the debate on the introduction of the Bill, and he used these words, again showing what was in the mind of the Government in regard to the valuation of a licence. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "My right hon. friend the Home Secretary told the House that the machinery by which the value of this kind of property is to be estimated is precisely the machinery which determines the amount at which it is to be taxed. Do hon. Gentlemen really think it can be taxed on one value and dispossessed on another?"
  Those were the views of the Leader of the Opposition. He accepted the theory that the assessment for taxation, and compensation should be made upon the same basis. Their complaint in regard to the Kennedy judgment did not arise in the case of a free house. It only arose when they applied the same rule of interpretation to the tied house as to the free house, and they contended—and this was a clear issue—that the brewery owner got more compensation than the owner of a house who was not a brewer. That never was the intention of the Act of 1904. It was unjust that because the owner of a public-house happened to be a brewer he should receive more compensation than the owner who was not a brewer. There was no difference in regard to a free house, and it was only in the tied house that the difference arose. They found that taking the wholesale profits of the brewer, as a means of
  122
  arriving at the value, resulted in giving far more compensation than was just for a great many houses. A friend of his who was a farmer believed in brewery investments in spite of all his persuasions, and he derived yearly a large return from them. He had complained of what he (the hon. Member) was doing, and he explained that he was getting on extremely well at present. His friend told him of the case of a public-house which his brewery purchased in the country for £200. Last year that house was closed under the Act, £400 was paid as compensation for the licence, and the brewery company were allowed to retain, the house for any other purpose they liked. There was neither sense nor justice in paying twice as much as a house cost and at the same time leaving the house in the possession of the same owner.
  EARL WINTERTON: As the hon. Member has repeatedly pressed for specific cases, perhaps he will give the Committee the name in this instance.
  *MR. LEIF JONESsaid he would not give the name, although he was willing to furnish the noble Lord with it privately. There were many cases where it would be more profitable to the brewery to close down their houses but for the prospects of compensation. He could give instances of houses at present losing money which were being kept open merely to obtain compensation under the Kennedy judgment. That was not the intention of the Act of 1904, and he was sure it was not the intention of this Parliament. If they paid more than the actual loss incurred, they would be doing an injustice to the nation, because the money paid was money which might otherwise be used for other taxation purposes. His complaint all through had been that public-houses were assessed on one basis when it was a question of the payment of rates and taxes and on another basis for compensation. There was a return of 115 houses in regard to which the licences were refused renewal in London last year. The compensation amounted to £327,000, whilst the average net assessment to local rates was £70. He did not know the value of the houses without licences. The difficulty of arriving at any comparison was admitted

  123
  by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, who said that he Could not in the least estimate what was the remaining value when the licences had been taken away.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had omitted to give the figures, but he would give them row. The amount treated as a freehold was £288,600. Allowing for the estimated value of the freehold premises when unlicensed, the amount left to represent the value of the licence was £255,000, which was the sum comparable to the other figures he had mentioned.
  *MR. LEIF JONESreplied that that meant that only one-ninth of the whole value of the licences and buildings was taken as representing the value of the freehold. How could they accept such a basis as that?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Those figures are certainly more valuable than the hon. Member appears to think.
  *MR. LEIF JONESsaid the right hon. Gentleman must forgive him if he declined to accept as conclusive a valuation of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman had refined to houses in London where the compensation money paid was three times the annual rateable value up to 132 times the annual rateable value. The average compensation was forty-one times the annual rateable assessment. He maintained that forty-one times the annual assessment was a great deal too high a figure to pay as compensation in the case of the non-renewal of a licencee. Very singular statements had been made in regard to this question by people who posed as financial authorities. On 18th March, Lord Rothschild delivered a remarkable speech to the debenture-holders in the City of London, in which he referred to this clause in the Bill. He said—
  "The compensation you are to receive under the Bill is of a meagre and unsatisfactory character. I shall not go into details."
  He thought Lord Rothschild displayed a wise discretion in not going into details. Lord Rothschild continued—
  "It suffices to know that for the purpose of taxation your property is valued at a high rate,
  124
  while for the purposes of compensation it is valued at not a quarter the valuation of taxation."
  He had tried to understand that I sentence, but he could not. Certainly there was nothing in the Bill to justify the statement. It was the very reverse of the truth. The clause laid it down before the Committee that there should be one assessment for all purposes and that brewers and owners of public-houses should pay and be paid on the same basis; and that they should not any longer when it came to compensation be paid on a high valuation, and when it came to taxation pay on a very low valuation. The hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs said, and not without justification, that, after all, the brewers were not altogether responsible if their houses were under-assessed. The hon. Member said thatin Scotland, where the authorities were sharper and were armed with stronger powers by Parliament, houses were not under-assessed. The hon. Member also said that it seemed as though brewers were expected to be a little better than angels in this matter. Well, the supporters of the Bill were going to help them, they were going to try to make them—he did not wish to use any offensive word—honest by Act of Parliament, and to make them in their own interest assess their premises at the correct figure. If hon. Members appreciated the quotation he had made from Mr. Justice Kennedy they would see that the real difficulty arose from the fact that tied houses were not let at rack rents. There was no difficulty in the valuation of free houses, but only in tied houses where the rent was nominal. By the proposals in the clause a gentle compulsion would be applied to owners of tied houses. It would be their interest to estimate the house at its full value, but not at a higher figure. It would no longer be to their interest to conceal the real value of the house. He maintained that thus justice would be done alike to the brewers and to the public, who had been so long defrauded by the under-assessment of these houses. The Bill was a great advance on the Act of 1904. It contemplated as a normal arrangement a free house and not a tied house That was a most important principle for the House to assert. The present was

  125
  not the first time that Parliament had resented tied houses. The Beer House Act, frequently referred to in the present debates, was largely intended to prevent the tied house system growing up. He was thankful to say that the Bill contemplated the free house as the normal type of house in future. It was very difficult to ascertain the real value of a tied house, and he hoped the clause would secure that result. The weight of the present Bill was all on the side of the free house, while the weight of the Act of 1904 was all on the side of the tied house. The change was to the public advantage, for the tied house system had been very injurious not only to the public but to the status of the men carrying on the trade, and generally to the interest of all concerned in this matter. Now he came to the Government proposal, with regard to the number of years compensation. He thought hon. Gentleman who were pleading the cause of the owners of the houses had shown themselves a little ungrateful for the latest concession which the Government announced on Friday. Personally he had been engaged in justifying the Bill as just and generous on a fourteen years basis. The Government had, in response no doubt to the arguments of the other side, granted a considerable concession beyond fourteen years. The position at present was that every licence had a fourteen years secure run and a chance of seven years more, and that if the house was extinguished during the reduction period it was to receive the value of the unexpired period plus the value, whatever it was estimated to be worth, of the seven years subsequent run associated with the risk of magisterial action and popular action by means of local veto. He had no means of estimating the total value of that concession, but he should say that it was certainly not less than a three years certain run, and it might be a good deal more. In any case, it could be insured. The risk of closing by justices and by popular option was not so heavy that it could not be easily insured against by the trade, which would then have no compensation levy to pay. He thought that in making the concession the Government deserved recognition by
  126
  those who were defending the position of the owners of the houses.
  *MR. YOUNGER: Before the Act of 1904 it was impossible to insure against a withdrawal of a licence owing to the Justices' action in some districts. No insurance company would take the risk. Precisely the same thing would occur under the Prime Minister's concession.
  *MR. LEIF JONESsaid he was not at all sure if that was accurate; but he was sure that if the hon. Member would come to Lloyd's they would be happy to insure for him any of the houses about which he found difficulty.
  MR. YOUNGERsaid the insurance companies would refuse to take the risk.
  *MR. LEIF JONESsaid he was aware that the Licence Insurance Corporation had refused. That was an institution run by brewers and they would not in 1903 aid 1904 insure a risk of that kind, but he had always regarded that as a move in a political game. He maintained that the risk was insurable. Much had been made by hon. Members opposite of the injustice which they said would be meted out to a man who would lose his licence near the end of the reduction period. He had been at pains to go into the arithmetic of the Government proposal, and, whatever might be thought of the injustice of the original proposal, he contended that the payment made to a man at the end of the thirteenth year was exactly the same as to a man at the beginning. He would prove that. Suppose that on the assessment a house was worth £500 a year, and that the licence was taken away in the first year, the licensee was to receive an annuity for fourteen years. That was equivalent to ten and a half years purchase of the £500—that was to say, £5,250. Suppose that the licence ran for twelve years and was taken away in the thirteenth the tenant would get the £500, of which the present value was about £300, but he would have had twelve years run of the £500 a year all the time for his licence, and the present value of that twelve years run

  127
  would be about 9·9 years purchase. That would amount to £4,950, and, adding the £300 for the lump sum, they got the exact figure of £5,250, the very one they arrived at if they put down the house in the first year. He ought to add that these calculations were made on the fourteen years period. He had not made a calculation based on the subsequent concession. He thought the Government had been very generous in making the concession of the subsequent period. [OPPOSITION cheers.] Hon. Members might cheer ironically, but, after all, there was a delicate balancing of accounts in this matter. They were balancing the financial interests of the trade against the moral well-being of the nation. It was not very easy to decide the exact and just balance in that case. It was said: "The trade pays. Why should they not get as much compensation as they care to pay?" It was perfectly true that the levy was paid by the trade, but the public paid for it through the trade. And if the public eventually paid that money, why should it not be used for other purposes? But there was another way in which the moral interest of the community was affected by these concessions. They spent last Friday a good deal of time in discussing the needs of Wales. This concession affected what they did for Wales, because it was pointed out by hon. Gentlemen opposite that Wales was going to draw funds from England to put down the public-houses in the Principality which they did not require, that Wales was going to rob England and gain benefits at England's expense. But if these concessions went on, there would be no money in the compensation fund for Wales to draw upon. It was not right that Parliament should yield to the insatiable demands of the trade, and that these social reforms so urgently demanded should be kept waiting. The trade had lived under the shadow of legislation by Parliament during the whole period of its existence. There never had been a time when Parliament had not been altering the law affecting the trade. No rights had been established in the trade which were ever thought to be permanent rights. Reference had been made to
  128
  the beer-houses being now treated as ordinary public-houses, but Parliament had never given up its constitutional right to deal with the beer-houses. There was always the probability that the law would be altered in the public interest. The expectancy conferred upon the trade was limited by any change that might occur in the public view. Parliament had never given up its right to change the law if they thought the public interest demanded it. The primary duty of Parliament in this matter was to safeguard the public. While he had no desire to inflict hardship upon those engaged in carrying on the trade, he was afraid that the public welfare might be sacrificed to a too tender consideration for their financial interests.
  *MR. CAVEsaid that the hon. Gentleman had repeated in the last part of his speech very much the statement made by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department on Friday last. Both admitted, in fact, that but for the necessity imposed on them by the increased reduction of houses under this Bill, they would not have proposed a reduction of the scale of compensation. The motive which underlay the main part of this clause, and which determined the Government to pay compensation on a lower, and, he thought, unjust scale, was the need of money for the purpose of reduction under Clause 1 of the Bill.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that that was not his argument. He was sorry he did not make himself clear. What he said was, in the first place, that the Government considered that the sums paid under the Kennedy judgment were grossly excessive and the valuation wrong in principle. But if it was said: "That does not matter to you, because it comes out of the trade; why, therefore, not let it alone?" the answer was: "We cannot let it alone because we must provide a fair and reasonable basis of compensation in order to be able to effect the necessary reduction."
  *MR. CAVEsaid he did not think his statement was different from that of the hon. Gentleman. What the hon.

  129
  Gentleman said in effect was that the determining motive of the change was the question of providing compensation for more houses. Of course he said he thought the lower scale was fair, but he also said that but for the need of providing compensation for more houses they should not have made any change. Therefore the motive of the change was the need of money for the further reduction of houses. Did it not occur to the hon. Gentleman that the very existence of that motive must create some bias when the Government came to consider which scale should be applied? But the real question before the Committee was whether the houses to be suppressed during the reduction period were to be paid under the Act of 1904 at market value, or were to be paid at assessed value? After all, the main point was that the Act of 1904 gave market value. It took the value in the market as a test of compensation and not the value in the rate book or assessment. In regard to the Kennedy judgment the hon. Gentleman said on Friday that the decision came as a surprise to the magistrates. What reasons had he for saying that? He himself knew that to one body of justices who knew most about the case the decision came as no surprise at all. The case came from one of the home counties, and the justices offered to fix the compensation at a certain sum. The owners, somewhat unwisely as he thought, would not accept the offer. They went to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who awarded a sum equal to about half the sum offered by the justices. The owners then appealed to the High Court, and Justice Kennedy restored almost the exact sum which had been given by the justices. So far from the decision being a surprise to those justices, they were able to say that the High Court had decided that they were right. The hon. Gentleman also said that the judgment was a surprise to the Ministers responsible for the Act. He would point out one fact. In 1904 Ministers estimated the value of the compensation at sums varying from £500 to £600, and in one case to £800 per house. In the first two years of the operation of the Act that predic-
  130
  tion of 1904 was almost exactly fulfilled. It was true that in the third year there was a different state of affairs and the sums paid were higher. But one reason at all events for the increase was that the justices then began to deal with larger houses, and it was only to be expected that the estimate of 1904 would be exceeded. But, after all, the question was not what was expected, but what was right and proper? He was bound to say that he had listened to the speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite on the Kennedy judgment and, with all respect to those hon. Members, he believed that they had completely misunderstood that judgment. Even the Under-Secretary seemed to think that the Kennedy judgment only applied to tied houses, and that some special compensation was to be given to the brewers who were the owners of the tied houses. Nothing of the kind was involved in that judgment. The whole principle of the Kennedy judgment applied just as much to the free houses as to the brewers' houses. What the learned Judge laid down was that they had to consider not the present state of things when the house was shut up, but a hypothetical state of things—what the owner would get if the house were sold in the open market. The Judge said that the best bidder in the open market was the brewer, for the house would be valuable to him as an outlet for the sale of his own beer. Then the Judge inquired what would the purchasing brewer take into account in making his bid? He would take into account first, the value of the house as a place for retail trade, and secondly, the fact that if he bought the house he would be able to tie it to his own business as a brewer, and so by means of the house he would get both a retail and a wholesale profit. With that object in view the brewer would inquire what number of barrels of beer were supplied to the house, and so calculate what amount of profit he would make if he bought the house. The whole of this argument would apply just as much to the free house as to the tied house. The Judge was simply inquiring into the market value of the house at the moment of buying. He would only add that in a

  131
  subsequent case the Court of Appeal expressly approved of the Kennedy judgment and said that no other decision could have been arrived at. So much for the existing principle. Now, let him compare with it the new scale proposed to be set up under the Bill. He accepted the very useful division made by the Under-Secretary when he said that there were two questions involved, namely, first, how the annual licence value should be ascertained, and secondly, what number of years purchase of the value should be given. He would not trouble the Committee with any argument as to the number of years purchase, for once they proposed a time-limit for the general body of houses they could not give the full number of years purchase for houses suppressed. He thought the number of years was unfair to the houses, but that injustice was bound up with the injustice of time-limit in general. He would not, therefore, now argue the number of years purchase. What he wanted to direct the attention of the Committee to was the manner of estimating the annual licensed value. Was that to be estimated on the income-tax assessment or not? He contended that the burden of proof that this was the right mode of assessing the annual value rested upon those who maintained that it was, because to begin with no Court in the world would take assessment as a test of value. They knew that in consequence of that, counsel for the Crown in the Ken-nington and other cases had not relied on it. In London to-day they could find no numerical relation between assessment and compensation. Therefore he thought the burden was on the other side. Look at the manner in which assessments were made. The overseer or the official who undertook the duty of assessing property valued it not for the purpose of purchase or compensation but for the purpose of rating. He was dealing with a district in which there were many thousands of houses. He had to do the best he could, and he made what oftentimes was a somewhat rough valuation of properties for the purpose of assessment to the public rate, but, of course, he could not look into the details of every house. Unions and districts differed very much in their methods, and
  132
  all of them knew that in one case they got a valuer who put houses high, and in another one who put houses low. It mattered very little, provided they were all assessed on the same basis, and paid rates or, that basis. It mattered little or nothing whether one paid a rate of 6d. on a low assessment or a 5d. rate on a high assessment, as the amount of cash paid would be about the same. But, of course, the moment they were going to take these figures as the basis of purchase or compensation, then, the matter was extremely important, and it could no longer be said that the general scale of assessment was immaterial. The Under-Secretary said that the Schedule A assessment ought to include goodwill, and also the value of the "tie." He might be right; it was a very doubtful point, and experts differed on it. But assuming that the assessment ought to include goodwill, he knew that, in fact, the assessment in very many, indeed, in the majority of cases, did not include goodwill. Perhaps goodwill ought to be there, but it was not there, and in most unions in the country they would find nothing like a proper allowance for goodwill. He found in London, where the thing was scientifically done, the settled practice was to allow only a percentage on half the premiums paid for a house. Therefore, in London only half the goodwill was taken into account. Was it not true to say that by basing compensation on assessment they would not give to the owner anything like the value of the house? He did not want to go into figures—it was a little too late—but he believed no expert would say that the assessment value was a true record of the annual license value of the house. It seemed monstrous that, instead of putting in their Bill, as they might have done, so many years purchase of the annual value to be ascertained in some definite way, the Government should rely upon what was nothing but a second-hand record, and should go back to the assessment. He felt very strongly that assessment ought not to be taken as the test of value. Then what was said by the other side was this: "Very well, if your taxed value is under the real value, then you are paying too little income-tax, and you ought to get your assessment put up." That was a common argument, but would hon.

  133
  Gentlemen say that this clever device for the purpose of putting assessment up would hold good? The suggestion was that, in order to justify Clause 10, there should be a general increase of assessment throughout the country in regard to public-houses. The Government had gone so far as to put in Clause 45, in which they proposed to enact that the provisions of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, should during the time before the next valuation list after the passing of this Act was made, apply to any licensed premises in the administrative County of London as if they had been increased by the addition thereto or erection thereon of a building, and the provisions of those Acts relating to supplemental lists should during that time apply as if an alteration in the value of the premises had taken place during the preceding twelve months. In fact, there was to be a sort of hypothetical increase of value by means of a legal fiction of all houses by reason of the passing of this Bill, the object being that there might be some reason or justification for re-opening the assessments of all these licensed houses. Let the Committee look for a moment at how that would work. The result of that clause was that overseers might if they liked reopen the valuation. Most of the overseers would say that though it was true that they had a right to reopen it, they had valued the houses six months ago, and they adhered to their valuation, and the suggested right of the occupier of the premises to get the assessment reviewed was gone. But supposing that the overseers did act, and put up the assessment, what happened? In the ordinary course, notice of an increase was not given to the owner but to the occupier, that was to the actual tenant of the house. Was the occupier in this case going to submit to an increase? First of all, if the assessment were raised he would pay more rates, and secondly, his compensation for loss of business would be less because his profits would be less. He gained nothing by putting up the assessment, because his compensation depended, not on assessment, but on the profits of his business. The person who stood to gain by the heightening of the assessments was the owner and not the occupier, and what locus standi had the
  134
  owner to ask for his assessment to be increased? The result of the Government scheme, therefore, would be that the assessment would not be put up, and the man would be compensated at a price which was too low. Therefore he did not think that the machinery of the Bill would work; but supposing that he was wrong, and that everybody who had public-houses would rush to have their assessment increased, what would be the result? The inducement to raise the assessment would not press upon all trades but upon one trade alone, and the publican alone would be assessed upon a higher basis, while all other trades would be assessed on a lower basis. Was not that grossly unfair to the publican? Again, if there was compulsion under this scheme to raise the assessment it was compulsion which worked not upon the good houses, but upon the bad, because it would only operate upon those houses where suppression was likely to occur. Therefore, while the owner of a good house whose licence was safe might go on rejoicing in a low assessment, the owner of a bad house must try to get his assessment raised. The whole of the penalty for the increase of the assessment would fall not upon the owner but upon the lessee. They had had on Friday a concession made to the actual occupying tenants, namely, that they were to receive not less than one year's compensation. That concession gave effect to an Amendment which the Opposition had had on the Paper for weeks past and brought up the compensation under this Bill to something like that of the Act of 1904. Assuming that that was a concession to the tenant, on the one hand they gave him a little more in the event of his licence being refused, but then on this other hand by raising his assessment they at once increased the burden of his rates. The hon. Gentleman was anxious to make himself out as the friend of the publican, but he thought the latter would be far from grateful for this Bill, if he found that his assessment and his rates were increased under it. He would not thank the Government very much for that. The Bill also separated the compensation of the owner from that of the tenant. He quite agreed that that was a change which it was desirable to make. He thought that the whole system under

