Sitting of 28 October 1908

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

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Milborne Port, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Peterborough, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour: From Aberdare; and Durham; to lie upon the Table.

  MOTOR CAR ACT, 1903.
  Petition from Argyll, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Selkirk, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Partick; and Royal Burghs of Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Chirnside; Wallasey; and Worthing; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POST OFFICE (LIFE INSURANCE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th October; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 311.]
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Post (Cash on Delivery) Amendment (No. 4) Warrant, 1908. Dated 30th September, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING.
  Copy presented, of Further Correspondence with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand relating to Merchant Shipping Legislation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 4156 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of List of Secondary Schools in England recognised as efficient, with a List of recognised Pupil-Teacher Centres, 1907–1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Persons Prosecuted for Riot and Unlawful Assembly in Ireland.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of persons bound over under the Act of Edw. III. in respect of riot and unlawful assembly, and the number committed

  247
  to prison in default of finding sureties for their good behaviour, in each of the two years ended 30th September, 1908.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police authorities are unable, without local inquiries throughout Ireland, to state the number of persons bound over in connection with all charges of riot and unlawful assembly. The following, however, are the figures as regards proceedings against persons in connection with cattle-driving, or the replacing of cattle upon farms from which they have been driven: in the year ended 30th September, 1907, three persons were bound to keep the peace and forty-two were committed to prison in default of bail; in the year ended 30th December, 1908, 1,026 persons were bound to keep the peace, and 114 were committed to prison in default.

  Patents Act—New Industries.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of towns in the United Kingdom where new industries have been established as a result of the recent Patents Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) No, Sir, I have no exact information on the subject.

  Applications for Small Holdings.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state in what counties, if any, in England and Wales, where applications for land have been made under the Small Holdings Act, no land has been acquired, specifying in any such cases the acreage applied for.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The information for which my hon. friend asks is as follows:—

  Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1907.
  Counties in England and Wales where land has not yet been acquired, with
  248
  the acreage of land applied for in the county.

  County.

  Area applied for, Acres.

  Cumberland

  1,236

  Derby

  2,237

  Devon

  7,100

  Hereford

  6,256

  Lancashire

  2,696

  Leicester

  5,858

  London

  306

  Middlesex

  1,700

  Monmouth

  5,736

  Northumberland

  10,000

  Nottingham

  3,719

  Stafford

  3,316

  Suffolk, West

  3,444

  Surrey

  2,560

  Sussex, East

  2,986

  Do. West

  2,126

  Warwick

  4,240

  York, North Riding

  5,261

  Do. West Riding

  4,436

  Wales—

  Brecon

  3,343

  Cardigan

  1,150

  Carnarvon

  764

  Denbigh

  1,862

  Flint

  2,000

  Glamorgan

  5,898

  Merioneth

  350

  Pembroke

  1,900

  I may add that, although no land has been actually acquired by these counties, we have been informed that schemes will shortly be submitted by six of them, and that most of them have under consideration the acquisition of definite areas of land.

  Potato Disease—Shropshire, Staffordshire, and Cheshire.
  MR. STANIERTo ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, how many cases of black scab in potatoes have been reported in gardens and field crops in Shropshire, Staffordshire, and Cheshire respectively; and whether the Board are carrying ont any experiments in order to prevent the disease spreading.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Slrachey.) The number of outbreaks of warty disease

  County.

  Outbreaks.

  Gardens.

  Fields.

  Uncertain.

  Cheshire

  -

  -

  -

  62

  37

  22

  3

  Shropshire

  -

  -

  -

  65

  61

  2

  2

  Staffordshire

  -

  -

  -

  62

  55

  4

  3

  Inquiry into those cases to which reference is made as "uncertain" is being made by the Board's inspectors Experiments as to the use of remedial measures for the prevention of the spread of the disease will be made next spring.

  Irish Land Purchase—Applications for Loans.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state for each half-year from November, 1903, to May,

  Period.

  Number of purchase agreements lodged.

  Amount of loans applied for.

  Area (approximate).

  £

  Half-year ending 30th April, 1904

  -

  6,817

  3,179,405

  5,397,459

  Half-year ending 31st October, 1904

  -

  10,430

  4,658,492

  Half-year ending 30th April, 1905

  -

  29,394

  10,844,151

  Half-year ending 31st October, 1905

  -

  24,730

  8,625,535

  Half-year ending 30th April, 1906

  -

  17,537

  6,191,578

  Half-year ending 31st October, 1906

  -

  15,514

  4,972,555

  Half-year ending 30th April, 1907

  -

  10,693

  4,036,926

  Half-year ending 31st October, 1907

  -

  18,573

  6,041,644

  Half-year ending 30th April, 1908

  -

  10,483

  3,811,936

  Five months ending 30th September, 1908

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  22,727

  6,970,422

  166,898

  59,332,644

  It would not be possible, without a great expenditure of time and labour, to give
  in potatoes which have been reported and confirmed are as follows—
  1908, and for the period from May, 1908, to 30th September, 1908, the number of agreements and applications for loans which have reached the Estates Commissioners, the area covered by these applications, and the amount of money applied for.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have furnished me with the following statement, which gives the particulars asked for in respect of estates sold by landlords direct to tenants under the Act of 1903—
  the approximate area of the holdings comprised in the agreements lodged for

  251
  each half-year, but a total approximate area is given for the entire period.

  Wrongly Transmitted Telegrams.
  MR. JAMES PARKER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether inquiries have been or are being made relative to the possibility of making regulations having the effect of holding telegraphists responsible for loss to the sender or recipient of a telegram wrongly transmitted; and whether he can state if the officials of the trade union representing telegraphists have been asked for an expression of opinion or have been put in possession of circulars addressed to surveyers to this effect.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have made no such inquiries, and I know nothing of any circulars to surveyors on the subject.

  Extension of Belfast Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to utilise the building ground acquired some time ago for the purpose of providing proper accommodation for the work of the Belfast Post Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The complete plans of the proposed extension of the head Post Office at Belfast are promised by the Board of Public Works in the course of the next few days.

  Fines in Belfast Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in the case of finable letter and parcel mail irregularities in the Belfast Post Office fines are invariably inflicted; whether the postmaster has his authority for issuing instructions that this rule should be enforced without exception; and whether these irregularities may be punished other than by the payment of a fine.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Fines for certain irregularities are imposed at Belfast and other offices in accordance with schedules issued from head-quarters and applied uniformly. I have no reason to think that the postmaster of Belfast enforces the rule in
  252
  an unreasonable manner. The general question of the system of punishment for these irregularities is under consideration.

  Belfast Parcel Post Business.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that parcel post business in Belfast is being at present transacted in an old disused mill, the walls of which fell some years ago, that the premises are in an unsanitary condition and unprovided with lavatory accommodation, and are a menace to the health of the staff employed therein; and whether this arrangement was made with the approval of the medical officer.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Owing to the breakdown of a hoist in the parcel sorting office at the head Post Office at Belfast, it became necessary on the 21st instant to conduct parcel sorting work in a portion of some premises known as Smithfield Mill, which are hired for storage and serve also for sorting purposes at Christmas time. It is expected that the hoist will be repaired, and the work retransferred to its proper quarters, at the end of this week. Although the lavatory accommodation in these emergency premises is perhaps hardly adequate, there is no evidence that the place is insanitary.

  Rural Postmen—Time Allowed for Rounds.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Postmaster-General what is the time allowed a cycling rural postman for the performance of a journey of twenty-four miles, and is the whole journey to be performed without rest; whether in these journeys more time is allowed for the collection than for the delivery of letters; and, if not, whether the propriety of allowing additional time for the collection of letters will be taken into consideration, having regard to the delay entailed by the sale of stamps, the registering of postal packets, and the other duties incidental to the collection of letters under such circumstances.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) In fixing the time table for the journey of a cycling rural postman allowance is made

  253
  for the weight of the load, the nature of the road, and other circumstances. If the hon. Member has any particular case in view in which he thinks the time allowed is insufficient I shall be glad to make inquiry regarding it. Rural posts are laid out in a great variety of ways to meet the special circumstances of each neighbourhood, and every allowance is made for the varying incidents of the journey.

  The Railway Conference.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the names of the present Members of the committee of inquiry into matters relating to railways which was nominated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Carnarvon District in February, 1907, and the names of the members, and the functions of each of the sub-committees appointed by that body; when he anticipates that the labours of the committee are likely to be brought to a conclusion; and whether the recommendations and reports of the general committee and of the sub-committees will be presented to Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I cannot yet give my hon. friend any information with regard to the nature and date of any reports of the Railway Conference beyond that contained in my reply to his Question of 18th May. I shall be happy to send him a list of the present Members of the Conference and of its various sub-committees. The Conference, as I have previously explained, is not bound down by any rigid terms of reference.

  Inspection of Funicular and Cliff Railways.
  MR. GIBBS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take into consideration the advisability of having all funicular and cliff railways inspected, for the better security of the public.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) When such railways are constructed under statutory authority they will, in the ordinary course, be inspected by an
  254
  officer of the Board of Trade before being opened for passenger traffic. Where, however, promoters choose to make and open a railway without obtaining such authority, the law as it stands at present confers no power and imposes no responsibility on the Board of Trade for the safety of the line, which must rest entirely with the promoters.