  135
  which the tenants' compensation was taken out of the owners' compensation operated possibly hardly on the tenant, certainly hardly on the owners. That change, therefore, was in the right direction. But he strongly urged the Committee not to try this experiment of making compensation depend on assessments but to keep to the simple system, which every business man understood, and which was the only way of arriving at a just compensation, of taking so many years purchase of the annual value as ascertained in the open market. As regards the ante-1869 beer-houses, the condition on which they gave up their statutory right was that they should have a statutory right to compensation. But what were the Government doing by this Bill? Having forced them to abandon their security they were taking from them the quid pro quo. They were doing something which no hon. Member in his private capacity would dream of doing. Supposing an hon. Member had bought goods and paid for them by cheque and then was discontented with his bargain, would he stop the cheque? Certainly not. Here the Government were asking Parliament to dishonour the cheque which the nation had given the licence-holders. He hoped that matter would be reconsidered before the Bill passed another stage.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.)said the hon. and learned Gentleman had made, as he always did, a moderate and reasonable speech full of cogent argument and entitled to the most respectful consideration. He was glad to acknowledge that the very difficult and intricate questions which arose upon this clause had been discussed with great sobriety of temperament, in a spirit of reasonableness, and, as far as the case admitted, even of impartiality. He should be content to leave the case as it was presented by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department—one of the ablest and most closely reasoned Parliamentary statements to which any of them had listened for a long time. He intervened merely for the sake of presenting once more in the simplest fashion the position of the Government in relation to the clause. Now, how
  136
  were they to define the subject-matter for which compensation was to be given when, during the statutory period of reduction, a licence was suppressed on the ground of redundancy? It did not matter for this purpose what the tenure of the person whose licence was taken away might be, whether it was to be treated as a freehold, as under the Act of 1904, entitled to claim a value of twenty-five years purchase, or whether it was the inevitable consequence of the introduction of a time-limit that the time should be less. The words used in the Act of 1904, which were subject to construction and interpretation first by the Inland Revenue, and subsequently by the Kennedy judgment, were—
  "The sum to be paid in the way of compensation is to be a sum equal to the difference between the value of the licensed premises calculated as if the licence were subject to the same conditions of renewal as immediately before the passing of this Act and the value which the premises would bear if they were not licensed premises."
  It was a remarkable circumstance, in view of the difference of opinion which subsequently prevailed as to the true construction of these words, that at no stage in the progress of the Bill through the House were they ever discussed either in Committee or on Report. The House was never allowed to proceed beyond the middle of the second line of the whole of that long section. This Government, which was charged with systematic curtailment of the rights of debate, had given two days to the subject. The words he had quoted were never put from the Chair; they were never the subject-matter of discussion or amendment, and that might account for the complexity of interpretation put upon them. He had always thought, and still thought, the framers of that Act never contemplated that such an interpretation would be put upon them as was put by the Kennedy judgment. He said that from the dicta emitted from time to time by the Ministers responsible for the conduct of the Bill, which showed plainly that in their contemplation and anticipation the kind of figures that would be paid by way of compensation would be very much nearer what the Government were now proposing and very much nearer the practice which was in fact followed in the two years immediately succeeding the passing of the Act than the standard

  137
  ultimately set up by the Kennedy judgment. He could not conceive it to have been the intention of the framers of the Act of 1904 to give an alternative security—to give to the owners of tied houses suppressed a different and a larger and more generous measure of compensation than was given in the case of free houses. He had always thought, even in the days when he was a lawyer, and he thought with undiminished conviction still—that this was the practical effect of the Kennedy judgment. What were the Government doing now? It had been kindly and generously suggested by more than one speaker that they were making a change in the law, at any rate, as hitherto interpreted, because otherwise they could not make the compensation fund go round. He did not think there would be any difficulty about that. The Government had adopted—strange as it might seem—this definition, in the first place because they thought that Parliament ought itself to take the responsibility of defining a matter of this kind, and should not leave it in ambiguous language capable of different interpretations by Government departments or by Courts of law; and, in the second place, because apart from clearness and definiteness, they believed that this was a fair measure of value. What did it matter to the Government, or to the taxpayers of the country? Nothing at all. The Government had no other motive in the world for dealing with the matter, but that of trying to arrive at a fair measure of value which would remove all sense of hardship and secure to all the different interests concerned a perfect adjustment of value. If, then, that was the object, could they take the average value from Schedule A? He had heard something from the right hon. Gentleman opposite and from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down as to the difficulties and inequities of taking Schedule A as their standard. Let him try to deal with it in a little detail. First of all, he fully agreed that Schedule A, as it was, was uneven and wanting in uniformity as between different parts of the country. In a very large number of cases it was far below the real value by which the premises ought to be assessed for local or Imperial purposes. Their object, therefore, was that Schedule A should
  138
  be revised in order that something in the nature of uniformity should be attained, and above all that the assessment of these houses, whether for purposes of levy paid or compensation received, should approximate to the measure of value which they took for both the local and Imperial charge. He argued the question on Schedule A as it ought to be, and he thought that some of the objections pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be found to be very considerably removed when he remembered that in London it was not a matter for overseers, but for the Surveyor of Taxes, who represented the central authority, and who had the right of intervention, which in his opinion he ought to have, not only in London but throughout the length and breadth of the country, for he could only have one motive—that of equality between the different classes. Assuming, therefore, that there was a Schedule A valuation, on the one hand, of the premises as licensed, and on the other hand, of the premises not licensed, did or did not the difference between the two form a fair measure of the subject-matter which was the basis of compensation? The answer to that question depended on this, and it was a matter which deserved very careful consideration: Were there elements which ought to be taken into account when they were arriving at the extra value which was given by the possession of the licence to the house as compared with its value which were not and ought not to be taken into account under the Schedule A valuation? Was there anything which ought fairly to be taken into account as increment of value created by the possession of a licence which did or did not fall within the Schedule A valuation? He said that there was nothing; and he wanted to know what the element was which, on the one hand, added to the value of the premises that were licensed as compared with what their value would be unlicensed, and, yet which on a proper assessment, conducted by a skilled surveyor, on a careful consideration of all the facts of the case, would not enter into the Schedule A valuation. There was no question of goodwill. Let them see what goodwill meant. They were on very technical ground here and he began to feel almost as if he were

  139
  back in his old and familiar walk of life, and was not speaking to a Committee of the House of Commons. But there were technicalities which he must be pardoned for dealing with for a few moments. As his hon. friend the Under-Secretary had pointed out the other day, goodwill was of two kinds, and sometimes a mixture of both. It was local or it was personal, or both local and personal. Local goodwill was that part of the value of the business which belonged to it through having been carried on in a particular situation, and might be derived either from the special continuance of that situation for the purposes of business, or from the prestige which it had acquired from having been in the same place and resorted to by the same class of customers for years or for generations past. That element of goodwill ought to be taken into account as part of the value of the premises under Schedule A. He thought it clearly came to that, and so far he agreed that goodwill was an element in regard to which the owner of the premises was entitled, when the licence was taken away and compulsorily suppressed under this part of the Bill, to be compensated. But not so the personal good will. The personal goodwill in the case of a public-house was often a very large element in the value of the business carried on. The activity of the publican, his good manners, his insinuating methods, his capacity for being "hail fellow well met" with all sorts and conditions of customers and men—all these things and many others which he might enumerate, constituted an element of personal goodwill which ought never to enter into the value of the premises under Schedule A, which ought not to enter into the rent which the owner of the premises could ask for, but which, ought to come into consideration when they were taking away the licence and depriving that particular publican, who had contributed so much to the value of his business, of what had hitherto been his resources. He gathered that there was general agreement to that. That element of personal goodwill was provided for, and ought to be provided for, by a sum in addition to anything granted under the Act of 1904, which only gave a lump sum to be subsequently divided up between the different competing interests. Instead of that the
  140
  Bill provides for a separate additional sum which reasonably and properly was payable to the publican. He came back again to Schedule A, and to the compensation to be given to the owner for the premises. He would take the case of a free house. What in the case of a free house was the compensation which, according to Mr. Justice Kennedy, was fairly payable in respect of the extinction of the licence? Mr. Justice Kennedy said that the object of their inquiry was—
  "To find the price which the owner of freehold premises might expect to obtain qua premises if sold in the open market."
  He did not think that it made any difference whether they adopted that test or adopted the test of Schedule A. Then Mr. Justice Kennedy added that in the case of an owner who was not a brewer they might be able—
  "To find the market value by capitalisation of the annual value baaed on a true rack-rent."
  Was or was not that a sound principle in dealing with a free house where presumably the occupier was paying a rent which would represent its value in the market, including the element of local goodwill to a person of average capital, skill and industry carrying on this particular business in these particular premises? Take next the case of the tied house. In the case of the tied house, it was perfectly obvious here that the rent paid by the tied tenant was no real criterion whatever. It was a figure which in nine cases out of ten they altogether ignored—a fancy nominal figure. How then ought they to estimate the Schedule A value, in other words the rack-rent which the tenant would pay in the case of a tied house? By exactly the same considerations as in the case of a free house. He could not see any difference whatever. The vice of the Kennedy judgment—if he might be allowed to use such an expression without prejudice—was that when Mr. Justice Kennedy came to consider what the thing was that corresponded to the rack-rent in the case of a free house, he then took into consideration an element — namely, the wholesale trade done by the brewer, in so far as it was done in that house—as though it was one of the elements of value. That proceeded upon the obvious error that if they suppressed that

  141
  house that amount of the brewer's wholesale trade was pro tanto diminished. It was nothing of the kind. It was very often carried on to precisely the same extent after the suppression of the house as before. But whether that was so or not it was not an element which ought to enter into the calculation of the value of the house, because it was not an element which anyone ought to take into account in considering the rent which would be paid for it. If that were the case, it was pretty clear that this judgment, which had admittedly established a different standard of compensation as between a free house and a tied house—admittedly so, because they had only to look at the figures in cases actually decided in regard to which compensation had been awarded to see that that was the practical effect—proceeded upon a principle which that House ought not to sanction and which was not just. It was on that ground that the Government had thought it right to put a definition, as to the meaning of which there could be no doubt, into the Act, of the subject-matter which had to be valued, and next, to make it clear that they were to apply to the measurement of that subject-matter one uniform standard whatever the class of house they had to deal with. He admitted the difficulty and complexity of the subject—the whole system was so artificial and overgrown with such a network of conflicting interests that it was difficult to disentangle one from the other—but if it were true that the Schedule A valuation of the premises took into account—if made upon proper principles and in accordance with the rules of the case—every element of value that entered into the calculation of the tenant when he considered what he would pay for the premises for rent, and what for any other purpose, then he submitted that in this Bill they had, for the first time, established a perfectly fair and just rule in regard to which there was no cause of complaint, either on the part of the owner, the brewer, the tenant or anybody else in the trade, and it was on those grounds, as to which it was most important that there should be a perfectly clear understanding, that they must resist the amendment and adhere to the clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman began his speech by appearing in the character of the defender of the liberties of debate in the House and contrasted the discussion permitted by the closure Resolution under which they were working with what was done in reference to the Act of 1904. He did not mean to deal with those remarks, but he would remind the House that the Bill of 1904 dealt with one single issue in ten clauses, while this one dealt with a series of most complicated measures all compressed together within the limits of one Bill consisting of forty-seven clauses; that there was no comparison in point of perplexity and difficulty between the two; and that whereas they were now allowed nineteen days to discuss the forty-seven clauses, in 1904 the House was allowed eleven days to discuss the ten clauses. A very simple arithmetical calculation would enable hon. Gentlemen opposite to compare the views of freedom entertained by the right hon. Gentleman, the hero of ten closures by compartments in the course of three years, with the relatively modest effort they made to deal with the difficulties, no doubt inherent, in their Parliamentary practice. He did not know why the right hon. Gentleman introduced that controversial topic, but as he had done so he had to reply to it. He would hasten on from the right hon. Gentleman, as the guardian of their liberties, to the right hon. Gentleman as a great legal authority dealing with the interpretation of an Act of Parliament which had passed and with the Bill now before the House. Of course he admitted that the right hon. Gentleman was, by experience and training, far better qualified than he to deal with legal technicalities. Indeed, when he came into the presence of experienced lawyers in that House he always felt his inferiority so acutely that it was only with great diffidence and reluctance that he felt himself forced into the controversial lists. But the right hon. Gentleman began with what seemed to him a fundamental error of statement. He said that the Act of 1904 laid down, or was interpreted as laying down, twenty-five years purchase of the annual value of the licence. It was true that twenty-five years purchase appeared in the

  143
  memorandum of the Inland Revenue, but that was entirely upset by the Courts. It never had any countenance from any speech, so far as he knew, by his colleagues in passing the Bill, and he was sure it had none in any speech he made.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he did not mean to say that, if he said it. All he meant was to contrast the number of years purchase which would naturally be given for an extinguished licence where there was no time-limit, and the more restricted number which must necessarily be given under the principle they were establishing.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the right hon. Gentleman must have expressed himself somewhat imperfectly on the first occasion, but he fully accepted his explanation, and would not pursue the topic. Then the right hon. Gentleman expressed his view that the authors of the Act of 1904 expected to see carried out the principles embodied in the Bill of 1908. That was quite inaccurate. He was not aware that it had the smallest shadow of foundation. What had been brought forward as an alleged foundation was that some of his colleagues made prophecies, not wholly inaccurate, as to the amount of compensation that would be given. Of course all prophecies of that kind were open to doubt. In the first place they dealt with the future—and every statement about the future was open to doubt—and in the second place they dealt with a question on which it was impossible to dogmatise arithmetically. They could not say positively how much compensation would be given by the tribunals for a certain type of property until they saw how the tribunals were going to act, and what he wished to insist upon was that there never was the smallest ambiguity as to the underlying principle which they thought fair in the matter of compensation—the principle that they should act in the matter of compensating owners of licences for their licences exactly as they acted in taxing the owners of licences. That was a perfectly plain and simple proposition stated over and over again in the debates of 1904, which was accepted then by his colleagues and himself, and which they endeavoured to carry out
  144
  in the Bill of 1904. They could not read that Act without seeing that those principles were embodied in it. The words were—
  "Shall be determined by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the same manner and subject to the like appeal to the High Court as on the valuation of an estate for estate duty."
  He did not believe clearer words could be put into an Act of Parliament, and he might add that the principle on which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue directed the valuation of an estate for estate duty was, by Sir William Harcourt's Act of 1894, market value. So that they laid down unmistakably two principles on the face of the Act of 1904—first, that the Inland Revenue should value a man's property for compensation exactly as for taxation, and, secondly, that the proper principle of dealing with all questions of valuation was the market value of the property they were going to take away. That was the bed-rock, as they thought it, on which they must always proceed in dealing with all kinds of property, and if any member of the Government was going to speak further, he would ask him to tell them—what the right hon. Gentleman did not tell them—whether he dissented from the equity of those two principles. Not once had any speaker faced the plain issue he now put before them. That was really their fundamental difference with the Government, though there were some subsidiary differences on which he might say a word. He quite agreed that, on the first blush, it might seem as though Mr. Justice Kennedy took into account the profits made by a brewer who owned a tied house, and that a house that was not tied was compensated under that judgment on a different principle from the house that was tied. But that really was not the case. The principle that underlay Mr. Justice Kennedy's judgment was, if he might speak as a layman, the principle which underlay the Act of 1904—the principle that market value and market value alone was to determine the compensation. They must determine market value by some interpretation of the intentions of the class who were likely to compete in the open market for the commodity which was sold in the open market.

  145
  Who were the class likely to give the highest price for a licensed house—whether that licensed house were a tied or a free house mattered not? Undoubtedly the brewers, and, therefore, said Mr. Justice Kennedy, if he really interpreted his judgment, what a brewer would give for a licensed house, irrespective of whether that house was now tied or free, was an element, and must always be an element in the market value not of a tied house more than a free house, not of a free house less than a tied house. The Prime Minister absolutely ignored this argument, and he earnestly trusted that before the debate closed the Solicitor-General would really deal with the legal aspect of the Kennedy judgment. Another point which, it seemed to him, the Prime Minister utterly failed to deal with was the question of rating. The Government insisted that a fair basis for compensation was to be found in rating under Schedule A. They had not attempted to answer the arguments that were brought against that proposal by his right hon. friend and his hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston. One of those arguments was that, even when they had got a local authority which, to the best of its ability, carried out an equal and efficient system of rating, to attempt to value licensed premises on the basis of Schedule A led to the most grotesque conclusions. His right hon. friend pointed out that in the London County Council Return there was an account of all the licensed premises and their annual rating, which was equivalent to Schedule A, and it appeared that in some cases the value sank as low as three years purchase of the rateable value, and in some cases it rose as high as 122 years, and that it varied between those two extreme figures by almost every fraction that they could imagine. It was absurd to say that a valuation of that kind could form a proper basis of compensation when they saw produced results as grotesquely unequal as those which were shown in this Return. Up to the present moment not a single reply had been made from the Treasury bench to this point, and he made a direct and precise appeal to the Solicitor-General to look at the Return and to say, after he had ex-
  146
  amined the figures, whether he could any longer justify the equity of compensation based on rating under Schedule A. Another point connected with rating which was admirably made by his hon. and learned friend received no reply from the Prime Minister. They were going to compensate a man according to his rating. By universal admission rating was very often a very poor index of the value of a house. Therefore the owner of a house rated very low in proportion to its value would evidently receive much less compensation than the man whose house was rated at its full value. That appeared to be nothing but a source of satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who said: "What an excellent and delightful plan of getting automatically a proper and fair system of rateable value." Let him point out, in the first place, that it was not the licence-owner who rated himself, but the public authority. In the second place, the person who had an interest in seeing that rating was high was not the person who had got a right of appeal against the rating; and in the third place it was perfectly notorious that there were many districts in which the rating was perfectly fair as between different kinds of property, because it was universally too low or universally too high. Look what they were going to do in that case. They were going to compel the owner of a licensed house either to rate himself above the general average of the community in which he lived, or submit to unfair compensation. If he rated himself above the average level, they got in that locality, not a good, but a grossly unfair and unequal system. Was that a system they wanted to adopt? Was that a step towards a fair system of rating? It was grotesque, and the Prime Minister should have dealt with it. How on earth were they going to defend a Bill which put before the owner of a house or a licensee this alternative—either you are going to be rated proportionately above your neighbour for every local purpose so long as you continue to own a licence, or else you are going to be robbed if and when the moment comes for the compensation to be fixed. That was the third definite

  147
  point on which they most earnestly and respectfully asked for a reply from the Solicitor-General. These points seemed to him absolutely to kill the argument that this Bill offered a fair system, and he could not help asking himself whether the Government wished to give fair compensation. A very ominous phrase appeared in the speech of the Prime Minister when he was explaining the Bill to the House on the First Reading. He used the word "compensation," but he used it with a caveat because, he said, it did not exactly express his meaning. What they wanted to get at was that meaning which was not expressed by the word compensation. What was it the Government really meant to do with the owner of a licence? Had they got back to the doctrine of solatium, which was a very favourite one with the right hon. Gentleman in the debates of 1904? He was, he thought, the inventor of the phrase.
  MR. ASQUITH: No. I think it came from Birmingham.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, whoever the patent rights might lie with, there was in 1904 a fundamental difference between right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench and those who were responsible for the Bill of 1904. The then Opposition, the present Government, said there was no right to compensation, only an equitable claim to some kind of solatium. The then Government said: "We are taking away property with a value in the open market. You must give, not a solatium, but compensation." That was the difference between them then. Was it the difference still? Was the solatium doctrine abandoned? Did the Government in this Bill mean compensation, or did they mean gratuity? So lively was his recollection of the solatium view that they held only three or four years ago that the Committee would not regard him as unduly uncharitable if he said that compensation had never been in their minds any more than it was now in their Bill. In their Bill they did not give compensation. In their policy, they never intended to give compensation. Their Bill carried out their intention, and
  148
  their intention squared with the Bill. It was because they held row, as they held in 1904, that they ought to deal with this question on a fundamentally different principle, because they thought that, when they took away a mar's property, the market value of that property should be given to it, that on this clause, as on the clauses that had preceded it and would follow it, and upon the Bill as a whole, they had offered, and they meant to continue to offer, the most determined opposition to the proposals of His Majesty's Government.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he was surprised that no member of the Government had even attempted to answer the very pertinent and important questions which the Leader of the Opposition had asked. On that side of the House they certainly did desire to know in what way they were to regard this clause—whether it was intended to be compensation to the owners, and to those interested in licensed house property for the money value that was to be taken from them. The Prime Minister's speech certainly did do something to help; he had, at any rate, definitely abandoned the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Chester that the real defence of the compensation proposals of the Government was that if they were to give the compensation which the licence-holders thought they were entitled to, and which hon. Members on that side thought represented their true loss, it would be impossible to carry out the principles of the Bill. But the Prime Minister had not abandoned a much more serious evil connected with reassessment. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that if they proceeded with this clause on the present basis of assessment the result would be grossly unjust. He did not say that it would be grossly unjust, but no one who listened to him could doubt that that was what he meant. It was now admitted, even by the Government themselves, that unless they had a system of re-assessment the principle of this clause was unjustified. Therefore, it was an absolutely essential part of the Government scheme that there should be re-assessment. What the Prime Minister in effect said was: "We propose to give full compensation. That is our theory."