  Treatment of Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the ladies now undergoing terms of imprisonment for offences arising out of the suffragist agitation have been compelled to divest themselves of all their clothing in the presence of one wardress, and in some cases of several wardresses, and to put on a single cotton garment reaching to the knees, and in this garment barefooted to cross a room to a desk and stand there while the wardress searches them and enters particulars in a book; and, if so, whether, regard being had to the fact that no imputation has been made on the motives of these ladies, and that their conduct admittedly attaches to them no moral stigma, why has there not been a remission in their cases of this condition of their imprisonment, which is imposed in the cases of ordinary prisoners for sanitary reasons.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) In the case of the three ladies committed last Saturday the usual pactice was modified by the Governor, who allowed them to change their clothing in a locked reception cell, no officer being present. I will consider whether the method of searching can be altered in the case of other female prisoners of the second division.

  Deaths from Starvation.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recent death from starvation or privation of a Preston man; and whether he will cause an annual Return to be made of deaths in the provinces upon which a coroner's jury has returned a verdict of death from starvation, or death accelerated by

  255
  privation, similar to that which is now made for London.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) No, Sir. I have no information as to the case in question, but I will see whether I can collect the figures for this year, and will consider whether an annual Return could be given with advantage.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether Charlotte Stokes, a widow, on whose behalf applications for relief were made to the relieving officer of Shoreditch on several occasions, beginning 5th February, 1907, and whose death from disease and starvation or destitution took place in the following October, was adequately relieved by the guardians of the poor of Shoreditch; whether, under the present laws relating to relief of poor, they might have given her medical attendance and sufficient food, and other necessaries of life, and, if needed, money for rent, as soon as she began to be ill; and, if so, will he inquire why the guardians did not give her necessary relief under 43 Eliz., c. 2, s. 1, and 4 and 5 Will. IV., c. 76.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The relieving officer visited Mrs. Stokes on each occasion when application was made on her behalf for relief in February and March, 1907, and asked her to see the guardians, but no one attended. In April she herself applied to the relieving officer for relief, which was given to her. On 21st October she again applied for and received relief. The relieving officer visited the case the same day, but was informed she was out. It does not appear when she became ill, or that the attention of the relieving officer was called to her being so until 25th October, when he at once visited the home and found that she had just been removed to the infirmary. It would have been competent for the guardians to have given her all the relief mentioned in the Question when she became ill if the matter had been brought to their knowledge, but I do not understand that this was the case.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board
  256
  whether his attention has been called to the case of Julia Rothery, a widow, who died in Shoreditch, a few days ago from chronic kidney disease accelerated by poverty and neglect, without having applied for relief; will he say how many deaths declared by verdict of a coroner's jury to have resulted from starvation or to have been accelerated by privation have occurred in Shoreditch Union during the present year; whether he will suggest to the authorities of the Shoreditch Union, and of the borough council, and of the police in that district, that notices should be put up in their offices to which the public have access to the effect that poor persons who are ill and cannot pay for a doctor should apply to the relieving officers for medical relief; and will he suggest that such notices should contain the names and addresses of the relieving officers, and also a warning to parents of the penalties they may incur by neglecting to apply for a doctor in case of serious illness of a child.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I understand that application was made for the admission of Mrs. Rothery to the infirmary on 19th September, that she was forthwith admitted, and died there on the 19th instant. I am informed that there have been no deaths from starvation in Shoreditch during the present year, but that there have been three cases in which the coroner's jury have found that death was accelerated by privation. As I recently informed my hon. friend, there appears to be no reason to suppose that the poor are unaware of the facilities for obtaining medical or other relief, and I do not think that I could undertake to recommend to the authorities mentioned in the last part of the Question the adoption of the course there suggested.

  Employment of Extra Men at Dockyards.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, when engaging the extra men for doing repair work in connection with the Royal dockyards, buildings, etc., preference will be given to workmen who have previously worked in the yards and to unemployed workmen who are bona fide residents in the town where the work is.

  257
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Orders to this effect have already been given.

  Old-Age Pensions—Welsh-Speaking Applicants.
  MR. REES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements will be made to insure that applicants for old-age pensions, who cannot speak English, shall be able to present their cases to an official who can understand Welsh.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I may perhaps be allowed to refer my hon. friend to my reply on the 21st instant to a similar Question by my hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, in which I indicated the arrangements which have been made to meet the case of monoglot Welsh-speaking applicants for old-age pensions.

  Income-Tax Repayment Claims.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether instructions have been issued to delay the refunding of income-tax to those entitled to a refund, or if the delay in doing so is occasioned by overwork in the Department of Inland Revenue.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The reason for the apparent delay in the settlement of income-tax repayment claims is to be found in the uneven distribution of the work over the year. The great majority of the claims are received in the spring and early summer months, and the present system of dealing gradually with the applications in the order in which they are received is the only alternative to the employment of a staff so large that profitable work could not be found for it during the autumn and winter.