  149
  The right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to go to the country and say: "We do not propose to give compensation." Compensation had only one meaning, and what the Prime Minister said was—"We propose to pay to those interested in licensed property the value of that which we take from them." The Government thought they could do this by a revaluation under Schedule A. No answer had been given to the question which had been put again and again. Did the Government assert or deny, speaking generally and apart from licensed premises, that the rateable valuation which is the basis of Schedule A represented the true market value of the subject of such valuation? He did not believe that any hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House would venture to get up and give; an affirmative answer. Everyone who knew anything about the matter knew that rateable value was not the true value or the market value. That was not peculiar to licensed property. He believed the hon. Member for Chester was interested in large chemical factory works in the North of England. He was quite certain that the hon. Member would find that if there was a proposal to expropriate him upon the basis of the assessed value under Schedule A he would be the loser of probably tens of thousands of pounds. That was the broad question which the Committee had to face. The Prime Minister admitted that unless there was a re-assessment there would be injustice. Was it conceivably fair to raise the assessment on one particular class of property when they kept the assessed value of other classes of property at the value at which it stood at present? How could hon. Members pretend that that was fair?
  *MR. SHERWELL: I think the noble Lord forgets that there is now a statutory right of independent assessment of licensed premises, so that the distinction he deprecates already exists.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he did not think the hon. Member quite followed what he had stated. There was no objection to the assessment under Schedule A as merely a basis of taxation. It was perfectly obvious that it was
  150
  utterly unimportant whether that was absolutely true, provided only that it was relatively true. What he meant was that so long as the rates and taxes were levied equally among the people over the property according to the relative value of the property it did not in the least matter whether that value was the true value or a conventional value. As a matter of fact, if they liked to put it so, it was a conventional value. Personally, he thought that was quite right. He would tell the Committee why. When the State took property compulsorily he thought it was of the utmost importance that the State should not pay too little for it [Laughter.] They might laugh, but it was clearly right that where there was a transaction between the State and an individual, having in view the relative forces and the relative wealth of the two parties, the individual ought not to get less than the true value. That was generally felt by every fair-minded man in the country. Parliament always provided that when property was to be taken from the individual it was to be paid for at, he would not say a grossly excessive value, but at a value which necessarily had a margin of too great rather than too little. Nobody doubted that that was a perfectly just and fair condition of affairs. Exactly the converse applied to the case where they were going to raise taxes. The same law applied. It was clearly right that the advantage should not lie with the State. It ought to lie, if at all, with the individual. Everybody who had given any study to the question knew that he was speaking the truth, and the result had been that the basis of value for the purposes of taxation had always been lower than the true market value, just as the basis of compulsory sale had always been rather higher. He did not care really for the purpose of the argument he was addressing to the Committee whether that was right or wrong. It did not matter. He had no doubt himself that it was right. But assuming that others were right and that he was wrong, and that it was a wholly erroneous system which ought to be abolished, it could not be defended if they were to abolish if for one class of property owners and to leave it for all other classes. The

  151
  thing was really unarguable. The difference between taking the money from a particular class, not in a lump sum, but from year to year, was equivalent to making a member of that class lose his teeth one by one instead of having them all extracted at the same time. In regard to the vexed question of the Kennedy judgment, it was interesting to observe that the question whether trade should not be considered was not argued by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General of that day. The late Sir John Lawson Walton, who was then Attorney-General, said it was not unreasonable to inquire into the amount of business that was done at the inn, and the present Attorney-General agreed that the procedure, which some hon. Members attacked as possibly illegal and certainly inequitable, was not unreasonable. If the licence of premises upon which the tenant brewed the ale which he sold were taken away, would not the loss of his profits on the ale which he brewed be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of compensation? If it were, why should not the same treatment be accorded to other brewers?
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTSasked if the noble Lord could explain why, in the debates on the Bill of 1904, explicit assurances were given by the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General of the day that no compensation was to be given for trade and for wholesale profits.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he was not a Member of the House at that time, and did not know what was said. If his right hon. friends were so unjust as to say that in estimating the market value of a public-house they were not to consider the value of the trade that might be done there by the brewer, he really could not conceive what they were thinking about when they said it.
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: Why, further, did they leave out compensation to the publican for the loss of his retail profits?
  LORD R. CECILsaid that the hon. Member was entirely mistaken in thinking
  152
  that that was left out. It was included without a doubt, but by a provision that operated rather harshly on the owner of the premises. It was taken out of his compensation instead of being made a separate matter of valuation, as it ought undoubtedly to have been. He rather deprecated these references to what was said in 1904. In his short experience of political life it had always seemed a certain sign that the other side had very little to say if they abandoned the defence of the proposals really before the House—whether the Government proposals were fair or not—and turned back to some ingenious dove-tailing of isolated sentences from past debates in justification of their proposals. As his hon. and learned friend the Member for Kingston had said, the broad question here was, Were they going to compensate on the basis of market or assessable value? He thought that assessable value was unsatisfactory, and he had already pointed out that the Prime Minister himself also thought so. He was driven to ask why it was that hon. Members who professed to be anxious to be fair to the trade and repudiated with the utmost warmth the accusations made against them had put in their Bill provisions which seemed to be demonstrably unjust. A phrase was used by the hon. Member for Appleby which threw a lurid light on the kind of way in which they and other "wolves" approached this question. The hon. Member said that it would be a difficult balance to strike, the balance between the financial interests of the trade and the moral interest of the nation. Well, what did that mean? He could attach no meaning to it except that the hon. Member thought it was legitimate to cut down the compensation to be given to this particular trade if only in that way he could carry out what he regarded as the moral requirements of the nation. He apprehended that he had rightly interpreted the hon. Member's observation. He hated—he deprecated using strong language—[Cries of "Wolves"]—and he was not going to accuse hon. Gentlemen opposite of being brigands. But that was precisely the language which brigands from time immemorial had used in defence of their trade. The Committee would recollect the case of Robin Hood. The hon.

  153
  Member for Appleby no doubt would have been Robin Hood, and the hon. Member for Lincoln Little John. Robin Hood always explained that he did not rob the virtuous Saxons who happened to be his friends; his levies were made exclusively on the Norman barons and priests whom he disliked. In other words, he thought that the financial interest of the Norman barons should not be put in competition with the moral interest of suppressing priests and barons for the benefit of the Saxons. Precisely the same arguments were used to-day by semi-criminal and semi-political societies throughout the world. It was a dangerous argument, and one which might lead the Government further than they anticipated at present. At any rate, he understood the argument. It was a frankly predatory argument. What he did not understand was the case of hon. Gentlemen like the Member for Chester, who professed to desire to give full compensation to the trade, who brought a great array of figures to prove that they had examined the question and were satisfied that this clause was going to deal fairly with the trade and that they were therefore not vindictive. He could not believe that they had really given their mind to the proposal which the Government had put before them. He could not help feeling that the kind of argument which satisfied them now would never satisfy them if they were dealing with the ordinary transactions of life. He trusted the Committee would allow him to say, although he admitted that it was rather strong, that political brigandage was one thing, but political hypocrisy was another.
  *MR. C. B. HARMSWORTHsaid he would not enter into the intricate details which had been touched upon that afternoon by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had legal qualifications to do so. He should like, however, at the outset of his remarks, to deprecate the language used by the noble Lord, and that which was almost habitually used by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when speaking of the policy of the Government in regard to this Bill. They were accustomed to a certain latitude in political language which none of them would think of applying in the private
  154
  relations of life. But he really thought that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite might at least give them credit for sincerity in their aims and for the same moral attributes which they claimed for themselves. As one who did not profess to be an expert in this matter, he thought that the whole point in dispute was a question of degree—viz., on what basis certain people were to be compensated for certain equities which they undoubtedly enjoyed. He could assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that the gulf between the two sides of the House was by no means a moral gulf, but merely a matter of interpretation and opinion. That was very curiously illustrated by the discussion that afternoon about the Kennedy judgment. He himself, he honestly confessed, had had very vague views in regard to the Kennedy judgment, but the whole tenor of the speeches went to prove that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when framing their own Act, had no idea of giving compensation on the Kennedy basis. They were always accusing those on the Ministerial side of the House of robbery and confiscation, but having the views they now expressed, they ought to accuse themselves of robbery when they framed their own Act. He thought the language which was bandied about from one side to the other was quite out of place. It did not assist them in their discussions and did not tend to public business. He had always thought that the question of compensation should be decided on an actuarial basis. He and those around him were in this position, that they must absolutely depend upon the opinion of experts, like the hon. Members for Spen Valley and Lincoln, and particularly on the judgment and opinion given from the front bench. He was bound to say, although he regarded the provisions of the Bill with regard to compensation, so far as he understood them, with some misgiving at first, having been a patient auditor of the debates on both sides of the question, he thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite had lamentably failed to prove, especially after the concessions made by the Prime Minister, that the compensation would not be adequate in the greater number of cases. Speaking for himself, he would like to see this thing done not only fairly, but generously, because they

  155
  must bear in mind the fact that they were not compensating these licences out of public money, although it might be regarded as contingently public money, and that it really did not matter at present how generous that compensation was, provided that it did not interfere with the operations of the Act. Obviously, if the Act was to work, compensation and the compensation levy must, to some extent, accord. They had heard a good deal about the injustice of the present proposals of the Government, but if he pursued that line of argument with regard to the proposals of the late Government when they came to deal not with the owners but with the licence-holders, there was nothing to show in their former action and in their attitude to-day, that they had any regard whatever or consideration for those people who were the only people whom the State recognised at all. He congratulated the Prime Minister on including the manager and the licence-holder in the scheme of compensation. He himself thought that an even higher rate of compensation might be accorded to the manager and the licence-holder than that proposed. He had been very much struck by a speech made the other evening by the right hon. Member for Dover, who, referring to the goodwill of a public-house, attributed by far the greater part of it to the personal good-will of the licence-holder. If that were so, the Government would be well advised to make his condition even more definite than at the present time. He hoped they might regard one year's profits as the minimum and that the Commissioners would be given the power to grant a greater compensation if, in their discretion, they thought it was right. He would like to allude to a class of licence-holders who had been already referred to by the noble Lord. He meant that considerable class, in many parts of this country, of publicans who brewed their own ale. In these cases where a house was suppressed it was not only a licensed house that was done away with but a brewery, because the brewery had no other outlet for its wares. He thought that was a very important class of case, and he trusted that his right hon. friend the Prime Minister would give it careful consideration before
  156
  this Bill passed. He could only say, in conclusion, that so far as he understood the provisions of this clause, especially with the Amendments which had been foreshadowed, they were fair to the trade as a whole, and they transcended everything that had been done by the other side in their fair and equitable treatment of licence-holder and manager and, generally, of the less influential persons who conducted the trade of public-houses.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS, Glamorganshire, Mid.)said it had not been his intention to intervene in that debate, because he said what he had to say about the Kennedy judgment on the Second Reading. He now only intervened with a short explanation, in the hope that it would curtail the debate rather than extend it. He did not think himself, with all the different opinions that prevailed in the various quarters of the House, that it was very useful to discuss in detail what was called the Kennedy judgment. One thing was perfectly certain, that whatever was the principle which Lord Justice Kennedy laid down, unquestionably when he worked out the figures he worked them out on the number of barrels and the profit per barrel which the brewer would make, and all the questions put to him showed that the difference between the two sides of the House was whether or not, in arriving at the compensation which they were to pay to those interested in the premises, of which the licence was taken away, they ought to include the brewer's profit in regard to his wholesale business.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not the question that I asked.
  SIR S. EVANS: Every question which the right hon. Gentleman asked came down to that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid this was not a legal question, it was a question of what was to be done, and although it was very interesting to go back to the Act of 1904 and discover what it was that was said

  157
  by the right hon. Gentleman, the question was whether the compensation which they offered for these licensed premises had been put upon a fair and proper basis. The Government said it was, when they put it upon Schedule A, and he would give one or two reasons why they should not include brewers' profits. Schedule A required that the assessment of the premises should be according to the rack rent, and therefore in the case of licensed premises they showed the annual value, of those premises with a licence. The other figure which they took was the annual value of the premises without a licence, and the difference between the two, they said, ought to measure, and did properly measure, the loss sustained by the taking away of the licence in respect of the premises. Now, was it right to include the brewer's profits? First of all, they were the profits made elsewhere in connection with another business. The brewer might, if he liked, rent a public-house to a free tenant. What would be the value? The character of the rack rent which that free tenant would pay. If the brewer let the house to a person who was "tied" as to the business, no doubt over and above all that the brewer made, he in connection with his own wholesale business made an additional brewer's profit. But those profits were profits made in connection with another business. Let him take the case of a house which sold a particular class of beer. In the case of a house where only Bass's or Allsopp's beer was sold, the abolition of the licence took away that particular outlet for part of the business of Bass or Allsopp; but dio anybody propose that Bass or Allsopp should receive compensation? The tenant of a licensed house might by reason of a loan take his aerated waters from a particular manufacturer; had anybody ever suggested that the manufacturer of aerated waters should be compensated if the licence were abolished? Let him put another question. How were they to separate the wholesale profits of the brewers, as distinguished from those of the house itself, because they had been dealing with cases in which the brewing company had become the owners of the premises? But they could have precisely the same class of trade carried on in premises
  158
  where the brewer had no interest at all. Supposing there was on the public-house a first mortgage to A.B., who was not a brewer, and there might be two or three other mortgages. Supposing, further, that the brewer lent money on the personal covenant of the person who carried on the business to take his beer and spirits; that gave him no interest in the house, but the profits that he made in that case were the same as those he made as the owner.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not the question I asked at all.
  SIR S. EVANS: There is no legal question, for me to deal with.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not ask a legal question.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid he was in charge of the legal part of the Bill. The whole question raised was whether they were to include in the compensation the wholesale profit which was made by the brewer. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] The right hon. Gentleman had directed attention to the figures given in the return of the administrative county of London as to licensed premises, and had pointed out that the amount of compensation awarded varied immensely, being in some cases three, five, or eight years, while in another case it had a maximum of a great many years purchase. That did not show that Schedule A was wrong; and if it was wrong, it ought to be amended. In arriving at the total figure which was divided in order to get the number of years purchase, the huge profits of the brewers were included. He had before him the Kennedy judgment. He would take the first few cases. The particulars were: "The British Queen"—to the tenant, £276; assessment, £75; to the brewers, £2,249. Could anybody say that was due to the inherent value of the premises? The house was a free one. Obviously these were brewer's profits reckoned on the number of barrels. The brewer's profits would depend on the quality of the liquor he supplied to the house; the worse and the cheaper the liquor, the greater his profits. The closer the tie upon the tenant and the higher the price the brewer charged the tenant,

  159
  the greater also would be the brewer's profits. He came to other particulars: assessment, £50; to the tenant, £186; to the brewers, £1,929; assessment, £41; to the tenant, £100; to the brewers, £549; assessment, £100; to the tenant, £104; to the brewers, £1,356. This was the answer he made to the right hon. Gentleman. It dealt with the whole substance of the case as he put it. [An HON. MEMBER: Assessment?] With regard to assessment, the point raised was whether it was right to take the rack rent as set out in Section 60, Schedule A, of the Act of 1842.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the point on which he insisted was whether the assessment in fact represented the fair value of the premises. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman on his authority tell the Committee that the assessment for rates represented the fair value of the premises?
  SIR S. EVANSsaid that if it did not, it ought to. The law, as set forth in Section 60 of the Act of 1842, was that the assessment should show the rack rent value of the premises per annum.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he asked whether it did.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid he only rose for a moment to say that his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition put some very pertinent and definite questions, but that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had not answered them, although as he rose he understood he was going to do so. Later on, however, he said it was not necessary, for the reason that he was only party to the discussion as a lawyer, and it was not his business to deal with any but legal questions. That was what he understood him to mean.
  SIR S. EVANS: What are the questions I am asked?
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid the Leader of the Opposition appealed to the Solicitor-General because he seemed to be the member of the Government who had not spoken, and who was going to speak, and
  160
  he asked him to deal with certain points which he had ignored. One question was, did the Government, or did it not, recognise that the same principle of compensation should be adopted as that had recourse to by the Inland Revenue in obtaining revenue? Another perfectly clear and relevant question had reference to this state of facts. It was within the knowledge of everyone that there were localities where the whole assessable value was below the natural rent. That was perfectly fair as between properties if treated alike, but under the Government Bill either the publican was going to receive unfair compensation or he was to be assessed at an unfair rate as compared with other properties.
  SIR S. EVANS: He is assessed, and ought to be assessed, according to the rack-rental.
  MR. BONAR LAWasked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman really meant that he was going to alter the whole rating system of the United Kingdom. Was he going to deal with other property in the same manner? In his opinion, the hon. and learned Gentleman was wise to stick to the legal aspect of the case. He had given an illustration of the way in which extraordinary profits could be made, which was a revelation to anybody who had been engaged in trade of any sort. The way to make big profits according to the hon. and learned Gentleman was to supply bad stuff. It was, he thought, a bad analogy, but, taking that analogy, the way to make big profits as a lawyer was to do the worst work in the worst possible way. It was as true of the profession of the hon. and learned Gentleman as of any other. Business was not profitable if carried on on those lines. He had not the time, and he had no intention of going into the legal merits of the Kennedy judgment, but when he listened to the Prime Minister, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be special pleading to which one could not listen without admiration. The right hon. Gentleman said that to compensate on the basis of assessable value was fair. Was it fair? If it was fair in regard to the public-house it would be equally fair in regard to any

  161
  other business. Supposing that there were two drapers' shops in the same street, of the same size, and of apparently the same value. Supposing that one of those businesses made a profit of £1,000 and the other made a profit of £2,000 a year. Would that difference be recognised in Schedule A as it stood? If it was not recognised in that case how was it fair to recognise it in the licensed trade? That brought them back to what was pointed out by his right hon. friend at the end of his remarks earlier in the afternoon. There was a fundamental difference here between the Government and those who sat in Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had not only quoted the words used by his right hon. friend, but had definitely said either on the First or Second Reading of this Bill that licences were not a form of property. That, obviously and clearly, meant that anything which this House chose to give to the trade was a gratuity which they had no right to have, and about which they had no right to bargain. It was for that reason that one hon. Member, who thought for the purposes of compensation they ought to take the valuation of an actuary, finished up his speech by expressing his willingness to take the opinion of the Treasury Bench. The whole principle of everybody who supported the Government was that these people were entitled to nothing, and anything they got they ought to be thankful for.
  *SIR THOMAS WHITTAKERsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated that compensation and taxation should be on the same basis. It was the contention of those who supported the Government that compensation should be based on taxation under Schedule A. When hon. Members opposite contended that taxation and compensation should be on the same basis they referred to the death duties only. They should refer to all kinds of taxation, and if the Government based their compensation on Schedule A. they were carrying out the principles of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Gentleman then turned to other bases, and said that lower assessments all round were
  162
  just. But in particular districts they were not just. It was part of a dodge on the part of the locality to escape their fair share of the local county rate. If some localities were assessed at a low rate, if they were under-assessed, they paid a lower proportion of the county rate than they ought to pay. He agreed that it would be unjust to put up the publican alone; all assessments ought to be put up. If they were not, there was an injustice to somebody somewhere. The Act of 1904 did not include trade compensation, but the hon. Members opposite were now contending that this Bill ought to do so. He was not much troubled as to what the basis of compensation should be, so long as it was a basis on which the publican should pay and be paid. It was not just to the remaining publicans that they should be called upon to pay a compensation of too high an amount, either because the compensation value was too high or the assessment too low. He would give the Committee an illustration. There was a house in Briggate, Leeds, the value of which was assessed at £65 for the purposes of the local rates. After the licence was taken away it was assessed at £50. That was the difference that was supposed to represent the value of the licence. £15 at twenty years purchase would give £300 as the value of the licence. What did the owner of the property ask? She was a lady. Did she ask £300? No. She asked £10,200 as compensation for the loss of her licence. She got £6,300. That was said to be the difference in the value of the house with and without the licence, yet the difference in the assessment for local rating purposes was £15 a year. Either the assessment was much too low or the compensation was vastly too high. They wanted to adopt the principle of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and have the same basis for taxation which they had for compensation. They had heard a great deal about market value. He contended that assessment should be the annual market value, and the annual market value would represent the capital value. The two things should represent one another, and if they did not injustice was being done. Another point to bear in mind in connection with this,

  163
  was that the compensation would be the difference on the assessments. If both the assessments were low, the margin of difference between the two assessments would not vary so much as had been suggested from what it would do if both assessments were high. That was rather an important point. With reference to goodwill, if it attached to the premises it should be part of the assessment, and there should be compensation for it. The contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite had reference to a tied house. Both the tied house and the free house should be compensated alike, then the annual value and market value of the house should be and must be the same, and if the annual value were the market value, then it would still represent the capital value. It was really perfectly clear. There could be no difficulty, no injustice, and no inconsistency if the compensation and assessment were on the same basis. All the figures given by opponents of the Bill were based on assessments which were obviously gross under-assessments, and the only way they could get these assessments put on a right footing, was to get the compensation on a right footing. The two matters went together, and it was because this Bill would bring about that levelling-up, that abolition of gross inconsistency, that he thought it would mean a very considerable increase of assessments, which were much below the value of the premises.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had supplied a very striking omission in the speech of the Solicitor-General. The omission of the hon. and learned Gentleman was made in answering a question which had been repeatedly put from that side of the House on a specific point, and the point was this: If they were going by this Bill to put up the assessments of public-houses to get their true value, how were they going to regulate and adjust assessments of other assessable property at a less amount? No other point had been raised from first to last.
  SIR S. EVANSwas understood to say that the assessment in the country
  164
  was not to be put up, and was to be the same as under Schedule A.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that one result of the Bill would be to compel publicans, in order to get higher compensation, to put up their assessments, and they were using this Bill to give an indirect inducement to brewers to raise their assessments, whereas they gave no such inducement to any other trade in the country. The demonstrable result was that the Bill would compel the publican by indirect means to adopt a course which would apply to no other form of assessable property.
  SIR S. EVANS: The brewers do not assess themselves.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he had repeatedly pointed out that if the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends remembered a little more frequently that the brewers did not assess themselves they would have less vituperation of the brewers than they had heard in the course of these debates. Let there be no misconception. Unless publicans raised their assessments, it was conceded that they would receive a lower degree of compensation, and therefore, from that point of view, the object of this Bill was to give them an indirect inducement—which was offered to no other member of the community engaged in any other trade—to put up their assessments at a higher ratio. They were going by this species of blackmailing to compel publicans to raise their assessments, and pay on more than their fair share of rateable value.
  AN HON. MEMBER: It has nothing to do with the rates.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why it had nothing to do with the rates? At any rate, so far as the ostensible value was concerned it did interfere, and ought not to be done. The other point, and after all, the main point, in regard to which he had a substantial Amendment on the Paper, which was hardly likely to be reached, was as to the relative fairness of the compensation given under