  Old Age Pensions and Out-Door Relief.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in Ireland the outdoor relief report book sets out not only the name of the person applying for relief but also the names of all the family; and whether it will be made clear to pension officers that no person will be disqualified for old-age pensions
  258
  except the person actually receiving outdoor relief.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Every care will be taken that the precise facts of each case are brought to the notice of the pension Committee; but the question whether the facts in any particular case are such as to create a disqualification is not one for the pension officer, but for the committee to decide subject to appeal to the Local Government Board.

  Old-Age Pensions—Age Certification in Ireland.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements will be made to have the Census Returns in Ireland for 1841 searched by an official specially commissioned for that duty, and thus save to applicants for old-age pensions the expense of obtaining certified copies of the Returns.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Such arrangements have already been made.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Mr. J. F. McQuade.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners had taken any steps to enforce the provisions of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, for the purpose of restoring Mr. John F. McQuade to the holding from which he was formerly evicted in the townland of Drumkirk, on the Irvine estate, County Fermanagh; and, if not, what is the cause of delay on the part of the Commissioners in acquiring this holding, seeing that it has been under their consideration for over three years, and the present tenant has offered to accept the compensation offered him by the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have not taken any steps to acquire eompulsorily under the Evicted Tenants Act the holding referred to, nor having regard to the inquiries which they have made do they propose to do so.

  Banbridge Rural Council and the Water Supply.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Banbridge, County Down, Rural District Council, protesting against the present existing law relating to water supplies, and calling upon the Government so to alter the law as to empower the sanitary authorities to compel the owners of house property to supply their tenants with a sufficient quantity of pure water, the cost of same to be defrayed by the owner of the property; and whether the matter will receive the attention of the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) My attention has been called to the resolution in question. The existing provisions of the law will be found in Section 72 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, but this section would appear to apply only when a supply of water is obtainable from a public source. The question whether it would be desirable to extend these provisions will be considered when any amendment of the existing laws as to public health in Ireland is contemplated.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Official Secrets.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether temporary draughtsmen and accountant clerks in the Admiralty Director of Works Department are permitted to deal with confidential plans and documents relating to the defence of naval posts; and, if so, whether he intends to take any action in the matter.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MCKENNA,): No, Sir.

  Cardiff Pilotage Dues.
  MR. BRACE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. J. L. Harvey, Cardiff,
  260
  was engaged to pilot the steamer "Mercedes," owned by the Government, into Penarth dry dock on 22nd and 23rd August, and that although the pilotage dues, according to the bye-laws of the Cardiff Pilotage Board, and which are the dues paid by all other vessels for similar services, amount to £20 10s., the sum offered by the Government to Mr. Harvey is £6 13s.; and upon what basis of payment does the Admiralty make such an offer.
  MR. MCKENNA: The local pilotage dues for merchant vessels, which are based on tonnage, are not applicable to His Majesty's Ships. Payment for pilotage of the vessel referred to was made according to a special scale of rates for His Majesty's ships, based on their draught of water, which was proposed by the Cardiff Pilotage Board to the Admiralty in December, 1905, when a question had arisen as to the rate payable for another fleet auxiliary vessel.
  MR. BRACE: Before the pilots undertake the responsibility of piloting the vessels are they made acquainted with the fact that the Government propose to pay infinitely lower dues than the general trader?
  MR. MCKENNA: I presume it is the duty of the Cardiff Pilotage Board to inform the pilot what dues are payable. I cannot say if they do so.

  The Admiralty and Trade Unions.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of his Department to refuse to permit the accredited representatives of the trade unions to deputise the Admiralty as has been the usual custom whenever the workpeople employed have had any grievances they wished placed before the Board.
  MR. MCKENNA: There is no intention to depart from the practice of hearing petitions from the workmen's representatives, who may include, if the men so desire, representatives of the trade unions.

  Windsor Barracks.
  MR. J. F. MASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the contract for the completion of the new barracks at Windsor contains any stipulations as to the dates on which the work shall be commenced and completed; and whether any conditions giving preference to local unemployed labour are imposed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The contract does contain stipulations regarding a period for commencement and completion, the latter to be within eighteen months of the placing of the contract. The delivery of scaffolding and materials has already commenced. No conditions of any preference to unemployed labour are included, but I understand that the contractors are in correspondence with the Mayor of Windsor in reference to local unemployed labour. I do not think there is any likelihood of undue delay.