  165
  the Act of 1904, and that to be given under the present Bill, and he confessed that he had listened to hon. Gentlemen opposite with very great surprise indeed when they spoke of the Kennedy judgment. In the first place, he thought it a very rash proceeding indeed, on the part of laymen to criticise that judgment. He had listened to one layman on the benches opposite who delivered an elaborate legal argument to demonstrate that one of the most accomplished Judges on the bench, who had been promoted to the Court of Appeal by the present Government, had been guilty of an error in law. Was that the view of the Solicitor-General?
  SIR S. EVANS: I have never said so. I have never passed any opinion upon the Kennedy judgment.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: said that apparently the Prime Minister had rushed in where the hon. and learned Gentleman feared to tread, for he had said that the judgment had the fundamental vice in that it took the market value on the basis of the brewers' profits.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid he thought so too, because the learned Judge had calculated the amount by taking barrel by barrel, and putting the profit at 14s. 6d.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that, as far as that part of the judgment was concerned, then, the Solicitor-General thought that the learned Judge was wrong. But the question at once suggested itself why the Law Officers had not at once advised the Crown to appeal against the judgment. Every opportunity was presented. The learned Judge had asked the Law Officers point blank whether they contended that the principle was wrong, and they said they did not. His noble friend the Member for Marylebone had pointed out that they could have set the learned Judge right on this point in which he was said to be guilty of a fundamental vice. The fundmental vice stated by the Prime Minister was that the Judge had taken the market price of the premises on the basis of the brewers' profits, and the Solicitor-General, who he was sure had read a report of the case, would agree that was the principle selected
  166
  by the learned Judge. Here was a case where the Judge was said to be going wrong because he was considering the brewer's profits, and what were the Law Officers of the Crown doing? One would have thought that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General would have deemed it their duty to their clients as well as to their superior grasp of the problem, to say to the learned Judge that the basis of the brewer's profits was entirely wrong. But now, months afterwards, in a place where the learned Judge could not reply to the argument used by the Prime Minister, they said that there was a fundamental vice in the judgment, though the Law Officers when they were before the Judge did not contend in any sense for what had been laid down by the Prime Minister to-day. The judgment was appealable, but they had not appealed. He had himself since appeared in a case which was argued before the Court of Appeal, and in which the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Alverstone) said he was utterly unable to conceive of any legal ground on which the judgment of Mr. Justice Kennedy could be appealed. Therefore, whatever might have been the intention of those who framed the Act of 1904, the effect of that Act as construed by an accomplished lawyer, and accepted generally by the legal profession, was that if they took away licensed premises the person dispossessed should receive the full market value. That was the effect of the Act of 1904, and there had been no doubt thrown upon that doctrine in any case which had come before the Court. How was that met? They were told that expressions had fallen from different members of the Government who passed that Act which showed clearly that it did not carry out the intention of those who were responsible for its introduction. He was not familiar with those passages; he had not had an opportunity of looking them up. But the Solicitor-General if he were present would tell the hon. Gentleman who sat behind him that it was a principle of English law that they were not to found in any Court of Law any opinion on isolated expressions of Ministers responsible for introducing a Bill, but that they must determine the legal effect of the measure from what it said on the face of it.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: This is not a Court of law.
  MR. F. E. SMITHpointed out to the Under-Secretary that this rule was adopted not for the purpose of legal construction, but as a necessary and convenient rule; to take fifteen or twenty quotations from speakers on opposite sides of the House was neither a convenient nor a reasonable way of determining the meaning of an Act of Parliament. If he was right in that assumption, they started with this, that the Act of 1904 laid down a certain basis on which licensed properties were to be compensated. That was the law of the land as confirmed in the Courts, and until this Bill was introduced no attempt whatever had been made to question the legality of the Kennedy judgment. Such being the circumstances, what were the proposals contained in this Bill. They were told that the Government were introducing Commissioners who were to overrule Mr. Justice Kennedy's judgment. Of course, the variation in the number of years purchase which was taken caused the greatest possible discrepancy even between the untenable and illegal basis adopted by the Commissioners and the arrangement proposed by the Government to-day. The Commissioners took twenty-five years purchase as the multiplier, but the Government had taken out an average figure during the fourteen years, and adopted five years purchase, a fifth of that allowed, by the Commissioners, and which Mr. Justice Kennedy declared to be grossly inadequate. The obscurity of this part of the Bill had been so intensified that he ventured to say that the electors had not the faintest possible conception of what the Government proposed to do. Let him put an illustration of the way in which this question was likely to present itself to the people. Suppose that the London County Council to-morrow for public purposes took away a licence. The Committee would notice that the public purpose here was not a national public purpose but a municipal public purpose, but he did not suppose that it would be suggested that it made any difference whether the London County Council took away a public-house for a municipal purpose or whether
  168
  the House of Commons took away a public-house for a national purpose; the principle in law was the same, and the compensation ought to be identical. If anyone could show that that principle was not founded on justice, he would be glad to hear it explained. What did the law provide should be done if the London County Council took away a licensed house? Why the owner of the licensed premises was compensated for them at the market value; he was compensated on what Mr. Justice Kennedy had declared in his decision, which had been so much criticised in the course of the debate, to be the true principle. Let him point out how these criticisms were founded. When the judgment was criticised from the point of view of the compensation to be paid in the case of a tied house they were told that a different amount was to be awarded from that which would be awarded in the case of a free house. But he would point out that the compensation would be and ought to be totally different if the tied house was more valuable. What was the position of the tied house, and how far was the tie a circumstance capable of being valued, and one which ought to be valued as part of the market value if, for a public purpose, they were going to take away the licence? The possession of a tie was an asset which could be realised, and for which a valuer would give a man money if that man went to him and said that he was the owner. A man might be the owner of licensed premises whether he had a tie on the house or not. If he had tied it he recovered compensation at the higher rate. But before he tied the house he possessed a potential asset of value in the power to tie the house if he could find a brewer who would give it to him. Therefore, a valuer skilled in compensation cases, asked at once if there was any brewer in the neighbourhood who, if the house was tied, would give a higher price for it, and if there was it followed that there was a further asset, which must be taken into account if the State was going to take the property. He would be glad if the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary for Ireland would inform him whether they dissented from the proposition. It was incontestable and nobody familiar with arbitration

  169
  cases would deny it. If it was right to pay market value when licensed premises were taken for municipal purposes, why should it not be the same when they were taken under the Bill? They were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, who, however, was not mindful of it in his editorial days, that the reason they did not compensate them on the full market value when Parliament took away a licence was because it was only an annual licence. Was the tenure of licences that had been taken away by the London County Council longer than an annual one? Why had not the Government introduced a Bill providing that when compensation was given under these circumstances, the owners should only receive the compensation which was provided when they took away property for a national purpose? Because they knew well enough that what was compensated where a licence was taken away by a municipality was the fair market value. The case was stronger in the case of licensed victuallers to-day when it was a Parliamentary attack upon the licences, because in 1904, in the reasonable hope of obtaining a settlement, the licensed victuallers consented to do what Mr. Gladstone never anticipated they would do when he spoke of compensation in the hope of obtaining a permanent Parliamentary settlement. They agreed that they themselves should find the money out of which the compensation would be paid. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were never tired of treating the 1904 Act, and the debates which, preceded it, as if they were a monstrous outrage on everybody who did not own a public-house. It had repeatedly been said, and without reference to the question of a fund being provided by licence-holders themselves, that if they interfered with the expectations of a reasonable trade, compensation ought to be paid. When Mr. Gladstone and others spoke of compensation in that context there was no qualification of any kind to suggest that it was to be paid by the trade themselves. He would address a word of caution to those who said they did not recognise the settlement of 1904 because that Parliament had no right to pass the Act. He was not familiar with any principle of representative Govern-
  170
  ment which would enable hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that which would not enable a future House of Commons to refuse to accept their decision in 1908. The contest resolved itself into this. He took the municipal case in which the compensation was not paid by a fund provided by the licence-holders themselves. In the other case he was taking, it was provided by a fund coming out of their pockets, and yet they refused them in these circumstances the same amount for the purposes of market value which was given in the other case. This proposition might be capable of defence, but it had not received a defence up to now. He would now deal with another part of the case, that of the ante-1869 beerhouses. The only argument which had been used to show that the whole of the other licences were not entitled to market value had been the precariousness of their tenure. But the moment they came to deal with the ante-1869 beerhouses they were face to face with a class of licence which had the fullest statutory security in respect of their tenure. Over and over again, the question of dealing with those licences had been discussed, but they still stood in a privileged position when the solution of the problem was adopted in 1904.
  MR. LEIF JONES: The hon. Gentleman forgets that in 1882 the beer off-licences were in exactly the same position, and were dealt with by Parliament.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he forgot nothing of the kind.
  MR. LEIF JONES: I am sorry I reminded the hon. Member of what he knew, but he did not mention it.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he did not mention it for the simple reason that it was an utterly irrelevant circumstance. It would not surprise him to find there were 100 cases of persons who had enjoyed, in respect of licensed premises, privileged positions and had those privileged positions interfered with by Act of Parliament. No one had disputed that the House of Commons had the fullest possible right, as far as the law was concerned, of dealing with the owner of any licensed property under any circumstances.
  MR. LEIF JONES: I understood the hon. Member to say that Parliament had never interfered with ante-1869 beerhouses until 1904. I pointed out one class of ante-1869 public-houses, namely, the off-licences, which were interfered with in 1882.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he had dealt, first of all, with the speech of the Under-Secretary, in which he sketched certain attempts which had been made to interfere with 1869 beer-houses.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not attempts. Actual steps.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he would remind the Committee what they were. The hon. Gentleman dealt, in the first place, with the attempt made by Mr. Ritchie, which was never carried into law. In the second place, he had dealt with a proposal which was made by a Committee of the House of Lords.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I dealt with three distinct interferences by Parliament with these licences. First, in 1869 because the licences were held under the Act of 1830. In 1869 Parliament deprived these beer-houses of most of their privileges. Secondly, in 1882 when Parlaiment swept in the whole of the off-beer-houses on precisely the same footing as other public-houses. Thirdly, in 1904 when Parliament required all these beer-houses to pay a compensation levy to insure themselves against a risk which, previous to that year, they had never run.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that, taking the speches of the hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary together, he did not think they in any way affected the argument which he was laying before the Committee. He had stated that at the time the 1904 Act was introduced these ante-1869 houses still maintained all their privileges, though there might have been qualifications. They enjoyed a statutory freehold, and it was no use for the Under-Secretary to tell them that a House of Lords Committee made certain proposals with regard to ante-1869 beer-houses, because the only point, in judging of the reasonableness of the proposals of the Government, was what
  172
  was the position of these, ante-1869 beerhouses at the time of the settlement of 1904. At that time those licences could not be dealt with by the Government or taken away by licensing justices, and the owners of these licensed premises were induced to abstain from opposing the Bill of 1904 by a Parliamentary settlement which gave them, instead of almost complete immunity, except on grounds of bad character, the right to obtain the full compensation which Mr. Justice Kennedy had decided was provided by the Act of 1904. Parliament now came forward and said: "We, having made this arrangement with you in 1904, will now take away your licence and give you the miserable pittance of compensation provided in our Bill." Strong language had been used of this attempt, but it would be impossible to use language too strong to describe the political immorality of a step of that kind. A more halting defence than that put forward by the Under-Secretary, and surprising ii deed as coming from a Minister, he had never heard, because it only resolved itself into this, that, because Parliament had previously considered ante-1869 beerhouses, they were entitled, having made this arrangement in 1904, by which their privileges were surrendered, to take away the licences and substitute the compensation given in this Bill. There were many provisions in this Bill which, he trusted, if it met with the reception which he anticipated and hoped for it elsewhere, he would have an opportunity of discussing both in the House and in the country with representatives of the Government, but there was no clause in the whole Bill which he should more rejoice to have the opportunity of discussing than the dishonest clauses which dealt with the amount of compensation to be paid. If there was a defence which would show why the market value was not to be paid for these licences, let it be put forward. That contention had not been put forward and therefore he should give his vote against this Bill. He had every confidence in his ability to justify before the electors his opposition to the measure before the House.
  *MR. E. A. STRAUSSsaid that the question the

  173
  Committee had to consider was whether they were really in favour of giving fair compensation to those interested in licensed property. He could not understand how, once the principle of compensation to those interested in the licensed trade was accepted, it could be seriously argued that that compensation should be awarded on any other basis or scale than that of market value. He could appreciate the attitude of those hon. Members who, from motives of principle, did not believe in compensation for suppressed licences, but once they accepted the principle of compensation they could only adopt one form, and that must be based on market value. The hon. Member for the Appleby Division had referred to the moral side. He would remind the hon. Member that in the year 1875 or 1876, when it was suggested that the vexed question of compensation should be dealt with, a settlement was prevented by the attitude taken up by the temperance party of that day, led by the late Sir Wilfrid Lawson, who would not listen to compensation, because it was contrary to their principles. In that way the attitude of the temperance party had prevented good, practical, and useful legislation from finding its way on to the Statute-book, and had hindered a great social problem being dealt with. Such principles would be as fatal to-day as they were thirty or forty years ago to the progress of the cause of temperance. Let them face the logic, of the situation. What was really separating the opponents from the supporters of this Bill? They were all agreed as to the underlying principle of the Bill; they all desired to grapple with the great evil of intemperance, and what separated them was nothing more nor less than the financial clauses, of which Clause 10 was one of the most important and the most contentious. He spoke with a little experience and knowledge on this subject, because he had received during the last two or three months many communications from members of the temperance party. He had come into contact recently with many earnest and zealous workers in the cause of temperance, and he could assure the Government that the feeling of the rank
  174
  and file of those workers upon this vexed question of compensation was very different from what it was twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. Many of them had assured him that they would go even further than the late Conservative Government did in dealing with this question, and would even submit to personal sacrifice and taxation rather than any injustice should be done to those who had invested their money in licensed property. The difficulty was that politicians looked at everything through political spectacles, and they gave political colour to almost anything. He could not see why the great cause of temperance or the great curse of intemperance should for ever be made pawns in the political game. The temperance workers with whom he had been in communication were most anxious that this Bill should become law, but they did not wish it to become law if it was going to inflict injury and injustice upon those who were directly or indirectly connected with licences. The Under-Secretary very rightly warned the Committee last Friday not to attach too much importance to the figures submitted to the Committee from time to time in order to contrast the compensation that owners of suppressed licences would receive under this Bill with the market value. As far as he was personally concerned he had tried to study the arithmetic of this question of compensation, and he could not help feeling that if this Bill found its way on to the Statute-book in anything like its present form it would reduce the value of licensed property to about one-quarter or one-third of its present value. He would like to remind the Government that they pursued a very different course when they levied their toll for death duties. Then they took a sensible and reasonable course, and did not bother about any schedule, for they levied their toll on the market value of the licence. The Member for Spen Valley in the very able and eloquent speech which he made on the Second Reading of the Bill assured the House that fourteen years run was equivalent to about ten and a half years purchase, which he considered was in accordance with the judgment of Lord Justice

  175
  Kennedy. He urged the Government to consult with the right hon. Gentleman, and see if he would lend his support to a proposal to give the owners and those interested in licensed property ten and a half years purchase or a fourteen years run. He knew which they would be likely to accept. In estimating the value of a licence they must not consider merely the monopoly value. It must be remembered that a licence had to be backed up by capital and business knowledge in order to carry out the conditions imposed by the magistrate when a licence was granted or renewed. In that way the goodwill of licensed property was created, and it was created under the protection of the law, and built up by means of the energy and capital of those interested in licensed property. Surely in estimating compensation they could not for one moment ignore goodwill. A licence was nothing more than articles for sale and exchange. Licences were bought and sold hi the open market, and their price was regulated by the law of supply and demand. Where did the whole of this compensation come from? Why, out of the pockets of the trade and not out of the pockets of the taxpayer. The hon. Member for Westmoreland had brought forward the usual argument against this proposition, and he asserted that if the Act of 1904 had not created this compensation levy the State could have exacted higher taxation out of the trade. That might be a very good argument as far as lawyers were concerned, but he could assure the hon. Member that it did not appeal to the average elector. It was difficult to lay down a hard and fast line in assessing compensation. In his opinion each case must be investigated and settled on its own merits. They had heard various arguments with regard to assessment, and he would like to put one case to the Under-Secretary. Let them assume that there were two public-houses in the same street, similar in structure and paying the same amount of rent, and one of them doing double the trade of the other. It was quite contrary to any principle of assessment or equity to screw up and raise the assessment on the house doing the
  176
  larger trade. It was contrary to all principles of equity to penalise a man's enterprise because he had created a better trade than his neighbour probably because he had been selling a better article. He appealed to the Government not to haggle about the terms of compensation. The great and underlying principle of the Bill was the promotion of temperance, and the promotion of temperance was not a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. If the Government were to give compensation based on market value they would remove one of the great and genuine causes of complaint against the Bill.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone had spoken that evening of political brigandage and political hypocrisy. He understood from the speeches which he had heard that day and on Friday that the representatives of the brewing interest and the leaders of the Conservative Party claimed that the right basis for compensation should include the element of goodwill. He wondered whether it would surprise some of those Gentlemen to know that there were not ten brewery companies in this country that did not prohibit, by express terms in their agreements, their tied tenants from taking goodwill. On the morrow that this Bill became law all these agreements would be voided, because they contained a clause prohibiting the taking of goodwill. He wished to refer to the recent case of the "Horse and Groom," at Cheshunt. An old man named Nicol, seventy years of age, was persuaded to take that house and to pay £95 for goodwill and £25 for the inventory, and a further £20 on deposit on the representation, or rather the misrepresentation — he spoke advisedly—of the broker employed by the brewery company, Messrs. Prior Reid, Ltd., St. Albans, a company owning something like 200 tied houses. The old man took the house on the misrepresentation that it was doing a certain trade.
  MR. BARNARD: Might I ask the hon. Member what was the verdict?
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid it was usual to state the facts before asking for a verdict. He would come to the verdict after he had referred to some of the remarks of the Judge. He wished to speak first of all as to the facts. This poor man was persuaded to go into the house on the representation that it was doing a certain barrelage trade. That was in February. But he had not been there many days when he found that the trade done was only one-ninth of what it was represented. He appealed to the brewers, and they declined to do anything and held him to his agreement, and only three weeks after he left the premises and brought an action in the County Court to recover the money which had been obtained from him by fraudulent misrepresentation, but the Judge held that the brewer had been no party to the misrepresentations on the part of the broker and the previous tenant. Would the House believe it, that this poor old man, who was required to pay the goodwill going in, was debarred from taking that goodwill on going out?
  Clause 7 of the agreement provided—
  "At the end of the tenancy hereby created the tenant shall not claim or receive from the landlord or any other person or persons any compensation or payment whatsoever in respect of good will."
  He contended, however, that if it was good enough for the brewers and representatives of brewery companies and the Conservative Party, to claim compensation for disturbance or goodwill, it was more important that the claims of the tenant in these matters should be recognised. If the claim for compensation for goodwill was made by the brewers for themselves, still more ought it to be put forth in the case of the tenant, but not a single word had the Committee heard from the Unionist benches in the whole discussion on behalf of the one person who above all others was entitled to compensation for goodwill, namely, the tenant. But on the Ministerial side of the House they could understand that. As a matter of fact, under these tied agreements they knew perfectly well that every tenant was gradually squeezed, skinned, and sweated in the form of increased rental or the increased prices charged for beer. He wondered whether
  178
  the respectable leaders of the Conservative Party were aware of the methods resorted to by the underlings of the brewery companies to get the uttermost farthing from the tied tenant. A great deal of denunciation was heard from hon. Gentleman opposite regarding the methods of moneylenders when the Moneylenders Act was passed a few years ago. He said without hesitation that the methods described at that time as those followed by a person named Isaac Gordon, a moneylender, were perfectly common methods adopted by many of the brewery companies and their underlings in this country in the case of tied tenants. He had made a calculation, and he estimated that the brewers had taken by way of illicit profits out of tied tenants in fourteen years no less a sum than £160,000,000. It seemed an extraordinary and amazing figure, but he challenged any brewer's representative to say that the difference between the price commonly obtained from tied tenants and that got from free tenants was less than 10s. per barrel. Let them take the statement of the Licensing Commission that three-fourths of the barrelage was under tied tenants, and they would see that £160,000,000 was within the mark. The free tenant had from 5 to 20 per cent. discount, and he had also an allowance for bad beer and wastage. He had tested 150 brewery companies in this country, and he found that the difference in the prices got from tied and free tenants was 10s. a barrel. That was one way in which the brewery companies skinned the tied tenants.
  MR. GRETTON: Will the hon. Member name some of the brewery companies to which his statement refers?
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I shall be very pleased to give the names of the brewery companies privately. [Cries of "Give them now."] In view of the tyranny exercised by brewery companies over their tenants I am not going to place any of those tenants in the position of being sent to Coventry for any information that I am giving.
  MR. GRETTON: I do not think the hon. Member need make that reservation, because nobody could ascertain

  179
  how he got the information or from whom.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Do I understand that the hon. Member denies the statement?
  MR. GRETTON: Certainly I deny the statement; it is quite contrary to my own experience.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: Then I will give the hon. Member the names of some of the firms. The firm of Allsopp's makes that difference. It is rather larger in their case. Barclay, Perkins and Co., and Watney, Combe, and Co., make the difference, I say that 10s. is the very least, and there are cases where the difference is shown to be as much as 13s. or 14s.
  MR. REMNANT: It is absolutely untrue.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid he supposed the hon. Member for Holborn was an expert in brewery finance, but for all that, he adhered to the statement he had made. Now they were told by the representatives of the brewery companies and by the Leaders of the Opposition that the compensation to the owners ought not to be upon a basis which excluded the goodwill. Either the goodwill belonged to the owner or to the trader, but he understood the suggestion was that where the goodwill belonged to the tenant it did not matter. The Opposition did not trouble about him. There was no suggestion that he ought to benefit under Mr. Justice Kennedy's judgment; he was still tied down to the limit under the Act of 1904. There was no suggestion that the tenant's scale of compensation should have been expanded in proportion to the compensation expanded in the case of the owner or brewer under the Kennedy judgment. It was said that the owner ought to have compensation included on the basis of goodwill in relation to the wholesale trade. If it was good enough for a wholesale brewer who happened to have a tie upon a house to receive compensation on the expectation of his wholesale profit, it was
  180
  equally good for the baker who supplied the public-house to receive compensation on the basis of his expectation of profit destroyed by the suppression of the house. It was equally good that the whiskey distiller in Scotland who sent whiskey down under tie to a house in Plymouth should have compensation for the trade that he had lost; and that the timber merchant in Hull who sent sawdust should also be compensated for his expectation of profit destroyed by the suppression of the house. As a matter of fact the whole thing was absurd. There was not a parallel or analogy to be found for this perfectly amazing proposition. The brewing trade was not the only trade in which ties were known to exist. They were known in the drapery trade. Was it suggested that when a shop tied to J. P. Coates and Company to buy their cotton thread was taken down for a public improvement, the compensation paid should include compensation to Coates and Company for the loss of their trade. No such suggestion had ever been put forth except in connection with the discussion on this Bill. If it was so equitable, so right and proper, then why did the Leaders of the Opposition when they were in office in 1904 and had the responsibilities of government upon them, not make the suggestion and simply tie down compensation to the men having relations not to the business of the house, but to the property? That was brought about by the perfectly ingenious judgment of Mr. Justice Kennedy, for whom they had the highest respect and regard as a lawyer. It was not until that judgment was given that any attempt was made to suggest that the basis of compensation should include the wholesale profits of the business. There was no such suggestion in the speeches during the discussions on the Act of 1904. One was surprised that the suggestion should be put forward by the representatives of the brewery companies and the Leaders of the Conservative Party, and one was equally surprised, if not pained, to find that they were perfectly silent in regard to asking that the particular persons who had a right to be compensated on the basis of the business done should not be compensated on that business, viz., the licence-holder. In conclusion, he would like

  181
  to offer to the Government both his cordial thanks and hearty congratulations upon their acceptance and promise to include in this clause Amendments making it perfectly clear, first, that licensee managers of tied houses should rank for compensation for the loss of their employment, and, secondly, that no licensee tenant should be turned out of his house under the operation of the Bill without receiving as a minimum of compensation at least one year of the total value of the business, leaving it to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue to fix in their discretion any sum by way of compensation over and above that guaranteed minimum. He had worked it out in the case of a number of houses in his own constituency, and in other parts of the country, and he found that the difference it would make in the case of one licensee tenant as compared with what he had obtained under the Act of 1904 would be that whereas he obtained £25 under the Act by way of compensation's compensation under the new scheme would be £220 or £230. In another case where the compensation to the tied tenant was only £65 under the Act, he found on the figures as to the value of the business that if this manager had been allowed compensation under the new scheme he would have received a sum of £610. The tenants throughout the country would profoundly thank the Government for their proposal. The effect would be that instead of being compensated on his rental, which was frequently nominal in order to keep down the assessment, he would be compensated on an equivalent for the total loss he had sustained by the suppression of his house. He would only make one other point and that was that while the brewers were demanding in such a scandalous way goodwill compensation for themselves, they had not put forth that claim on behalf of the tenant. That they did so he had shown in the typical agreement which he had read prohibiting the tenant from receiving goodwill when he went out of the house. He would read an extract from the report of a case which had been tried at Chester Assizes—
  "Mr. Justice Cave made some strong observations about brewers' arrangements with their tenants. A dispute arose between the incoming and out-going tenant of the 'Wynnstay Arms Inn,' Rhyl, which was now the subject
  182
  of an action. One of the items in dispute was £100 for goodwill.
  "Mr. Hartley, North Wales agent for the brewers, called for the defendant, said their firm did not recognise tenants' goodwill.
  "Mr. Justice Cave: When a tenant gets up the value of a house, do you confiscate the goodwill?
  "Mr. Hartley: Certainly.
  "Mr. Justice Cave: Well, it is about the coolest thing I ever heard of in my life.
  "Asked if he was sure as to this, the witness replied in the affirmative, upon which the Judge said it was a most disgraceful thing.
  "In summing up, his Lordship said this custom of appropriating the tenant's goodwill was all the more outrageous and monstrous in the face of the fact that brewers were going up and down the country complaining that their own property was being confiscated.
  "The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff."
  He regarded this Clause 10 as a perfectly just one. It was more than generous to the great brewing interest, and now that it was being made perfectly clear by the acceptance on the part of the Government of certain Amendments, that the licence-holder, who, after all, was the real person with whom the State had to deal, was to have his interest fully protected in this matter of compensation, he hoped they would hear less from the other side that the tenants were being badly treated, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite would show their real regard for the licensee and for the tenant by seeing to it that these particular Amendments were embodied in the Bill.
  *SIR GEORGE WHITEsaid he would not have risen had it not been for a remark made by one hon. Member who appealed, he said, to the Government on behalf of the temperance workers to be more liberal in connection with their compensation clauses. He thought he might claim to have some knowledge of the opinion of the various bodies of temperance workers throughout the Kingdom, and he ventured to say that while they had responded to the appeal which was made to them not to protest against compensation in any form and had yielded to the exigencies of the case and consented to a certain form of compensation—they were not against the Bill because they felt that the time had come when, in the interests of

  183
  temperance, a settlement ought to be made—but he had yet to find any body of temperance workers who were opposed to the Bill because it was not liberal enough in its principles of compensation, and he could not imagine who they were who had made these representations to the hon. Member in favour of dealing with this question more liberally. He need scarcely say that many active temperance workers were still of the opinion which was held by the late Sir Wilfred Lawson, that there could be no claim for compensation successfully established in the case of licence-holders who held the position for one year. But that was not the position they were taking now. They had conceded the principle of compensation, and the discussion which had occupied, the attention of the House for many days was really as to the basis upon which that principle should be fixed. An hon. Gentleman said that it was very difficult for them to reach a just conclusion, because they could not consider the matter from the temperance point of view without looking through political spectacles. Might he assure the hon. Gentleman that it was just as easy to get a just appreciation of the case by looking through political spectacles as it was by looking through financial spectacles. The cause of the great difference between Members on one side of the House and on the other was that they had debated this question far too largely on financial considerations. The question of compensation must largely affect the question of reduction, which was one of the most important questions at stake in this Bill. He was a member of a licensing committee and a compensating authority, where they had in one place to deal with the largest number of houses in proportion to the population in the Kingdom, and at the same time they had the anomaly that they had the smallest sum to deal with in connection with their compensation authority, with the result that, partly in consequence of the Kennedy judgment, they had for eighteen months stopped any idea of reduction at all. They had in the three years since the passing of the last Act reduced the number of licences by twenty-four, which was far less a number
  184
  than that by which they would have been reduced if that Act had not been passed at all; and if they were to go on the basis of the Kennedy compensation he could only say that it would be a century before they reached the statutory number in proportion to the population under this Bill. How their business was going to be managed to reach the statutory number was a question which he had not been able to solve. The real question which had been, he thought, debated during the last two days was whether the compensation was to be on the basis of the Kennedy judgment, or whether it should be on the basis which the authors of the 1904 Act believed they were presenting to the House and the country. He followed that discussion very closely, and he came away from it, as he believed every hon. Member who took part in it did, with the conviction that the compensation to be paid was the difference between the public-house with a licence and the same house without a licence. Many quotations had been given from speeches of Members of the Government on that occasion which amply justified that conclusion, and he could not but feel that there had been some lack of sincerity on behalf of the authors of that Bill in not frankly admitting that that was their conviction at the time, whatever had been read into the Act since and whatever had been the result of the Kennedy decision. This compensation was of much greater importance to some brewers than was admitted in the House. The compensation authority to which he belonged had closed some twenty-four or twenty-five houses, and he was perfectly certain from the evidence before them that the majority of those houses were a loss to the owner every year. They closed the houses and gave compensation from £100 to £400 upon incomes derived from half a barrel or a barrel a week, which was the utmost that was consumed, and in regard to houses in which caretakers were put in at 10s. a week and free lodgings. Yet they had to pay compensation for relieving the brewer of an establishment in which from week to week he was losing money. He made bold to say that there were hundreds of houses closed in this country under these conditions,

  185
  and therefore, when they heard of the injustice of this measure let them remember that there was another side to it, even as far as the brewers themselves were concerned. But he would rather have heard much more about the general public in this discussion. They had heard too little about their interests. Analogies had been attempted to be drawn from other businesses, altogether oblivious of the fact that if they attempted to argue on this drink business on the same line as any other business in the country, they would start on a false basis, and one which the law had never recognised, and starting on such a false basis they were bound to come to unjust conclusions. Then he thought the fact had been overlooked that Acts of Parliament were constantly injurious to traders and vested interests. He had in his mind cases which would illustrate the point he was endeavouring to put before the House. In one of these he knew a business which was very much dependent upon a good supply of water, which came from a stream connected with the premises. These premises had been leased by two generations and three years ago a third generation came into the lease and carried on the business. They ventured to make a purchase of the premises, but within two years of that they were told by the local authorities that they could no longer use this water, which was practically an essential to the conduct of the business, as they were polluting a public stream and thereby endangering the comfort and health of the inhabitants. Therefore it was said they must make other provisions. The making of this other provision was a question of nearly £2,000 to those who occupied these premises, and yet when they purchased them they had a just expectation of being able to carry on that business, which had gone on for seventy or eighty years in the family. They paid the price of the business upon that expectation, and yet if they had attempted to get any compensation, because the public improvement and the health of the people required that the steps in question should be taken, they would have been scouted. That was a sample of hundreds of cases that arose in consequence of
  186
  legislation passed by Parliament, and, therefore, he said, without going into detail, that the Government had not only been just in their compensation but extremely generous, considering that this Bill was before the House and the country in the interests of the public and for the public good, and that the trade required that this legislation should be applied to it. Therefore he hoped the Government would remain firm against any further concessions, even a financial concession. He would make only one other observation, and that was to the appeal made by his hon. friend the Member for Chester in the closing remarks of an admirable speech. The hon. Member only used one sentence with which he disagreed in that speech, and that was when he appealed to the Government that they would not only make the concession in regard to the seven years monopoly value but make the Bill one for twenty-one years in the whole of its application. He wanted to press the Government that they should not on any account yield to any suggestion of that kind. Those who felt very strongly upon the temperance character of the Bill had not done more than protest against the concession which had been made. It was practically a financial concession, and if such a small concession would accelerate the progress of the Bill, much as he thought it unnecessary, still he felt sure, as long as it was a financial matter only, that the great bulk of the friends of temperance would be willing to accede to it; but it would be a very different matter if the whole provisions of the Bill were to be extended to twenty-one years, and a temperance reform which should come into operation at the end of fourteen years postponed for another seven years. He asked in the interests of the generation which would come in those six or seven years that the Government should no longer withhold from the nation its right to deal with these questions of local option and the discretion of the magistrates which the Bill embodied, and feeling that they had done everything with justice and generosity they should not yield another seven years monopoly. He hoped they would pass this Bill, which he believed had the great mass of the public opinion of the country behind it, as he thought the

  187
  Government would find out when they appealed to the nation about it.
  MR. CROOKSsaid he felt more than an ordinary amount of interest in this question of compensation of licence-holders, as he did not believe that the Government would have taken up this Bill at all if it had been a question of their claims. They would not have got the support of the brewers if they had, because they were not "out" for compensation for the licence-holders, but for themselves. He wanted to know how this compensation would work out. He must be very careful in his language or he should call things which had taken place in the past a swindle. Some arrangements had been made between the tenants and the brewers, and things had not "panned out" as expected. There had been a good deal of the confidence trick played by the owner upon the tenant, and under the last Licensing Bill the money went all one way. Look at it how they liked, they perpetrated what certainly was a very grave injustice in the system of letting houses. This was shown by the varying statements made when the assessment was fixed, when the house was said to be worthless, and those made when the process had been gone through, when the house became a wonderful one. What happened? The brewers were looking out for a respectable tenant. Perhaps this man was a teetotaller, and being a careful man had saved money and thought he would like to invest it in a public-house. He was just the sort of man to commend himself to the brewers. He would go and see them, and the usual conversation would take place. He would be asked how much he was prepared to put down, and he would say
  188
  £500, the whole of his savings. He would then be told the thing was ridiculous, that the house was worth £5,000, but he was just the sort of man they were looking for, and he had better see the agent, with whom, perhaps, some arrangement could be made. Eventually he deposited his £500, and signed a document for an imaginary loan of £4,500. He then entered into possession of the "Dog and Lion," and it was not very long before he discovered that he was not in the paradise he expected to be, but in the other shop. He then came to the assessment committee and said that the assessment of this house was too high, and must be reduced, but the assessment committee told him that inasmuch as he had a loan on this house of £4,500, on which he was paying 3 per cent., he should go to the brewers and get that reduced and not come to the ratepayers to reduce the assessment. He went to the brewers. They could not see their way to reduce the loan, but would reduce the interest to 1½ per cent. That was a consideration, but the tenant asked then whether they could not see their way to reduce the loan, and still allow him to pay 3 per cent. on the reduced loan. He was told that such a request showed his absolute lack of business capacity; that some time or other some wretched Government would come into power and talk about the reduction of licences and compensation; that the loan must be kept up whatever interest was paid for it. Eventually the tenant found he could not pay 1½ per cent., that he could not pay his rent, and that he could not pay his rates. The brewers then said they would have to let the house. This the tenant was willing

  189
  they should do, as it had been a burden to him. When the licence was transferred the tenant naturally said he had deposited £500, and asked whether he was not to get anything back on the transfer, whereupon he was told not to bother them about his deposit, that he had ruined their business, and he had got to get out of it. He went out of it, and some other enlightened sinner came along and did the same thing. There were hundreds of men walking about London who had been ruined in this way. He knew one particular public-house, the licence of which was kept alive, for what reason he could never understand until the Licensing Act came into force. He did not know how many tenants there had been in it. Men of this kind were got to take it and deposit a little money and were turned out. There had been two suicides in that house, and eventually the business was so bad that the brewers had to pay a man to remain in it. When the Licensing Act came in they got £2,100 for shutting it up—after they had killed two tenants there and ruined many. He asked then, and he asked now, that wherever and whenever a house was closed under this Bill, when it presently became an Act, the person who had deposited money in order to take up a licence should be the first person considered. The man who had put his savings into the business had a right to claim some consideration from the State which had no right to neglect him. It was not always that the owner of the house held the licence. It was, therefore, very difficult to say who the licence-holder was. Everybody knew how this transferring of licences was carried out. They went before the licensing justices
  190
  and the magistrate turned to the man who held the licence and said: "Are you willing to transfer this licence?" and the man nodded. The magistrate then turned to the man who was going to take it up and said: "Are you willing to take this licence?" and he nodded, and then the parties went outside and squared matters up and separated. He knew three public-houses; the "Noah's Ark," the "Watermans' Arms," and the "Two Brewers." The owners of these houses, the brewers, were anxious to obtain a full licence for a large house in a main road. Counsel was instructed to appear at the Middlesex Licensing Sessions, and he told the story in the delightful way in which counsel could tell these stories. The magistrates were told that his clients were an eminent firm of brewers who were exceedingly anxious to further the cause of temperance, as anxious as anyone in the Court could be to promote temperance, and remove from the weaker portion of the population the temptation to drink. The licensing justices would then ask what his proposal was. They would be told that the brewers proposed to shut up these three houses; that they were perfectly willing to surrender these three licences if the justices granted them a licence for the house for which they now applied. The justices—good, kind, Christian souls—thought this was an offer not to be despised, and that the poor slum-dwellers, exposed to this temptation in this vile neighbourhood, would be benefited. The locality certainly was a vile one from the brewers' point of view. There was nobody there. It cost the brewers £150 a year to keep these houses open, so they willingly surrendered the licences, saved £150 a year by the

  191
  transaction, and got a fully licensed house in the main road in the bargain. He wondered how much they paid the poor creatures they turned out into the street in their desire to remove the temptation to drink from the slum-dwellers. The whole question of compensation required much consideration. What he wanted was to get at the bedrock value of the licence, and also what the poor men who had invested their money in the business were going to get out of it. It was not the rich people who were ruined. It was the little men who put their £500 or £700—their savings—into the business. It was no part of the business of the brewers to look after them. A man got a chance where a house was removed for the purpose of improvements. He remembered a case which was brought before his licensing committee, in which the value of the goodwill was elicited. Two documents were produced before them: one was goodwill, £11,000, and the other £7,000 for the lease. The house, he said, had recently been sold for £18,000. The other side, however, said they could produce evidence to the effect that the lease was sold for £7,000, and the goodwill for £11,000; but he challenged them to produce the tenant, who was a tied tenant, to swear that he had £11,000 for the goodwill. They replied that they did not know his address, and he retorted that he knew where he lived. The fact of the matter was the tenant never had 11,000 farthings; he had been turned out to make way for a better tenant, and they wanted to cheat the assessment. Why had they this false sentimentality about compensation? The licence-holders had always taken care of themselves; let the House take care of the man who could not take care of himself.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had made a very interesting and amusing speech, but, although he had been honestly trying all the time to follow him, he had not been able to gather the precise question upon which he wished to appeal for information. He was afraid he could not follow the hon. Member into all the various matters to which he had referred, and he really must confess that he had not been present at any of the conversations which had taken place between the thrifty temperance man who had saved a little money and the licence-holder or particular brewer with whom he had to deal. After all, however, there was a question on which he had something to say with regard to the compensation to be paid to the licence-holder. The debate had proceeded for some considerable time, and he did not profess that he should be able to add anything new to the arguments already adduced, but no one could doubt the vast importance in this intended legislation of the particular clause with which they were dealing. If one thing more than another demonstrated to him the spirit in which the Government approached the question, it would be the way in which they were attempting to treat this matter of compensation. After all, they knew very well that they had brought in a Bill which was going to take away from people vast interests, rights, equities, or whatever they might call them—and that they were going to affect those people pecuniarily; and, if they had wished to approach the matter in a fair spirit, inflicting the least possible hardship, the one question on which they would have taken care to be generous was the question of compensation. A good deal had been said about the Act of 1904, and he was told that some

  193
  quotations had been made from his own speeches when that Act was going through. He was sorry to say he had not had time either to read his own speeches or the quotations; but he thought the position they took up on the Act of 1904, having regard to the situation, was perfectly easy of definition. They were going to reduce these houses at the expense of the trade. If one thing more than another seemed to be forgotten during that debate, it was that the money they were dealing with on the present occasion was the money of the trade. When, under the Parliamentary settlement of 1904, they induced—or compelled, if they liked—these people to levy upon themselves an insurance against their own loss, they asked the trade to subscribe their money as an insurance fund for the purpose of putting down a number of these licensed houses. The hon. Member who spoke a few moments earlier said that they were extremely generous to the trade. He did not know what the extent of the hon. Member's generosity was or how much he paid.
  SIR GEORGE WHITE: I am paying a great deal every year.
  SIR E. CARSON: I did not know that the hon. Member was a member of the trade or I would not have said such a thing, nor did I know that he very largely contributed to its revenue.
  SIR GEORGE WHITE: I have no need to be a member of the trade to pay the expenses of the trade.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not know either that the hon. Gentleman had contributed to any particular extent to the particular revenue which was derived from the trade. What was the question
  194
  which had to be met in 1904, when the Government of the day were asking for this money? For the purpose of death duties the valuation of these houses was taken at the market value. For every public purpose for which a public-house was taken over by a county council or corporation it was taken at the market value plus something for complusory purchase. If they had a covenant in a deed to keep up the licence of a house, and broke it, they would have to pay damages on the basis of the market value. There was no valuation known to the law at the date of the Act of 1904 for the taking away for any purpose of licensed houses except the market value. The Government were asking the trade to supply £1,500,000 for the purpose of insuring them. What were they to say was to be the basis of compensation? Were they to ask the trade to set up its insurance fund and then say they would not allow them to have out of their own insurance fund the market value of the premises taken away? Would anybody have put such a proposal either before them or before the House? The whole basis of the Bill was and only could be the question of market value. What did they do? They said the market value ought to be ascertained for the purpose of insurance, just in the same way as the value was ascertained for the death duties. That was the whole basis of the scheme put forward. Could it be said that it was an unfair basis? The Kennedy judgment had been referred to, and it was said they had made some change. He thought it would be found that what he said in his speeches on that Bill was that he believed the market value would be what they would have to get at. He said over and over again that all they wanted the

  195
  Inland Revenue Commissioners to do was exactly what they did in relation to the fixing of the money for the purpose of the death duties. Was there anything inconsistent with that in the Kennedy judgment? There were many ways in which they might fix the market value. They might go into the district and find out what houses there of the same character had been sold for, what houses there were there, and what demand there was for them. Anyone who had been in compensation cases knew that they called surveyors who would say that they had a house not far away and sold it for such a sum. In that way they arrived at the market value. The fallacy underlying the arguments advanced on the Kennedy judgment was the leaving out of account of the fact that the learned Judge was laying down that what he wanted to get at was the market value. Hon. Members might think the best way was not adopted of arriving at that value. He was not concerned with that. It was not for him to criticise the Lord Justice. The principle remained the same; it was the market value that was sought, and it was the market value which the Government of the day contemplated under the Act of Parliament. It was idle to try and turn the debate on what took place before Mr. Justice Kennedy; the real question was whether the market value was a fair compensation. If there was anything wrong in the opinion of the House in the way Mr. Justice Kennedy arrived at the market value, and if they thought there ought to be an alteration as regarded the fixing of the market value, then they might put it in the Bill; but that did not necessitate getting rid of what only could be the real value, viz., the market value. What was the change proposed? It was well
  196
  to see what was the real difference between the two sides of the House. The Government proposal was something absolutely different from what was intended by the Act of 1904. He would take an instance, the case of the Coach and Horses," which had been referred to. He knew hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like it, but it was a very instructive case. The War Office sold it for £10,000. He might take that as a fair indication of the market value. He thought they had a right to get for the taxpayer the full market value of the premises. What would they get under this Bill? £400. It was no use arguing that they were giving what was intended under the Act of 1904, for they were giving something totally different. Having set up this insurance, out of which the market value was to be paid, the first thing they did was to reduce the number of years. The Prime Minister had said that was not germane to the question. With great respect, he thought it was most germane. Insurance was asked for from the trade, on the ground that they were going to get the market value when everybody was treating a licence as if it might reasonably be expected to exist for a number of years, and they said: "The most it can exist for is fourteen years, and you must take that into consideration when you are valuing." In each succeeding year they took off one year, because they were getting nearer the end of the term. In addition they did a great deal more. They gave up the market value, and gave a value as to which he thought nobody in the House understood how it would work out, or on what basis it was made, or for what reason they gave up the market value. Market value was the only possible value upon

  197
  which they could base any compensation proposal. Was there any estimate of compensation which had ever been based upon the rateable valuation of the premises? Such a thing was impossible, because the rateable valuation of the premises was entirely artificial, and had nothing whatever to say to what was the real value. Several hon. Gentlemen had said that under the Act of 1904 they had a different system of valuation for a free house and for a tied house. That he absolutely denied. How could there be a difference in the market value of a house, whether it was tied or whether it was free? If it was free it could be tied, and the owner had a right to sell it to a man who could have it tied. Where was the injustice, under the Act of 1904? At all events, if they wanted to put forward any intelligible basis of compensation he said, with confidence, that they could not put forward any intelligible basis of compensation other than the market value. They might say the market value was too high, and they would take 20 per cent. off because they were brewers, or they might take a great deal more off, or divide the money in different proportions, but they could never get at the value of any property except by going to the market and seeing what it would fetch. In listening to the Prime Minister one was greatly struck by the development that this debate had had in pointing out that they really had demonstrated an additional Bill inside this Bill. He had heard no answer given to the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Kingston and the Leader of the Opposition as regarded the question of rateable value. The whole of the Bill was based, as regarded compensation, said the Prime Minister, on Schedule A., but he said that
  198
  Schedule A. would have to be altered. They had asked over and over again, were they going to alter Schedule A. as regards the whole country? If they were only going to alter it as regards the value of licensed premises it had been demonstrated that they were going for all purposes for which taxation was required to put additional taxation upon one trade, and one trade alone. There was no alternative but either to alter the valuations on Schedule A. all through the country on every class of house and business, or to compel what was admittedly an unjust valuation to remain in the case of public-houses. The truth of the matter was that they were determined to be unfair in their compensation towards these men. It was their money. It was they who had subscribed it under the arrangement made in 1904. The Government were going back upon that arrangement. They were at the same time keeping the money under the Act of 1904, and whittling away almost to nothing the advantages that had been promised. In every particular where the Bill was examined it was so unfair to the interest concerned that one was driven to believe that the Government themselves never could have hoped to pass the Bill. The question of compensation, as far as they had gone, was really a disgrace and a discredit to the House. He appealed to the Government, whatever other provisions they might not be able to alter in a Bill which they said would promote a great social reform in the interests of temperance, that they might at least be somewhat generous even at the expense of the trade itself to those whom they were attempting to rob.
  Question put.