  Reservists in the Colonies.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what bonus has been promised to Reservists on their returning home from the Colonies in case of national emergency.
  MR. HALDANE: No bonus has been promised, or is necessary.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked whether the statement made by the President of the Local Government Board, that these men could be got back easily by means of a bonus or some special payment, was a casual or an authorised remark.
  MR. HALDANEreplied that he had not the words of the President of the Local Government Board before him, but he presumed that what he referred to was the fact that their expenses would be paid on coming back under the mobilisation regulations. This was no new business. It was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I deprecate such a statement. There is no foundation whatever for it. May I again ask whether this statement of the President of the Local Government Board was entirely unauthorised?
  MR. HALDANE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will quote the words and I will make inquiry.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The words were that these persons would be got back by a special payment or bonus, or words to that effect.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I desire to ask you, Sir, whether it is not contrary to the long-established practice of the House for Ministers, in answering a Question, to indulge in controversial statements which cannot be met by those against whom they are made?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I always thought that Ministers stood to be shot at without being allowed to shoot back.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is it the fact that railway, etc., fare to the barracks is paid in case of mobilisation whether in the Colonies or in England?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes; it is all explained in the Regulations.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what Reserve soldiers receiving Reserve pay are resident in the Colonies; to what respective arms do they belong; what are the numbers residing in each of the principal Colonies; and why is the number limited to 10,000.
  MR. HALDANE: The figures are too long to read out to the House, bat I will have them printed in the Votes and Proceedings. The limit has been fixed at 10,000 in view of the immediate requirements on mobilisation.
  The following are the figures referred to—

  263

  Return of Army Reservists who heave permission to reside in the Colonies. 1st September, 1908.

  Africa, South.

  Africa, West.

  Bermuda.

  Ceylon.

  China and Hong Kong.

  Gibralter.

  India and Burmah.

  India, West.

  Jamaica.

  Malta.

  Mauritius.

  Straits Settlements.

  British Guiana.

  Australia.

  Canada.

  Falkland Islands.

  New Zealand.

  Uganda.

  British Central Africa.

  General Total.

  Household Cavalry

  -

  -

  -

  -

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Cavalry of the Line

  -

  -

  -

  -

  134

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  42

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  21

  326

  —

  16

  —

  —

  546

  Royal Artillery

  -

  -

  -

  -

  72

  2

  8

  1

  24

  15

  140

  3

  —

  7

  1

  17

  —

  29

  598

  —

  16

  —

  —

  933

  Royal Engineers

  -

  -

  -

  -

  43

  6

  1

  1

  4

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  15

  200

  —

  6

  1

  1

  284

  Foot Guards

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  40

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  12

  240

  —

  6

  —

  —

  304

  Infantry of the Line

  -

  -

  -

  138

  4

  5

  1

  30

  3

  417

  8

  1

  9

  1

  27

  1

  78

  1,527

  1

  44

  —

  —

  2,295

  Army Service Corps

  -

  -

  -

  65

  2

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  157

  1

  4

  —

  —

  237

  Army Ordnance Corps

  -

  -

  -

  5

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  18

  —

  1

  —

  —

  30

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  -

  -

  44

  3

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  6

  81

  —

  7

  —

  —

  147

  Army Veterinary Corps

  -

  -

  -

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Royal Malta Artillery

  -

  -

  -

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  315

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  315

  Total: All Arms

  -

  541

  19

  15

  4

  64

  22

  603

  16

  1

  332

  2

  55

  1

  165

  3,153

  2

  100

  1

  1

  5,097

  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many Regular Reservists have already received the permission of the War Office to leave this country and emigrate to the colonies whilst still drawing their Reserve pay; and will he lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Regulations and conditions under which this permission is granted.
  MR. HALDANE: The figures will be printed in the Votes and Proceedings in reply to the Question just answered. The Regulations for Reservists residing abroad will be found in Paragraphs 57 to 62 of the Army Reserve Regulations, and those for the grant of pay will be found in Articles 1207 and 1208 of the Royal Warrant for Pay as amended by Army Order 100 of 1908.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is any pass or document issued to the Reservists specifying the conditions? If so, can we have a copy of it?
  MR. HALDANE: They cannot go without obtaining leave, and I suppose it is given in writing.
  EARL OF KERRY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what undertakings have been given to Reservists in respect of passage money on their returning from the colonies in case of immediate necessity for their service.
  MR. HALDANE: If the noble Earl will kindly refer to Paragraphs 146 to 148 of the Mobilisation Regulations, 1906, he will find the arrangements laid down for the mode of recall of Reservists to the Colours, and in Paragraphs 241 and 242 he will find the provision for their travelling expenses and allowances.