  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 313; Noes, 129. (Division List No. 294.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hudson, Walter

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Duckworth, James

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Armitage, R.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jackson, R. S.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Balfour, Rebort (Lanark)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Erskine, David C.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Essex, R, W.

  Kelley, George D.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Ksslemont, George Birnie

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Beale, W. P.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lambert, George

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Bell, Richard

  Findlay, Alexander

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Bellairs, Carylon

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Black, Arthur W.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lloyd-George,) Rt. Hon. David

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Bowcrman, C. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Brace, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bramsdon, T. A.

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

  Lynch, H. B.

  Brigg, John

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bright, J. A.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Maclean, Donald

  Brooke, Stopford

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Callum, John M.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hull, Frederick

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cameron, Robert

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Chance, Frederick William

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

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  Menzies, Walter

  Clough, William

  Harwood, George

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Clynes, J. R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Middlebrook, William

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mond, A.

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

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morrell, Philip

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

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

  Morse, L,. L.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cox, Harold

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

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

  Crooks, William

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Myer, Horatio

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hodge, John

  Nicholls, George

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Davies, Timothy (Fulhnm)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  200

  201

  O'Grady, J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechape, l)

  Vivian, Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Partington, Oswald

  Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Walters, John Tudor

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Walton, Joseph

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Seddon, J.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Seely, Colonel

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Shackleton, David James

  Waring, Walter

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Radford, G, H.

  Snowden, P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Rees, J. D.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Steadman, W. C.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Richardson, A.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williamson, A.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Robinson, S.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Winfrey, R.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Tomkinson, James

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Toulmin, George

  Joseph Pease and Master

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  of Elibank.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Ure, Alexander

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. Birmingh'm

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

  Keswick, William

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn Sir H.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Barnard, E. B.

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bertram, Julius

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  M'Killop, W.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gretton, John

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Carlile, E. Hildred

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Haddock, George B.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Cave, George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Nield, Herbert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nussey, Thomas Willians

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Oddy, John James

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Clark, George Smith

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Percy, Earl

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  202

  203

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Whitbread, Howard

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Renwick, George

  Starkey, John R.

  Winterton, Earl

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Young, Samuel

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Younger, George

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Viscount Valentia.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 17th July, successively to put forthwith the Question on the Amendments moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 6, line 23, after the word 'business' to insert the words 'or, where the licence-holder is managing the business on behalf of some other person, for the licence-holder's loss of employment.'"
  "In page 6, line 25, after the word 'licence' to insert the words 'not in any BUM being loss than the amount of one year's net profits to be determined in accordance with the rules and
  regulations of the Acts relating to income-tax.'"
  In page 7, line 2, at end, to add the words '(4) If the amount payable as compensation in respect of the extinction of a licence is not determined or for any other reason is not divided and paid at the time when the licence expire the Licensing Commission shall pay to the holder of the licence such sum as they think fit under the circumstances of the case in anticipation of any sum which may ultimately become payable to him, and any sum so paid shall be deducted from his share in the compensation when the amount payable as compensation is ultimately divided and paid."—(The Solicitor-General.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Question put. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes. 314; Noes, 128. (Division List No. 295.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rees, J. D.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Erskine, David C.

  Lambert, George

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Lamont, Norman

  Richardson, A.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robinson, S.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roch, W7alter F. (Pembroke)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lynch, H. B.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Gill, A. H.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Maclean, Donald

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Glover, Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Callum, John M.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Seddon, J.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

  Seely, Colonel

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Shackleton, David James

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Maddison, Frederick

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Hall, Frederick

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Marnham, F. J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Menzies, Walter

  Snowden, P.

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

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Middlebrook, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Mond, A.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Harwood, George

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morrell, Philip

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morse, L. L.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Summerbell, T.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Myer, Horatio

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Nicholls, George

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Hodge, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tomkinson, James

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Holt, Richard Dinning

  O'Grady, J.

  Toulmin, George

  Hooper, A. G.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Partington, Oswald

  Ure, Alexander

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Vivian, Henry

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hudson, Walter

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Walton, Joseph

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Pollard, Dr.

  Waring, Walter

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Kelley, George D.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  206

  207

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Williamson, A.

  Winfrey, R.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

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

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Elibank.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Oddy, John James

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Percy, Earl

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Gretton, John

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Haddock, George B.

  Renwick, George

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bertram, Julius

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hills, J. W.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Keswick, William

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanier, Beville

  Cave, George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clark, George Smith

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

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Killop, W.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Winterton, Earl

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Young, Samuel

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

  Nield, Herbert

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Fell, Arthur

  Nolan, Joseph

  Viscount Valentia.

  Clause 11:
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 7, line 3, after the word 'compensation,' to insert the words 'excluding any additional sums in respect of loss of business or employment or depreciation of fixtures.'"
  "In page 7, line 12, to leave out the word 'and.'"
  "In page 7, line 13, to leave out the words '(b) Any,' and to insert the words '(2) The additional sums in respect of loss of business or employment and depreciation of fixtures shall be dealt with as follows: (a) The '"
  "In page 7, line 14, after the word 'business' to insert the words 'or employment.'"
  208
  "In page 7, line 14, after the word 'to' to insert the words 'and notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary may be retained by.'"
  "In page 7, line 15, to leave out the word 'any' and to insert the words '(b) The.'"—(The Solicitor-General.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  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 five minutes before Eleven o'clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  List of certified schools for blind, deaf, defective, and epileptic children in England and Wales on 31st July, 1908.
  CROWN LANDS ACT, 1906.
  Second Report by the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, as a Commissioner of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, by virtue of the Crown Lands Act, 1906.

  UGANDA RAILWAY.
  Return showing, the capital expenditure on the Uganda railway; the charge involved upon the Exchequer by the capital expenditure, the gross and net earnings of the lines for each year since it was opened.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 6th October, 1908, providing for the early closing of certain classes of shops in the burgh of Coatbridge. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  ARMY.
  Return respecting. Laid before the House (in pursuance of Address of 29th July last), and to be printed. [No. 213.]
PUBLIC-HOUSES (EXTENSION OF FACILITIES) BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, this Bill was originally introduced in the House of Commons at the beginning of this session, and it was there supported by a number of Members of not only one party complexion; but, owing to the block of business in the other House, the Bill made no further progress. It may seem rather strange to advocate the

  3
  improving of public-houses when the diametrically opposite policy has been, and is still being, carried on by many licensing authorities. Their policy has been, in a great number of cases, to allow public-houses to deteriorate and to become uninviting, to make them disreputable rather than to improve them.
  That policy was, I think, fallacious in conception, and it has been disastrous in practice. It has been wrong because it has gone on the principle that to drink alcoholic beverages is in itself a crime, instead of recognising that it is almost universal for mankind to wish to gratify the instinct for some alcoholic drink, and in any case it has been futile owing to the existence of houses with off-licences and grocers' licences where drink can be procured, in abundance. Again, the licensing authorities have failed to recognise that for the great bulk of our population there is no other place of meeting than the public-house. The poor live in sordid, mean quarters, and if they want recreation there is no other place for them to go to except the public-house. This applies to women as well as to men, and, therefore, as they are almost forced for any relaxation and pleasure to go to a public-house, you should make the surroundings inviting rather than the reverse.
  If you drive people to extremities, where can they go? The result is that they form drinking clubs. Therefore, I maintain that the policy has been wrong, and ought to be amended. Many cases have occurred where the licensing authorities have refused to allow games such as dominoes, skittles, and bowls. I have heard of a number of such instances. In Leeds the owners of a house wished to rebuild their premises and make them more commodious, but their application was refused. An application was made from another quarter to enlarge the dining-room, but that also was refused. In another place, where the owner had a large entrance hall, he had a table placed there on which commercial travellers used to unpack their bags, and where clothes brushes, etc., were kept. The police came in and ordered the table to be removed, as it might be taken advantage of for the sale of drink. In Liverpool attempts to be allowed tents on bowling greens have been refused, and people have been forced to go into the public-
  4
  houses when they wanted any refreshments. In Bradford the magistrates have declared that they want no improvements, and that their desire is to improve public-houses out of existence.
  It is the same story in Monmouthshire and also in Shropshire, where applications for improving buildings and securing better sanitary accommodation have all been rejected. There is the case of a public-house at the end of a tram line which is much frequented by country people, and at which they put up their horses and traps. The owner wished to build a larger house and to set apart a garden and also a room for the sale of non-intoxicants, teas, and light refreshments. That application, too, was rejected; and so it goes on. Even in cases where concessions are made very onerous obligations are imposed. Thus, in Lancashire one brewery firm in five years spent £15,000 on improving six licensed premises, and they were only allowed to do this by surrendering other licences of the value of £6,800. That means that a very heavy burden is placed on the company or owners of the public-house to recoup themselves for the surrender of these other licences. In fact, every obstacle has been placed in the way of preventing the improvement of public-houses, which it is desired, in the interests of temperance, should be brought about.
  There is only one argument that I know of against this proposal, and that is that if you improve public-houses you attract the outside public and also young people. Well the outside public may be called people who have self-restraint and self-control, and can be trusted to look after their own interests in this matter; and as for the young, I imagine that as soon as a boy is of the age to be served at the bar he is more likely to go to the bar to which he had previously been denied admittance and order drink than to stay away; whereas, if that public-house was able to sell other drinks and give other forms of recreation, that boy would not be thereby more tempted, but would have the means of indulging in a far more harmless manner his desire for refreshment. This may be said to be only theorising, but I can prove it absolutely from what has occurred in the past.

  5
  I do not think anybody will deny that there has been a great improvement during the last three generations in the drinking habits of the nation throughout every class, but it has been more particularly marked amongst the upper and middle classes. Why has it been brought about? Not by restrictions being placed by an outside party on drinking, but solely by the forces of self-respect and example. These two forces have produced a very beneficial improvement in our habits, and they are gradually becoming so recognised that we find many semi-philanthropic societies being started for the development of the public-house system on what is termed model lines. But, of course, it is impossible for them to cover the great area of country that there is, but I might just quote a letter that was sent me to-day unsolicited to show what is done in this direction. The policy of the licensing authorities has been to keep to partitions and saw dusted floors, zinc counters, and so on, and to have perhaps no seats, or an insufficient number of seats. By contrast to this is the description sent to me of a public-house opened at Wolverton, and which is daily frequented by workmen of the London and North Western Railway—
  "On Saturday afternoons we have often had a good local band playing, and the residents here brought their wives for an afternoon's quiet enjoyment. Tea and all kinds of refreshments, alcoholic and non-alcoholic, are served at small tables in a tea pavilion and on the lawn, just as in a Continental beer garden."
  That is what I maintain should be the aim and object of all our public-houses.
  Reference is made in the Memorandum attached to the Bill to the practice in vogue on the Continent, and anyone who has been there will have seen the cafés and beer restaurants where men with with their wives and families spend their leisure time happily and without the slightest idea of over-indulgence. It may be said that these are conditions that do not belong to this country, and therefore cannot be quoted as a strong illustration. But I give instances nearer home. You have large pleasure grounds like those of the Crystal Palace, where throngs of people assemble on various occasions. You have had the Franco-British Exhibition visited by millions of people of every class of society, young and old, and yet I have not heard of any drunkenness
  6
  or disorder there. I might quote, too, the management of Army canteens on those improved and more liberal lines. Similar cases might be given throughout the country. The more you encourage the pressure of the general public the higher the standard of sobriety and general order. That is the whole principle of this Bill.
  The Government will, I trust, see their way to give the Bill their support. As we know, they have a very large licensing measure of their own in another place, and it is to be presumed by the drastic contents of that measure that they do not view with satisfaction the present condition of our public-houses. Therefore they should be most anxious to see that the condition of those public-houses is reformed and improved. But there is one particular point on which I think I may claim their support. Great danger does lie if that measure becomes law owing to the almost certain increase of drinking clubs, and I think every section of those who desire to see temperance inculcated in this country are agreed that drinking clubs are a very great source of danger. It must be remembered that these clubs can supply liquor at about half the price charged in public-houses; they are open at hours when public-houses are closed, and they offer attractions certainly far more formidable than the innocent and small forms of recreation to which I have referred, such as dominoes, skittles, and bowling greens. I have papers here containing the advertisements of these clubs, and I think it would be a revelation to many Members of this House to know the kind of entertainment that is provided in these places. They are practically music-halls in many cases; they have beauty shows for both sexes, dancing, and other attractions which presumably appeal to a large section of the public. Surely it is better to try and get a counterpoise to these clubs by improving moderately our public-houses, and, above all, exposing them to the full glare of public opinion. The safeguards that exist in the case of public-houses are but mildly felt in the case of clubs; there is only a small amount of police supervision and a small force of public opinion directed against them. I trust, therefore, that His

  7
  Majesty's Government will see fit to give their support to this Bill as possibly the only true way of meeting the evil of drinking clubs.
  I do not pretend for a moment that if this Bill becomes law there is going to be a sudden transformation of public-houses. The expense of alterations and improvements is very great, and catering in refreshments other than intoxicants is not very remunerative, except in the case of large central depots or of firms having many retail branches. Again, the enlargement of premises is a difficult matter in large cities and towns. But even here the licensed victualler might be allowed to re-arrange his existing premises so as to make them more club-able and more commodious. I trust that this Bill may become law, and that by breaking down arbitrary and harmful powers of prohibition and restriction something may be done to dispel the pernicious traditions that attach to our licensing system; and then, just as sunshine is the greatest purifier, so other and better influences will have play, and these will brighten the atmosphere and turn into pleasurable resorts those places which are now admittedly haunts for drinking, and for drinking only. I trust I have said enough to secure for the Bill a second Reading which I now beg to move.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Lamington.)
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I expect your Lordships will agree that this would not be a fitting occasion to enter into a general discussion of the evil of intemperance and the different methods which may be adopted to deal with it. We shall have an opportunity later in the session of discussing that large question when the Licensing Bill of His Majesty's Government comes before us. But the Bill of my noble friend raises one very important question, and one which I think he is to be congratulated on having brought before the House in a form which enables it to be discussed free from the other considerations of graver import attached to the larger measure, and free also from
  8
  some of the acute controversy which centres round the Government proposals.
  I do not mean that this Bill is entirely uncontroversial. I do not expect my noble friend imagines that it would meet with unanimous approval, but at any rate, such controversy as attaches to it is of a minor degree compared with that which attaches to the Licensing Bill of the Government. There is a Memorandum prefixed to this Bill which is very interesting reading—a Memorandum which is practically a Second Reading speech for the Bill, and which contains many interesting statistics and arguments. I cannot think that, my noble friend quite accurately describes his Bill in the first words of the Memorandum, because he says—
  "The object of this Bill is to reform public-houses."
  Yet I see nothing whatever in the terms of the Bill itself which will have that effect. The only effect which the Bill itself will have is to remove certain obstacles, or supposed obstacles, which exist at the present moment in the way of reforming public-houses.
  Now, with a great deal of what is stated in this Memorandum, and with practically everything which my noble friend said in his speech, I find myself in entire agreement. As I understand the contention of my noble friend, it is this: that, in the first place, there is at the present moment in this country a growing opinion amongst those who belong to what I may call the moderate section of the temperance party in favour of reform of public-houses—reform in the direction of making them places of general refreshment where people can congregate for social intercourse, and converting them into what corresponds to the continental café or the workman's club rather than the mere drinking bar. He further contends that many owners of public-houses are at this moment desirous of falling in with this view and of lending their influence in bringing about these reforms, but that they are frequently thwarted in their efforts by the action of the licensing benches. With every word of that I find myself in entire agreement. I have for some years been closely associated with a

  9
  movement which has that object in view. I refer to the Public House Trust, the object of which is to bring about this reform of the public-house.
  I believe with my noble friend that it is time we recognised the part which the public-house must play in any practical scheme of temperance reform. I agree with him in thinking that we are postponing the day when such a reform may be brought about by continuing to treat public-houses as places of disrepute. I am inclined to think that one of the greatest obstacles of temperance reform at the present moment is the fact that the extreme section of the temperance party, like drunkards—I hope my noble friend on the cross benches will excuse the simile—will persist in abusing the public-house. On that I agree with my noble friend, and I admit that in a great many instances licensing benches do not at the present moment appreciate the value of reform on these lines, though I am inclined to think the noble Lord has I somewhat exaggerated the action of the beaches in objecting to structural alterations which licence-holders may bring forward with this object in view; but in London, at any rate, licence-holders have found considerable difficulty in adapting their premises to the refreshment-house type of public-house. With all this, as I say, I entirely agree.
  But when I turn from my noble friend's speech and from the Memorandum to the Bill itself I confess that I am considerably disappointed, because what is set forward in the Bill is not really a practical remedy for the state of things which my noble friend deplores. In fact, the provisions of this Bill as they stand would, I fear, lead to endless confusion in practice. All that the single clause of this Bill does is to give a very general direction that licensing justices shall do nothing to interfere with the good intentions of a licence-holder who is desirous of improving his premises. My noble friend contends that obstacles are placed in the way of a licence-holder who is anxious to improve the food and non-alcoholic portion of his trade in existing licensed premises, but that difficulty does not arise on the premises as they exist already and are licensed by the magis-
  10
  trates. In fact, it is part of the law of the land that a publican is obliged to provide food and sell it to whoever applies for it, and that failure to provide food on licensed premises may be treated as an act of misconduct which may forfeit the licence. The only difficulty arises in the case of extending premises. It is only when the licence-holder comes forward and wishes to add to his property that he finds obstacles placed in his way by the bench.
  Conceive what would be the effect in practice if this Bill were to become law. Whenever a licence-holder appeared before a licensing bench and asked for any extension whatsoever in his premises, it would be easy for him to contend that he was asking for it so as to develop the food and nonalcoholic trade, and it would be impossible, according to this Bill, for the magistrates to refuse their permission. Any clever lawyer whose services the licence-holder might secure would have a very easy time with the town clerk or the licensing justices. He could prove that in applying for these alterations the licence-holder was solely actuated by temperance motives, and that the magistrates, if they refused to comply, would be running contrary to the law, and I cannot help feeling that the effect of this Bill would be to paralyse altogether the action of the magistrates, to relieve them entirely of their discretion in the matter of sanctioning or refusing to sanction these alterations, and to deliver them over-bound hand and foot to the mercy of the trade.
  Therefore, regarded as a practical piece of legislation to meet a recognised evil, I cannot help thinking that the proposals of this Bill are not satisfactory. I have no knowledge what course the House may decide to adopt with regard to it, nor do I know if my noble friend intends to push the Bill through all its stages in this House. We know, of course, that there is little chance of its passing into law. For my own part, I welcome its introduction, and I sincerely hope that it will give rise to a lengthy discussion of the very important question which is raised by

  11
  the Bill, and if it were granted a Second Reading merely with the object of affirming approval of the principle that reform of the public-house is needed, I should very much favour such a course. But if the Bill is to be taken as a serious piece of legislation and passed through all its stages, I cannot help saying that I should, though with the utmost possible reluctance, find myself unable to support it.
  *THE EARL OF CARLISLE: My Lords, as I do not often take up the time of your Lordships' House, I hope I may be allowed to say a few words this evening in criticism of this very revolutionary measure. The noble Lord gave such a glowing description of the state of things which he hoped to produce that I think it may probably have escaped notice how very much his short Bill is contrary to all the traditions of our licensing legislation, contrary to what has been the tendency of the legislation in this country ever since the beginning of licensing laws, contrary to the advice given by Lord Peel's Licensing Commission in both the Majority and Minority Reports, and contrary to the Act of 1902, which embodied the advice on that subject contained in both of those Reports.
  Lord Peel's Commission heard a great deal of evidence on this very subject. Complaints were commonly made, according to the evidence before the Commission, of the development of snugs and bar parlours, which prevented proper supervision either by the police or the licence-holder. In Pontypridd and Rhondda evidence was given that the justices had sanctioned licences for plans which gave promise of large palatial-looking buildings, with coffee-rooms and commercial rooms, exactly what the noble Lord requires, and then subsequently the licence-holder, after obtaining the licence, closed these rooms and used all the accommodation to establish a long bar without food or proper refreshment for travellers. I cannot but think that if this Bill gave unlimited permission for the extension of premises, the result would very probably be the same, and that improvements which were undertaken with the specious promise of providing a sort of Continental café, would
  12
  result before long in a mere extension of drinking accommodation. At any rate, that was the view taken in both the Majority and Minority Report. One of the recommendations of the Majority Report ran as follows—
  "As to rebuilding and alteration of premises, the custom of submitting plane should be made statutory."
  The Minority Report also recommended control of the structure.
  As to games, there is a very common misconception that games are not allowed on licensed premises. Mr. Balfour fell into this error in a speech at the Albert Hall, in which he complained that people were prevented from playing dominoes in public-houses. It is a mistake to suppose that games are forbidden. It is only certain illegal games which are not permitted, and I do not imagine that the noble Lord really wishes to permit roulette tables and petit chevaux in public-houses. As to music, both the Majority and Minority Reports agree that it is undesirable that public music or dancing should be allowed on these premises without a licence from the licensing authority.
  The example given in support of this demand is the Continental café system. It is difficult for the passing traveller to form a judgment about the effect of a thing in a foreign country, but my impression is that the great change that has taken place, at all events in France and Italy, in the last forty years is the immense growth of the drink-shop. Whereas when I was young one used to see nothing but the ordinary café, you now see as many gin palaces there as you do in England, and I think the statement that the noble Lord makes in the Memorandum to his Bill about drunkenness in France is rather contradicted by the last Report of the French Government. They say in the Volume for 1905—
  "Proceedings for drunkenness have been somewhat more numerous in 1905 than previously. It would be desirable, in the interest of public health and morality, that the gendarmes and police should show more activity in dealing with infractions of the law of 1903, which are in reality much more numerous than those which form the subject of proceedings. In this respect the gardes champelres are absolutely wanting in the necessary vigilance. We must not then find in this increase any precise indication as to the