  Military Churches in India.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether, since the arrival of the Gordon Highlanders at Fort William in February, they have had the use of the Government church in the fort for the purposes of divine
  266
  services according to the rites of the Church of Scotland, and on what conditions as to licence from the authorities of the Church of England; and whether they were allowed to celebrate the Lord's Supper and the ordinance of baptism in that building according to Presbyterian rites.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BUCHANAN,): The General Officer Commanding applied to the Metropolitan for the use of the consecrated church in the fort for parade services during the hot weather, and this was agreed to. The application did not extend to services other than parade services, which are held in St. Andrew's Church.
  SIR J. JARDINE: Have the Gordon Highlanders gained anything in regard to being allowed to celebrate religious rites through the action of hon. Members?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I have stated what ecclesiastical privileges they have at this moment, and I must leave the hon. Member to form his own conclusion.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state approximately whether any expenses payable out of the revenues of India were incurred as to provision of a temporary building at Jullundhar in which to solemnize the Lord's Supper according to the rites of the Church of Scotland, and as to the removal of the Gordon Highlanders to Fort William, Calcutta, after the decision of the Bishop of Lahore regarding the use of the Jullundhar cantonment church; and whether the authorities of the Church of Scotland made any proposal for removing the Gordon Highlanders from Jullundhar.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The answer to the first Question is in the negative. The expenditure on the whole journey from Peshawar to Calcutta was £1,770. The authorities of the Church of Scotland did not suggest that the regiment should be moved from Jullundhar to Calcutta.
  SIR J. JARDINE: As regards the temporary building, may I ask—
  MR. BUCHANAN: The temporary building was never erected.
  MR. GULLAND: Has any new development arisen in regard to the general question of Presbyterian services for the Army in India?
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think I had better say anything about new developments.

  The Seizure of the "Lady Kensington."
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Afiairs whether he can now state the circumstances of the seizure by the Venezuelan authorities of the schooner "Lady Kensington," and of the arrest and imprisonment of her passengers and crew; and what action His Majesty's Government has taken in the matter.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. MCKINNON WOOD,): My right hon. friend has nothing to add to his reply to a similar Question, on the 26th instant, beyond stating that instructions have been since sent by telegraph to both the Governor of the Windward Islands and His Majesty's Minister at Caracas. It must, however, be borne in mind that telegraphic communication with Venezuela is both slow and uncertain, and there may be considerable delay in obtaining a Report from Sir Vincent Corbett. He may, however, be relied on in the meanwhile to take any action that may be practicable, or to make any representations which may be justified.

  Published Interview with the German Emperor.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Department had any information as to the authenticity of the interview with the German Emperor which appeared in the Press that day.
  MR. MCKINNON WOODsaid he only received notice of the Question a few
  268
  minutes before it was addressed to him. As a matter of fact he had not read an account of the interview, or the alleged interview, to which the hon. Member referred, and he was, consequently, unable to express an opinion or give any information about it.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether it would be possible for the hon. Gentleman's Department to make an arrangement that, when interviews of this character with important personages took place, they should be published in newspapers which they all read.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Committee on Scottish University Grants.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the facts that about one-fourth of the students attending the Scottish Universities are women, that women have no place on the Senatus or University Court, and that difficulties have arisen in providing suitable teaching for women preparing for degrees, he will appoint one or more, women to the Committee which he has promised to nominate to consider the terms upon which additional grants are to be given to Scottish Universities.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): Yes, Sir. I propose to appoint a woman to serve upon the Committee in question.

  Tobacco Growing in Scotland.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take any steps, under the Tobacco Growing (Scotland) Act, 1908, to remove any existing restraints on the growing of tobacco in Scotland; if he can state what restrictions on such growing are now enforced by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; and whether it is competent to any person in Scotland to procure any sort of licence to grow tobacco, especially for purposes of experiment, and on what terms.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: As regards the first part of the Question, I may

  269
  refer my hon. friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. friend the Member for Sutherland. Under Section 2 of the Tobacco Growing (Scotland) Act, 1908, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are empowered to permit the growth of tobacco for experimental purposes in Scotland, subject to such regulations and conditions as they may think fit; but I understand that they have as yet received no application for the grant of such permission.
  SIR J. JARDINE: Will agriculturists who have already begun to experiment and have standing crops be allowed to experiment?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If any case is brought before me I will consider it favourably.
  MR. WATT: Will Scotland be treated as favourably in this respect as Ireland?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly. I am sure I would not dare to do otherwise.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not the fact that the present provisions for growing tobacco in Ireland are the result of seven years careful experiment which have proved that tobacco can be grown in Ireland?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is so.

  Public Houses and Estate Duty.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what basis, and by what calculations, the Estate Duty Department of the Inland Revenue arrives at the market value of public - houses in calculating the duty payable upon the estates of deceased owners of public-houses.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The market value of public-houses for the purpose of estate, duty is arrived at on the basis of current market prices, and the calculations adopted in each case are those regarded as suitable to the particular public-house to be valued.
  MR. HIGHAM: Is it not the fact that 95 per cent. of the public-houses are owned by brewery companies and therefore are not affected by this valuation?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is the case as regards houses owned by companies.
  MR. COURTHOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last few weeks a case has occurred in which licensed property was valued for death duties not on the basis of fourteen years purchase, but at twenty-seven years, by the Board of Inland Revenue.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is a Question on that later on.

  Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether steps will be taken to issue instructions that, for the purposes of the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908, allowances made voluntarily to parents over seventy years of age by their children shall not be taken into account in calculating the means of such parents, and that allowances made voluntarily to parents by their children shall, for the purposes of that Act, be placed on the same basis as allowances made to them by persons who are under no Poor Law obligation to contribute to their support.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The instructions to pension officers are that all money income received by claimants to old-age pensions, whether from voluntary allowances or otherwise, is to be taken into account in estimating their means for the purposes of the Act; and, as at present advised, I see no reason for modifying those instructions or discriminating between different kinds of allowances.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has beer, made of the saving which is expected to accrue, by reason of old-age pensions, to rural and urban, unions, and how such estimate has been arrived at; whether such saving is

  271
  likely to be equal in amount to the cost of obtaining information; and whether his attention has been called to the calculations which have been made in certain of the Metropolitan unions, showing that the saving which will be effected in these unions owing to the old-age pensions scheme will be very small.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no information at the present moment which would enable me to answer the hon. Member's Question.

  Death Dues on Licensed Property.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by Mr. Vaughan Gower, of Tunbridge Wells, that when in his capacity of solicitor he recently proposed in his statement of account of estate duty that licensed property should pay duty on a value of fourteen years purchase, the Government refused to accept that proposal, but for the purpose of death duty placed the value at twenty-seven years' purchase; and whether the Government values licensed property at fourteen years purchase for the purposes of extinction, but at twenty-seven years purchase for purposes of revenue.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am unable to identify the particular case to which the hon. Member refers, in the absence of more specific information. I may, however, say generally that the value for estate duty of licensed property is the price which it would fetch if sold in the open market.

  Wandsworth Prison Warder's Claim for Compensation.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any record exists of the injury received by Ernest Taylor while on duty at Wandsworth Prison, 11th May, 1904; and, if such record does exist, can it be produced as evidence in favour of a claim for a compassionate grant for the permanent disablement of Ernest Taylor.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Prison records show that on 12th May Ernest Taylor mentioned having received a blow on the head when on duty on 10th May, 1904. I must refer my hon. friend to my Answer on 28th April last, a copy of which I will send him.

  Beer at Broadmoor.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an allowance of beer is given daily to all inmates of criminal asylums; will he say the total amount of beer consumed in such criminal asylums during the year 1907; and whether a daily allowance of beer is given, to men and women in any other institution of prison under his administration.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary or State for the Home Department whether, seeing that during the year 1907, 14,768 gallons of beer were consumed by the inmates of Broadmoor Asylum, he will say whether, in the opinion of his medical advisers, beer is a commodity which it necessary for the health and comfors of the inmates; and, if he still proposes to continue this supply of beer, will he say how many total abstainers there are in this asylum and whether an allowance of beer is given to the women inmates, and, excluding total abstainers and women who do not take beer, will he say the average quantity of beer consumed per day by the inmates; also what proportion of the crimes committed by the inmates were due to drink.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will answer my hon. friend's two Questions together. It has always been the governing principle in the treatment of patients at Broad-moor to eliminate the penal element from their detention as far as possible, and I am advised that it conduces to the comfort, and indirectly to the mental health, of a large number of the inmates that they should have a small daily allowance of beer. At present 42 per cent. of the male and 34 per cent. of the female patients do not drink beer. The beer supplied is of very mild quality, and the allowance is three-quarters of a pint

  273
  for a man and half a pint for a woman per day. The daily consumption is about forty gallons. I may add that the past history of the asylum has been altogether free from any difficulty or detriment to health which could in any way be attributed to the allowance of beer, and any material change in the dietary would be likely to cause great discontent among a large part of the inmates. In no other institution under my control is beer allowed to the inmates except on medical grounds. The question whether or how far a crime can be said to be due to drink is in some cases a difficult one to answer. I am examining the figures, and will communicate further with my hon. friend when I have done so.

  Vivisection.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the certificate under which the experiment on two dogs was performed, referred to by Colonel Laurie in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Vivisection, provided only that the animals should be placed under an anæsthetic of sufficient power to prevent their feeling pain during the operative procedure; that the experimenters retired during the experiment for an interval of half-an-hour, leaving the vivisected dogs fixed to the operating table; that during the interval no operative procedures were performed upon the animals, and that consequently the certificate issued by the Home Office afforded no protection to the dogs from consciousness and sensibility to pain during that interval; and whether, in these circumstances, he will amend the wording of his certificate so as to afford a real and complete protection from suffering to vivisected animals during the whole of all experiments upon them calculated to cause pain.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The two experiments in question were performed under licence alone, and not under any certificate. The animals were, therefore, required to be kept during the whole of the experiment under the influence of an anæsthetic of sufficient power to prevent their feeling pain. It is stated by Dr.
  274
  Shore, who performed the experiments, that this was done.
  *MR. LUPTON: May I ask was the retirement for half-an-hour referred to in the question for lunch?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