  13
  progress of alcoholism. Everything points to the belief, in fact, that a mere fraction of those who ought to be prosecuted fall into the clutches of the law against, drunkenness. In Brittany, especially, proceedings against drunkenness ought to be counted by thousands. In this region people are so constantly seen under the influence of drink that the authorities do not intervene except the offenders are in a condition which prevents them from moving or which causes public scandal. The progress of crime is closely connected, as we have several times established, with the progress of alcoholism."
  Proceeding, they state that there is an increase in the number of drinking houses, in the amount of drinking, and in drunkenness, which does not seem to show that the café system saves France from the evils of which we complain, Moreover, the French Government have gone much further than our Government, although I am not aware that they are being moved by any fanatical bodies in that country. A placard on alcoholism has been published by the authority of the Government, in which they say—
  "L'alcoholisme est l'empoisonnement chronique qui résulte de l'usage habituel de l'alcool, alors meme que celui-ci ne produirait pas l'ivresse"
  —very good advice, but which might be considered fanatical in this country.
  Then, as to Germany, the amount consumed in the German beer gardens is phenomenal, and the very rapid growth of temperance societies of late years, taking exactly the same view of the question that is taken in England by similar bodies, seems to point to the fact that the state of things is not very satisfactory there. Once I inquired from a very eminent German doctor, who is not at all a teetotaler, as to his view on this subject, and he said—
  "The real fact is that our people can consume ft great deal more drink because in the past our people have been so poor and frugal that their constitutions can bear it; but, owing to the great commercial prosperity that has fallen upon us lately, our people are drinking a great deal too much, and in a generation or two they will be as bad as yours."
  But I think the English experiments are more to the point than the foreign ones. The great English experiment of this kind was the Act of 1830. In the early part of last century the restrictions of the magistrates became excessively unpopular, and the consequence was that the Act of 1830 was passed. A fortnight after
  14
  it came into operation Sidney Smith wrote to say—
  "Everybody is drunk, those who are not singing are sprawling; the sovereign people is in a beastly state."
  That opinion of Sidney Smith has only been confirmed, and endless trouble has been caused by the attempts to rectify that very well-intentioned mistake.
  I remember hearing Mr. Gladstone giving an idyllic description of the Continental café, and the families drinking together in the open air, and so on, and how he was going to introduce this by his, Budget. The noble Lord himself has expressed his opinion as to the results. Mr. Gladstone was going to produce, this by giving grocers off-licences, and now the noble Lord tells us that the greater part of the drunkenness of which we now complain is caused by these off-licences. The motives that were put forward for that measure are entirely the same as those now put forward by the noble Lord. Then it is contended that the clubs have largely produced this monstrous evil. Clubs were introduced with exactly the same argument, that of giving an opportunity of enjoying rational society, and the rest of it. The late Government found it necessary to legislate on the subject of clubs, and the complaint I understand now is that there is not further legislation on that subject. I think that if this Bill were passed, giving to every publican a free right to increase his attractions, the evils that have been produced by free trade in beer, by grocers' licences, and by the drinking clubs would be magnified enormously, I believe, as the noble Lord who preceded me said, that there is not the slightest chance of this Bill becoming law, but I hope your Lordships will not, by passing the Second Reading, give any encouragement to the idea that it is desirable. I do not know what the intentions of His Majesty's Government are, but if it should be necessary I am prepared to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' in order to insert at the end the words 'this day six months.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, everyone who has listened to the speech of my noble friend in introducing this Bill, will, I think, so far agree with him that they sympathise with his object—namely, that of promoting temperance by means of giving facilities for the consumption of non-alcoholic liquors and the provision of opportunities for reading newspapers and for amusements such as music in connection with licensed premises. Perhaps I might also say—and I do not think the noble Lord will complain—that to a certain extent we on this side of the House look upon this discussion as a little reconnaissance in force in regard to the provisions of another Bill which we hope before long to be able to lay before your Lordships' House. But I make no complaint of that. At the same time, as we shall, very shortly, we believe, be presenting a large and important Bill touching nearly every issue connected with licensing, we feel that this discussion, even if in itself useful, can hardly be considered an adequate justification for its ending by our consenting to the Second Reading of the Bill, which forestalls discussions that will be perfectly in order when we reach, as I hope we shall reach, the Committee stage of the Government's Licensing Bill.
  I cannot help saying that I think there is sometimes a little exaggeration in regard to the statement which is very frequently made that the average Englishman, especially if he belongs to the working class, has very often no choice except between going to a public-house for the purpose of recreation, which must be combined with the consumption of liquor, or of having no means of recreation at all. That is a very great exaggeration. It is an exaggeration looked at even from the strictly legal point of view, because the law provides in many ways for the encouragement of refreshment houses—that is to say, of places where accommodation can be provided for the public in regard to both eating and drinking. If anybody wants to set up an ordinary refreshment house for the consumption, let us say, of tea, coffee, gingerbeer, and harmless non-intoxicants during the day, no licence is required at all; if he, on the other band, wishes to continue the sale of those non-alcoholic
  16
  refreshments at late hours — namely, between ten o'cock at night and five o'clock in the morning—the law expressly provides that in a case of that kind he shall, no doubt, have to take out an excise licence, though not a justices' licence, but at the same time he gets a slight reduction in the sum to be paid.
  Then, in addition to that, I must remind the House that it is a principle, and always has been a principle, of the common law of England that if a house is provided for the refreshment of what is popularly called man and beast—that is to say, travellers—the licence-holder of that inn is bound to provide ordinary refreshments, and a traveller can take legal proceedings against him if he refuses to do so. That is an exceedingly important provision, and not at all a mere idle declaration of law. But that ancient principle of common law, which only applied to inns mainly licensed for the reception of the travelling public, was by the Licensing Act passed by the late Government—and I desire to give them all credit for it, though I think it was not part of the original Bill as laid before Parliament, but was inserted in Committee—extended in this way. It was declared that if the licensing justices of a district refused to renew an existing licence on the ground that the holder thereof had persistently and unreasonably refused to supply at a reasonable price, suitable refreshments other than intoxicating liquors, the justices should be deemed to have refused the licence on the ground that the premises had been ill-conducted. Your Lordships know that if the justices decline upon one of four grounds, of which ill-conduct is one, to renew a licence, there is no appeal to quarter sessions, and, incidentally, the man in the long run would lose the benefit of any claim he might afterwards have for compensation. But the important immediate result is that the refusal of the justices is final. Your Lordships will see that that is an exceedingly important provision of the law. I quite admit that to a certain extent it is a new departure, that you may say it is inconsistent with what had hitherto been undoubtedly the principle upon which the whole edifice of our statutory legislation had been built up. The law on the whole might be said,

  17
  to put it mildly, not to have encouraged over much, the provision in licensed premises of refreshments other than intoxicating liquor. I call attention to this clause because it has an immediate and direct connection with the provisions of this Bill.
  I ask myself whether, after the speech which we heard just now from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the final answer was not given by that speech to the Bill. Because if your Lordships will look at these different provisions you will see that if the justices could be shown in any case to have refused unreasonably the proposals of a bona fide applicant in regard to any of the matters mentioned in Clause 1, and more especially in regard to subsection (a)—
  "(a)The provision of accommodation for the supply of tea, coffee, cocoa, or food"
  that is to say, of non-intoxicants, the justices would immediately have brought themselves into collision, not merely with the spirit, but with the letter of a clause in the Act of 1904; and it is hardly conceivable that, with the clear direction which Parliament has given, any body of justices would run the risk of trying to defeat the clearly expressed purpose of Clause 9, of the Act of 1904 by refusing a reasonable addition to, or alteration of, premises in the manner apparently contemplated as possible or likely by the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill. And I am bound to say that, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out, the justices, if this Bill were passed, would have rather a bad time in the future, because they would be constantly under the risk of legal proceedings being taken against them to question their decisions in Courts of law where they had, on grounds reasonable to them, refused a certain alteration or addition.
  But, in addition to that, there are some especial points of detail which are alarming. There can be no doubt that it is quite reasonable on the part of the police and of justices to be very careful about permitting alterations in licensed premises giving back or side entrances. The police, for obvious reasons, desire to be able, to supervise these premises, and are very careful in calling the attention of the justices to any additional
  18
  facilities for back or side entrances, because it makes the control of these places far more difficult and expensive from a police point of view. Let me suppose that under the Act of 1904 plans had been deposited, and this question arose about back and side entrances. I think the noble Lord will see that it would be very easy for a clever applicant who was well advised to declare that this back or side entrance was required to give more light and air, that it was wanted for sanitary accommodation, that it was also wanted, perhaps, to make the place more airy, clear, and so on. All these questions would tend to great litigation, and I cannot help thinking that, therefore, for the reasons stated by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the task of the justices would be rendered exceedingly difficult were this Bill to become part of the law of the land.
  I would suggest to the noble Lord who has brought in the Bill that he should wait until he sees the Government Bill in the shape in which it will reach this House. There are clauses in it, so far as I know—I am not speaking with such minute knowledge of the Bill as I ought to possess—on which the noble Lord would not be out of order in raising the questions which he desires to raise, namely, what are the conditions to be upon which justices may or may not sanction alterations. But to ask this House to read and eventually to pass and send down to the House of Commons in the present session a Bill, if I may say so, drafted rather in haste, and which to secure its object would require very large alteration, would be asking us to enter upon a vain and useless task. I, therefore, hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with the discussion he has raised, and will see that the best course is to allow the question he desires to deal with to wait until we lay our proposals before your Lordships' House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down expressed, at the commencement of his observations, a general approval of the objects which my noble friend who sits behind me had in view in introducing this Bill. I think my noble

  19
  friend would have been more satisfied, and your Lordships would have been more satisfied, if the noble Lord had supplemented this general approval with some indication that the Government, if they are not willing to accept his proposal, are prepared themselves to make some change in the law with the object of carrying out those intentions. What is the good, if I may say so with great respect to my noble friend opposite—what is the good of this barren approval of the principles of my noble friend's measure if the Government are themselves not prepared to take advantage of the opportunity which my noble friend has given them in order to announce what their policy in this matter is?
  The noble Lord referred to the possibility in the future of another measure of importance on the licensing question coming before your Lordships. I should have expected him to have said that when that Bill reaches this House the Government will be prepared to submit proposals upon the lines which they approve to carry out the intentions of my noble friend who has introduced this Bill, for they have themselves announced that they approve of the objects of the Bill. That, I think, is unsatisfactory in the reply of the Government, because they have to meet a real case. I do not pretend to be familiar with the facts myself, but I listened with attention to what my noble friend laid before your Lordships. He brought forward a series of instances for which he vouched, which showed that in certain parts of the country magistrates were using their licensing power in order to prevent what may be called the reform of public-houses. He instanced several cases, including one of the principal cities in this country, in which that policy appears to be pursued. I do not myself know of this from my own knowledge; I merely take it from my noble friend's speech. If that is the case, that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
  The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy said just now that the policy of Parliament, as shown in the Act of 1904 was, at any rate in one of these particulars, quite evident. There was a
  20
  provision which he read to your Lordships, the object of which was to give increased power to justices to insist on reasonable refreshment being given at public-houses. That was evidently the policy of Parliament of that day, and, as I judge from the speech of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy, the policy of His Majesty's present advisers. That being the intention of Parliament, my noble friend behind me comes to your Lordships' House and shows that in certain important centres, so far from this intention of Parliament being carried out, the magistrates have gone about to some extent to thwart it and to prevent the reform of public houses. Unless those facts can be controverted, then I say we are entitled to a more complete answer from the Government as to whether they intend to take any steps to see that this intention of Parliament, of which they approve, should be carried into effect.
  The drafting of the Bill has been criticised by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy. I daresay that in some respects it is not perfect. That is a feature which is not peculiar to this Bill; I think I have had occasion to say it with respect to many Government Bills. Indeed, if all rumours are true which reach my ear, the drafting of a certain important Bill on the licensing question now before the other House is open to serious criticism by those whose business it is for the present to criticise it. Therefore, I do not think that is a very heavy charge to bring against my noble friend. That may, of course, govern the further progress of the Bill at a later stage, if it reaches a later stage, but it is not a serious matter in itself at this stage.
  The question as to whether magistrates would be hampered in the exercise of their functions by the words in the Bill has, I think, been exaggerated by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy; but if the words are not sufficiently clear and sufficiently guarded, that is a matter which could be set right hereafter. The real policy of this Bill, the essential principle of it, is to remedy the present degraded condition of many of the public-houses in this country, and I cannot but believe that that must command the

  21
  universal support of your Lordships' House. That is undoubtedly a policy, which, however difficult to achieve, ought to be achieved if it be possible. The condition of things in many public-houses now may be described by the old phrase of giving a dog a bad name and hanging him. They are treated with such disrespect, they are hampered in their efforts for reform so much, that they become disreputable; they are not then open to the influences of the best public opinion among the working classes in the country, and they sink from depth to depth. It is with the object of trying to remedy that state of things that this Bill has been introduced.
  May I say one word as to the policy of the late Government when they were in office? I had something to do with the passing of the Licensing Act of 1904 through this House, and I remember we dwelt with great emphasis on the opportunity which that Act afforded of raising the status of public-houses. The predecessor of my noble friend Lord Lytton, who has addressed us with so much effect to-night, in the Public-House Trust Company is the present Governor-General of Canada. He took part in the debates of 1904, and was very anxious on behalf of the Public-House Trust. He pointed out that the provisions of the Act of 1904, if properly used, might help the Public-House Trust in a very remarkable degree. I say that in order to show how anxious we were at that time to help forward this movement for the reform of the public-house. It is quite true, I am sorry to say, that in practice it has not been used by licensing justices for this purpose. That may have been owing to faulty drafting, or it may be due to some other cause, but the intention was there, and we may claim, to some extent, at any rate, to be the forerunners of my noble friend Lord Lamington in the policy of this Bill. After these observations your Lordships will not be surprised if I say that for my part, and I believe I speak for those who sit near me, we should be glad if the principle, at any rate, of this Bill could be affirmed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I have always taken a deep interest in this subject,
  22
  and, therefore, ask leave to say a few words upon this Bill. With the general object stated by the noble Lord, my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has indicated assent—namely, that public-houses should not be restricted merely to drinking shops. But the noble Marquess is a little mistaken in thinking the objections to the Bill are merely questions of drafting. Will your Lordships allow me to point out what this Bill really does?
  The Bill, in the first place, enables any publican to require any extension of his public-house; practically that is what it comes to. The publican may say: "I want a much larger area for my licensed premises; when I have got it I can do what I like with it." And if asked why, he might say: "I should like my place more airy." If he said that, the licensing justices could not refuse the extension. If he said he wanted more room to supply tea, while he is not obliged to supply tea, he would get a large extension of area. If he said: "I would like chairs and tables instead of bar accommodation, and for that purpose I want an extension of premises," it could not be refused. Therefore, by the framework and scheme of the Bill, and not merely by its drafting, any publican could claim practically any extension of his premises, and when he had got it there is nothing in the Bill to prevent him using it for the sale of liquor. That is the first result.
  The second result of the Bill is that the publican would be entitled to enlist in support of his selling of liquor any kind of game, garden, newspaper, music, or any means of reasonable recreation. I can understand that if you have a music hall you might, as an ancillary convenience, allow the sale of liquor; but this Bill would allow the music hall to be ancillary to the public-house, and all these methods of recreation are to help to induce people to go into the public-house for the purpose of obtaining entertainment and recreation, whereas the real object would be to further the sale of drink. No doubt the noble Lord who introduced the Bill in a speech marked by great moderation, and with a great deal of the matter

  23
  of which a good many of us would agree, did not contemplate such a result as that.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I venture to think that the large majority of this House are, at any rate, of one opinion up to this point, that we are grateful to my noble friend behind me for having initiated a very interesting discussion upon an extremely important question. His Bill has been criticised in no unfriendly spirit, but still criticised with considerable force. Some of those criticisms are of a more or less technical character, and after listening to the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I am bound to say that those objections, if they can be described as technical, are certainly not objections of a kind which this House could venture to regard lightly.
  The noble and learned Lord, speaking with all the authority which belongs to his position in this House, has in effect warned us that if this Bill were to pass into law in its present form, very inconvenient consequences might arise. He has warned us that it would work, not by any means, I take it, as its promoters intend it to work, but in a very different manner, and although I certainly should hesitate to offer criticism of a legal or technical character, I am bound to say that the Bill does strike me as open to this objection, that not only might it afford to publicans a pretext for sheltering themselves behind the provisions of this Bill in order to push their trade in intoxicating liquors, but that also the Bill, as we have it, really suggests that the existing law is in a condition in which, speaking as a humble layman, I cannot believe that it really stands.
  If the Bill is correct, then we must infer that under the existing law it is open to the justices, when granting permission for structural alterations of licensed premises, to impose conditions of a kind which would prevent the premises or any part of them being made more open, clear, or better ventilated. Now, I cannot believe that the present law is exactly in that position. Or, again, that it is open to the justices to impose conditions which would prevent the improvement
  24
  or enlargement of the sanitary accommodation of a public-house. Those seem to me to be very far-fetched and rather dangerous implications; and when we are told, as we are told, in the explanatory Memorandum which is attached to the Bill, that the owner or licensee is strictly and systematically debarred from improving his premises in these ways, again I say I should be very sorry to be a party to legislation which assumed that the existing law produced those effects.
  But when I pass from these more or less technical aspects of the case, I am bound to say that, so far as the principle upon which my noble friend founds himself is concerned, I am entirely in sympathy with him. I think my noble friend has pointed the way to-night towards a path of temperance reform which we are much too apt to neglect, and it is a path which I hope, after what has been said from the front bench opposite, His Majesty's Government will not altogether disregard when they come to deal with this most important question. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that at the present time the tendency is a great deal too much in the direction of promoting or attempting to promote temperance reform in the first place by harsh treatment of those who are engaged in the licensing trade, and, in the second place, by making the consumer of intoxicating liquors as uncomfortable as you can possibly make him. That I believe to be an altogether mistaken policy, and it is a policy which, as my noble friend pointed out, is bound to have the effect of driving those people who cannot get on without consuming a certain amount of liquor towards secret drinking and towards the frequentation of clubs in which drinking is carried on without any of the precautions which we should all of us like to attach to it.
  My noble friend's policy is, I think, a very much sounder one. It is a policy directed, as I understand it, to what may be called the reclamation of the public-house. It desires to improve the environments in which alcoholic drinks are consumed, and so to arrange things that the conditions which surround the consumers shall be of a much more decent and reputable character than those to

  25
  be found at present in a great many public-houses. That is a sound principle, and I hope, the approval which I understood was extended to it by noble Lords opposite will not be, as my noble friend said, merely a barren approval, but that they will bear in mind, when dealing with the question, that there is this other aspect of it to which, in our opinion, too much attention cannot be paid. Before sitting down I would suggest to my noble friend, particularly after the speech delivered by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it might be better for him to be content with this discussion and not to put the House to the trouble of a division. I should be extremely sorry to vote against him, but, after listening to the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, I cannot vote for the Bill as it stands.
  *LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, in reply to the general discussion I must first disclaim any intention of making this a kind of preliminary campaign in regard to the Government's general measure on the subject of licensing. The Government's Bill never entered into my consideration at all, and it seems to me that this measure does not conflict in any way with that Bill. I confess I should like, as a matter of principle, to divide the House on the Motion for the Second Reading; but, after listening to the speech of the noble Marquess on the front Opposition bench, I feel that there would be absolutely no use in my putting the House to that trouble. I understand that the noble Marquess has been chiefly guided in the advice he has given me by the words of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I may be wrong, but I should have thought that the answer to the noble and learned Lord's strictures was that if the publican, having got this extension of premises for the purpose of improving the accommodation, then devoted it to the serving of alcoholic drink, the magistrates could refuse a renewal of the licence the following year.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not one of the grounds on which they could do so.
  *LORD LAMINGTON: But if the publican provides small tables and chairs and
  26
  instead of serving tea serves a glass of beer, I cannot see that any great harm is done. The noble Earl on the cross benches stated that games can now be played in public-houses. It is true that they may be played, but no accommodation is provided for playing them. The whole point is that there is no proper accommodation for indulging in this lawful and innocent recreation. Again, it is said that licence-holders are bound to provide food. It is no use providing food if you do not allow people to take that food under decent conditions and in pleasant surroundings. The whole crux of the question depends on the provision of proper accommodation, and I should have thought it would have been perfectly possible to have given an injunction against magistrates wilfully refusing to sanction the provision of accommodation which would meet the convenience of the general public. In view, however, of the statement of the noble Marquess, and also of the opinion expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I withdraw my Motion for the Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF CARLISLE: I also withdraw my Amendment.
  Motion and Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  LORD DENMAN, who had an Amendment to Clause 6 (Orders of Local Government Board to have effect of Act), reminded the House that the clause was amended in Committee on a division, and said the Government declined to accept any responsibility for the clause as it now stood. But, if the Bill were to pass into law in its present shape, an alteration was necessary to subsection (4) of Clause 6. This subsection enabled the Local Government Board to modify an order if the order was petitioned against. Two classes of order were mentioned in the subsection, which was copied straight from the Act of 1903; but if the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, would look at the beginning

  27
  of Clause 6, he would see that there were three classes of order mentioned. He did not think it was the noble Viscount's intention to omit the third class of order. Therefore, if the words proposed in his (Lord Denman's) Amendment were inserted, the third class of order would be covered.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words 'under subsection (4) of Section 8 or under Section 39 of the Act of 1890,' and to insert the words 'of the Local Government Board.'"—(Lord Denman.)
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONaccepted the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DENMANmoved, in Clause 7, to leave out the words "local authority," and to insert the words "any urban or rural district council." He explained that the question arose on an Amendment moved in Committee by the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery to prevent local authorities going outside their own area. At the instance of Lord Lansdowne, words were inserted in Committee which prevented a local authority going outside its own area unless it obtained the assent of the adjacent local authority. His (Lord Denman's) own view at the time was that, as the clause in the Bill was copied direct from the English Act, which had been found to work well, it might have been allowed to remain as it stood. The Committee, however, thought otherwise. In the Amendment inserted on the Motion of Lord Lansdowne two words required alteration. The noble Marquess inserted the words "local authority" within whose district it was proposed to establish or acquire such lodging-houses. For the purpose of this Bill the term "local authority" excluded a rural district council. He did not imagine that it was proposed to prevent a local authority going into the area of a rural district council, if it obtained the consent of that rural district council, and he therefore moved to leave out the words "local authority," and to insert in their place "any urban or rural district council."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 8, to leave out the words 'local authority,' and to insert the words 'any urban or rural district council.'"—(Lord Denman.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that his noble friend Lord Pembroke, in moving the Amendment in Committee, had in mind chiefly the particular townships in the neighbourhood of Dublin, such as Rathmines and Pembroke. Would the substitution of the words proposed have any effect as regards the inclusion or exclusion of those townships.
  LORD DENMANreplied that the Amendment would not, in his opinion affect those townships at all.
  *THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERYpointed out that the term "local authority" was used all through the Bill. It therefore passed his comprehension why the term should be charged in one subsection to "urban or rural district council."
  LORD DENMANpresumed that in the other cases mentioned in the Bill it was not necessary to include a rural district council under local authorities.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DENMANthought it might be convenient, in moving his Amendment to Clause 9 (Amendment of law as to closing and demolition orders) to discuss also the Amendment which Lord Clonbrock had on the Paper. Lord Clonbrock's Amendment removed the necessity of serving a preliminary notice before applying for a closing order. That was not quite the same thing as was dealt with under Clause 9 of the Bill. The difficulty they had to meet was the delay in getting a demolition order. Under the Act of 1890 the order was made by the local authority. In the clause of the Bill as it now stood they proposed that this power should not be given to the local authority, but to the Court. The first Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, and which he now moved, was to insert after the word "Court" the words "in addition to or instead of making an order under that

  29
  section." That made it clear that the Court had the option of making the closing order or of making a demolition order. He gathered from what was said in the Committee stage that Lord Clonbrock was of opinion that the power of making a demolition order should not be given to a local authority for fear it might abuse its power. The power was not given to the local authority at all; it was given to the Court. Therefore he thought that met the noble Lord's point. He took it that the noble Lord was at one with the Government in wishing that the proceedings under previous Acts of Parliament for demolishing unsightly and unsatisfactory buildings should be accelerated.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 41, after the word 'Court' to insert the words 'in addition to or instead of making an order under that section.'"—(Lord Denman.)
  LORD CLONBROCK, who had given notice of an Amendment to leave out olause 9 and to insert as a new clause—
  "9. (1) If, in the opinion of the local authority, any dwelling house is not reasonably capable of being made fit for human habitation, or is in such a state that the occupation thereof should be immediately discontinued, it shall not be necessary for them, before obtaining a closing order, to serve a notice on the owner or occupier of the premises to abate the nuisance, and a justice may issue a summons for a closing order, and a closing order may be granted, although such a notice has not been served. (2) The Local Government Board may by order prescribe forms in substitution for those in the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1890, and Section 32 of that Act shall have effect as if the forms so prescribed were referred to therein in lieu of the forms in that schedule"
  agreed with Lord Denman as to the convenience of discussing his (Lord Clonbrock's) Amendment in connection with the one now before the House. His object was to assimilate the law in Ireland under this Bill to that in England, namely, to separate the two questions of closing and demolition. He was informed that in this country a local authority made an application for a closing order and that was adjudicated upon by the justices; then an application was made, if necessary, for demolition, and that was treated in the same way. He thought it would be a better and more businesslike way that each
  30
  order should be preceded by a separate application. In the Bill as it stood an application made for closure might be immediately followed by a demolition order, and he thought that might be hard on the owner, who would have received no notice of the application for the demolition order but only of one for a closing order. He did not in the least wish to perpetuate unsightly and insanitary buildings. He would like to see them all pulled down and carted away and proper workmen's dwellings erected in their place; but he did not see that there was such a violent hurry that there should not be two separate procedures.
  LORD ASHBOURNEwas disposed to think that the object which the Government and his noble friend Lord Clonbrock had in view were practically identical. There was no desire to place any difficulty in the way of demolition. The point was a technical difference as to procedure. He thought the method proposed by the Government was not inconvenient. The Government's object appeared to be to avoid the necessity of a double set of summonses and a double set of proceedings. It was not desirable in small cases of this kind to duplicate legal proceedings. If the Government's Amendment to the original clause were made, he gathered that the result would be that the whole case would be before the magistrates. If the magistrates thought that a case had been made out for a demolition order they would make it, and would append a condition that the house need not be demolished if within a time named it was made habitable. Then there would not be demolition, because the person in charge of the house had made it habitable. He did not think that was inconveniently worked out by the Amendments on the Paper in the name of Lord Denman.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that in reality, if the clause and the Government's Amendments to it were adopted, Ireland would be placed in a more favourable position than England in regard to this provision. He would be glad if the facility of procedure which would be

  31
  possible under this clause could be extended to England in a future session.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  LORD CLONBROCKintimated that he would not move his Amendment.
  LORD ATKINSONhad an Amendment on the Paper to amend Clause 11—
  "For the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts Section 72 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as amended by the Second Schedule to the Act of 1890, shall have effect as if 'one hundred pounds' were substituted therein for 'twenty pounds.'"—
  by leaving out "one hundred" and inserting "sixty," and by adding at the end of the clause the following proviso—
  "Provided that the aggregate of such sums payable under the seventieth section of the first-mentioned statute as amended as aforesaid, and by this Act, to any one or more of the persons mentioned therein as the purchase money of different portions of lands of which land he, she, or they, shall not at the time of such purchase be tenants or tenants in fee, shall not exceed £250."
  The noble and learned Lord said that the clause on the Paper was hurriedly drafted, and he was not satisfied with it. He therefore proposed to bring up a clause on Third Reading carrying out his object.
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid it would be in the recollection of the House that, when the Bill was discussed in Committee, he moved an Amendment in Clause 12, which their Lordships accepted, for the purpose of safeguarding open spaces. In that Amendment he used the word "Act," but His Majesty's Government, at the last moment, suggested that the word "section" should be substituted. Although his own private opinion at the time was that this would be a very important weakening of the Amendment, he did not like, on his own authority, to question the decision of the Committee, as nobody opposed the substitution; but he afterwards had an opportunity of discussing the point with the noble and learned Lord the ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and Lord Ashbourne encouraged him to put
  32
  down the Amendment now standing in his name on the Paper, reinstating the word "Act." He did not think His Majesty's Government quite realised what the effect would be of substituting "section" for "Act." The proviso to Clause 12 as it now stood provided that nothing in the section should authorise the appropriation of any common land, recreation ground, or other public open space, etc., for the purposes of the Bill. Clause 16 provided that the Bill should be read as one with, among other Acts, the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, which gave compulsory powers to local bodies, for which it was not necessary to obtain Parliamentary sanction. He therefore proposed to substitute the word "Act" for the word "section," so as to make the proviso apply to the whole Bill. If the word "section" were left in these bodies would be able to acquire land compulsorily under the Act of 1890.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 39, to leave out the word 'section' and to insert the word 'Act.'"—(The Earl of Meath.)
  LORD DENMANexpressed regret that the noble Earl had been encouraged by the noble and learned Lord opposite to put down this Amendment, because it was one to which the Government could not assent. He could assure the noble Earl that the Government quite realised the difference between "section" and "Act" as applied in this particular clause. The noble Earl appeared to fear the compulsory powers given in other parts of the Bill, but as the Bill stood now, it did not give any compulsory powers at all which were not already given under the Act of 1890. Under that Act every local authority had power to acquire land compulsorily or the purposes of the Act, but before exercising these powers it must obtain the sanction of a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board, which had to be confirmed by Parliament. By Clause 6 of the Bill it was originally proposed to dispense with the necessity of going to Parliament. However, on an Amendment moved by the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Midleton, that particular power was taken away, and

  33
  it would still be necessary for the Provisional Order to come before Parliament after receiving the assent of the Local Government Board in Ireland. Clause 12 conferred a new power upon bodies corporate for appropriating land for the housing of the working classes, and the noble Earl's original Amendment was intended to be restrictive of this new power, and therefore should be confined to the section conferring that power. He was informed by the legal adviser at the Irish Office that it would be, in his opinion, extremely dangerous if the word "Act" were substituted for the word "section." He thought the serious result that might ensue from the adoption of the noble Lord's Amendment would be not only to restrict considerably the powers conferred by this Bill, but also to restrict the powers already given under the Act of 1890.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid the Amendment which had the approval of the Committee contained the word "Act," and the word "section" was substituted hastily under the impression that it was only a drafting Amendment. Further consideration had convinced him that the Amendment was necessary to protect common land, recreation grounds, and public open spaces from encroachment.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I am not quite sure that I follow the argument of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. He seems to think that by some means or other if this word "section" is retained, some person or persons will have power to devote public recreation grounds and other plots of land of a similar character to building schemes. Surely that is not the case. All that the substitution of the word "section" for "Act" did, as I understand, was to place the law in Ireland in the position in which it is left by the Act of 1890. By that Act it would, no doubt, be possible for a local authority to ask for a Provisional Order to use part of its open spaces for a housing scheme. For all I know it may actually have been done. That has to come before the Local Government Board, and, if they grant a Provisional Order for that
  34
  purpose, the Order has to be presented to Parliament. You cannot do more than bring a scheme of that kind before Parliament. That is perfectly obvious, and that is the safeguard which is provided for recreation grounds and similar places under the English law. The effect of inserting the word "section" is to leave the matter in that form. If you substitute the word "Act," as I understand, you place these recreation grounds in Ireland in a different position from that in which they are under the Act of 1890. It may be, as an abstract question, a good thing to do; but you are altering the main Act which deals with these matters. Clause 12 deals with an entirely different matter. It deals with the powers of bodies corporate to apply land for a particular purpose, and when we welcomed the Amendment of the noble Earl on the cross benches we expressed a general welcome to the principle of his Amendment; but, in saying we thought it was a good thing that the particular operations of Clause 12 should be limited in this way, we certainly did not bind ourselves to approving every word of the Amendment, and we certainly did not bind ourselves to modify the law as it exists under the Act of 1890. I therefore hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MEATHpersisted in his Amendment and said he should press it to a division if he received any encouragement. He was very grateful to Lord Denman for having drawn the attention of the House to the fact that it was the intention of the Government that burial grounds should be built over for workmen's dwellings when local authorities so desired, and that it could be done by the Act of 1890. During the Committee stage he (Lord Meath) had pointed out that in six separate Acts of Parliament the Legislature had said that it did not desire to have open spaces built over, and if by the Act of 1890 this could be done it was an oversight which Parliament did not intend. If that was so, it was better to take the bull by the horns at once. They had learned that day that there was the intention on the part of the Government to sanction the use of open spaces for workmen's dwellings when local authorities so desired.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: May I ask how the noble Earl arrives at that inference?
  THE EARL OF MEATH: Of course, if the noble Earl tells me I am mistaken I bow to his decision. I certainly understood that that was so from what was said.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am very anxious not to misunderstand the position taken by His Majesty's Government. I understood the other evening that the policy which found favour with your Lordships was that of affording the utmost amount of protection to commons, recreation grounds, village greens, and so forth, and that we desired that lands of that particular kind should not be encroached upon for the purpose of providing improved housing accommodation for the working classes. We accordingly proposed that this subsection should ensure that nothing in this Act should give increased facilities for encroachments of that kind. We are now asked to be content with the word "section" instead of the word "Act." If the word "section" is to stand, then surely we fall back upon the earlier clause—Clause 6—of the Bill, in which we find that an Order of the Local Government Board authorising the acquisition of land for the purposes of Part III.—Part III. deals with the provision of workmen's lodging houses—shall, notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1890 or any other Acts, take effect without confirmation by Parliament or by the Local Government Board. If those words are really to govern all cases of this kind in the future, does it not mean that we give to the Local Government Board an absolute right of dealing with these commons and vacant spaces in a manner which I should have thought was entirely opposed to the general desire of the House?
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DENMANhad an Amendment on the Paper to amend the same subsection—subsection (4) Clause 12—by removing the restriction on local authorities to appropriate or utilise for the purposes of the Act lands held by them
  36
  "for public or charitable purposes," but after what had just occurred he was not quite sure whether it was worth while moving the Amendment. He mentioned that these words were inserted in Committee on the Motion of the Earl of Pembroke, and were only agreed to by the Government subject to further consideration. The Government had now come to the conclusion that if the words were allowed to stand they would prevent local authorities from using any land in their possession for providing workmen's dwellings.
  *THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERYsaid he was willing to agree to the omission of the word "public" so that any lands held by a local authority other than for charitable purposes might be used for the purposes of the Act.
  LORD ATKINSONagreed with Lord Denman that if the word "public" were left in it would prevent a local authority from appropriating any land held by them for the purpose of erecting workmen's dwellings, because, presumably, all land held by a local authority was held for a public purpose. He suggested that on the Third Reading some words might be devised to prevent the use of lands held for a definite and specific public purpose, which was the only object aimed at. He thought some such words as these would meet the case—
  "Or held in trust for a charitable purpose or for some particular public purpose specified or defined as distinct from the general purpose of the municipality or district or the general benefit of its inhabitants."
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid the object of the subsection which was inserted on the Motion of the Earl of Meath was to protect open spaces from being utilised for the provision of workmen's cottages; and the addition of the words "public or charitable purposes," went far beyond that object, and would be a serious restriction on local authorities in putting the Act into operation. Therefore he hoped, even if they could not arrive at agreement now, that the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkinson, would be adopted, and the matter further considered on Third Reading.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would point out that there is no Amendment before the House. Informal conversation is very often useful at such a stage as this, but I would call attention to the fact that there is no Amendment before us.
  LORD DENMANthen moved the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 8, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words 'or held for public or charitable purposes.'"—(Lord Denman.)
  *THE EARL OF PEMBROKE AND MONTGOMERYreminded the noble Lord that he had expressed his willingness to agree to the omission of the word "public." He hoped the Government would accept that. But he could not consent to leave out words the insertion of which was the principal object of his original Amendment—namely, the words "or charitable purposes."
  LORD DENMANthought it would, perhaps, be better if the matter were discussed again on Third Reading. He would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment at this stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONmoved to amend Clause 14 by restricting the application of the Act to towns the population of which exceeded 2,000. They were, by this Bill, applying a number of provisions which might be absolutely useful and proper in the case of large manufacturing centres, but which were really inapplicable to small districts which in Ireland were regarded as towns, but which in fact were really villages. Under the Bill the rates of a particular district might be pledged for eighty years, and the limit of borrowing power laid down by Parliament for all other purposes might be exceeded; land might be taken outside the district on the security of the rates inside the district and might be let to companies or societies for this purpose. So far as small districts were concerned the matter was on a different footing from the case of great manufacturing towns, where these provisions might be necessary and desirable. A population of 2,000 in an Irish town very often meant not more than 300 or 350 houses, and that
  38
  number of votes elected the town commissioners. They all knew that the number of illiterate voters in Ireland was large, and it was obvious that the class of men appointed town commissioners in these places could not be a very exalted one. Yet they were to have power, by adopting the provisions of this Bill, to load the rates for a considerable number of years. There were between 100 and 120 towns in Ireland, and of those only about one-sixth would be cut out by the limitation in his Amendment. He would have placed the limitation higher, but he desired to make as small an exception as possible.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 8, line 9, after '1890,' to insert the words 'of any town the population of which, according to the last census, exceeds 2,000.'"—(Viscount Midleton.)
  LORD DENMANsaid the Government were unable to assent to this Amendment. In their view such an arbitrary limit would cut out a number of towns which it was essential should come under the Bill. Though he did not say it was at all conclusive, the Return presented to their Lordships' House on the Motion of Lord Mayo giving the indebtedness of towns in Ireland showed that the small towns were in a much better position than the large towns as regarded their indebtedness. It appeared from the Return that the small towns in a great many cases had borrowed nothing at all, and in others they had not gone nearly up to the statutory limit; whereas with regard to large towns the reverse was often the case. Therefore he failed to see that the small towns would not be perfectly fitted to administer the Act.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREhoped his noble friend would persevere with his Amendment, which was really of a very moderate character. As the noble Viscount had said, a town of 2,000 inhabitants would have, roughly, from 300 to 350 houses. Towns of that kind in Ireland were nearly always spread over a very large area, and therefore these facilities were not required. There were only twenty-four small towns which this Amendment would exclude. Therefore this was not an Amendment that would cut the heart, so to speak, out of the Bill. If he might descend into language which

  39
  Englishmen generally described as Irish, he would say that the Amendment did very little more than cut out twenty-four towns which were not towns at all. He would give their Lordships three examples. The town of Aughnacloy, in Tyrone, had 574 inhabitants and was spread over 156 acres; there were, therefore, about five inhabitants to the acre. Where was the necessity in that district for this Bill? Then there was the town of Bagenalstown, in County Carlow. This town had 882 inhabitants, spread over 744 acres. The town of Granard, in County Longford, had a population of 1,622, which worked out at an acre and a quarter per inhabitant. There could be no object in extending this Bill to such rural districts.
  LORD DENMANasked their Lordships to look at the particular clause of the Bill and see the effect of the Amendment. Clause 14 enabled towns to adopt Part II. of the Act of 1890, in the same way that they could already adopt Part III. Part III. applied to the erection of workmen's dwellings, and Part II., he thought he was right in saying, applied to the demolition of those dwellings. Therefore what the House would be saying to these towns, if the Amendment were adopted, would be that because their population was below 2,000, although they might erect workmen's dwellings they might not demolish them. That really was the effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment, and he thought it was rather difficult logically to defend that position.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I should have thought? that the main argument in favour of my noble friend's Amendment was to be found upon the face of the Bill. The Bill is intituled—
  "An Act to provide further facilities for the erection of houses for the working classes in cities and towns in Ireland."
  What my noble friend says—and I think with truth—is that these smaller places cannot by any stretch of language be described as "cities" or "towns."
  They really are villages inhabited by an agricultural population scattered over a very wide surface, and differing toto cœlo from urban population. In this case I am bound to say that it seems to me to be a complete misnomer to speak of a village which may have 300 or 350 houses as a city or town, and as entitled to the same kind of treatment as we are affording to larger cities and towns under this Bill.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: This is one of those cases where a limitation of figures is suggested and where it is always possible to find instances which suggest that some other figure ought to be named. We are familiar with that in a great many different connections, and it is perfectly possible, no doubt, as Lord Donoughmore did, to point out cases in which the provisions of this Act might not apply. On the other hand, nobody has stated that there are not places under the 2,000 limit in which some of these provisions might very usefully be applied. It is true the term "town commissioners" is, in a sense, an arbitrary one, and I am willing to admit that the provision does in certain cases apply to places which are not towns; but it has not by any means been made clear to me that there are not places under the 2,000 limit where the demolition of buildings and the erection of others might not very usefully be applied even by those very small communities. There will be, no doubt, cases in which the Act will not be applied, but that docs not constitute any particular hardship or grievance. It has not been suggested that attempts will be made to apply the Act improperly in these small places. Under these circumstances, and in view of the extreme difficulty of arriving at any dividing line other than that in the Bill, I am afraid we must continue to oppose the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
  On Question, whether the words proposed should stand part of the Clause,
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents,;35; Not-contents, 24.

  CONTENTS.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Camperdown, E.

  Dartrey, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Cawdor, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Avebury, L.

  Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

  Westmeath, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Wicklow, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Sanderson, L.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Hood, V.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore).

  Clonbrock, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Dunboyne, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Addington, L.

  Hindlip, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Atkinson, L.

  Lamington, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Herschell, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Wolrerhampton, V. (L. President.)

  Allendale, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Armitstead, L.

  Marchamley, L.

  Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

  O'Hagan, L.

  Crowe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Carrington, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Craven, E.

  Hamilton, of Dalzell, L.

  Welby, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONmoved the insertion of a clause defining the expression "working classes." He said he had altered the definition since the Committee stage in order to bring it into consonance with the Act of 1903.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 9, line 10, after '1878,' to insert the words 'The expression "working classes" shall 'include mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others except members of their own family, and persons other than domestic servants, whose income in any case does not exceed an average of thirty shillings a week, and the families of any of such persons who may be residing with them.'"—(Viscount Midleton.).
  LORD DENMANsaid the Government did not really see the necessity for the definition, but he would not oppose the insertion of the clause as now moved by the noble Viscount.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday, the 12th of November, next, and to be printed as amended. [No. 214.]
  House adjourned at five minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.