  The Imprisoned Suffragists.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the possibility of treating the three imprisoned lady Suffragists, Mrs. Drummond, Mrs. Pankhurst, and Miss Pankhurst, as first-class misdemeanants.
  SIR B. GURDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that these rich and delicately-nurtured ladies receive exactly the same treatment as would be meted out to the poor, starving wife of an unemployed workman who was tempted to break the law and assault the police?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The division in which a prisoner is to be placed must by law be determined by the magistrate in his discretion, and I cannot order the prisoners in question to be treated as if they had been placed in the first division.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is it not a fact that in October, 1906, and from then until January of this year women imprisoned for similar offences were treated as first-class misdemeanants; why has that rule been departed from; and will the Home Secretary use his influence and authority to have similar cases treated as first-class misdemeanants?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: As a matter of fact, the magistrates in their discretion did order first division treatment to the first batches of Suffragists, which were dealt with in 1906 and the beginning of 1907. Then, I think, nearly twelve months elapsed without further disturbances, but in January of this year and subsequently the magistrates, also in the full exercise of their discretion, thought fit to order the second division

  275
  treatment. As I have repeatedly said, I have no power to interfere with the discretion of the magistrates by giving orders for the removal of prisoners from one division to another.
  MR. DILLON: Is it not the fact that in the case of Dr. Jameson and the raiders the Government of that day did overrule the decision not of a magistrate, but of the Judge of the High Court who had sentenced them, and whether, in view of the fact that these ladies have been convicted for what is undoubtedly a political offence he will exercise his power to see that they are treated as first-class misdemeanants?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is true that in the cases referred to by the hon. Member the prisoners were transferred to what was then the first misdemeanant class, but that was done through the machinery of the prerogative of mercy. The whole situation has been altered by the Act of 1898, by which the discretion as regards the division to which the prisoner is to be sent is specially reserved to the magistrate.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Might I ask whether, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and the fact that this House has by an enormous majority affirmed the principle for which these ladies have been agitating, he will consider whether it would not be possible to have them treated in some sort of respectful way in prison?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I have repeatedly pointed out, I have no power to order an alteration of their treatment. It may be that the hon. Member is justified in saying that theirs is a political offence, but, as a matter of fact, I am not aware in what direction the hon. Member will find any power which would enable me to give effect to his suggestion.
  MR. MYER: Is it not the fact that these ladies incited the mob to rush the House of Commons?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: A jolly good job if they rushed some of you out.
  *MR. LUPTON: Is it not a fact that these ladies practically have imprisoned themselves, and that the Secretary of State has full power to discharge them at once, which is what they do not want?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The adies have full power to discharge themselves.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power in this matter? Does he say that he has no power to order their removal to the first-class?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, that is what I said.

  Case of Elizabeth Morrice.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a sentence of five years passed at the Middlesex Sessions by Sir R. Littler, upon a woman named Elizabeth Morrice, fifty-two years of age, for stealing 1d.; and whether he will say what action he proposes to take towards remitting some part of the punishment.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I fear I cannot give an answer to this Question until I know whether there is to be an appeal, i.e., till ten days from conviction.

  Membership of Registered Clubs.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, before preparing their Licensing Bill, the Government had taken any steps to ascertain the number of members belonging to the registered clubs; and if he can state the number of members belonging to the registered clubs in respect of which Returns were made, under the Licensing Act, 1902, during the years 1905, 1906, and 1907, and the number of members belonging to clubs which were removed from the register during each of those years.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I have no information enabling me to give figures as to the membership

  277
  of registered clubs in the years indicated, or of the clubs struck off the register in those years.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: Cannot the right hon Gentleman answer the first part of the Question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No steps have been taken; the number is admittedly large.

  Licensing Bill Debate.
  SIR FRANCIS CHANNING: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered the shortness of time for discussion arising from the putting down of Clauses 18 and 19 of the Licensing Bill on Friday; whether he can arrange to bring the discussion on Clause 18 to a conclusion in time to allow of Clause 19 being discussed; and, if this is impracticable, whether he will put down on behalf of the Government an Amendment to secure the widely expressed wish of his supporters that the exclusion of children under sixteen from licensed bars should be made statutory instead of permissive.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The length of the discussion on Clause 18 is a matter which is in the control of the House, not of the Prime Minister. It is hoped that an opportunity will be found of dealing with Clause 19 before the Bill leaves the House, and I cannot put down the Amendment suggested at the present time.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could put down an Amendment to exempt children of the poorer and working-classes who have no servants and no cellars.
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied that he should like notice of that Question.

  Imported Boneless Meat.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the quantities of boneless meat which are being imported into this country from Now Zealand and Australia; if so, is he aware that much
  278
  of it has been condemned by the local authorities, but that this condemnation is accompanied by a statement to the effect that it is impossible to examine every box and find out all the faulty; and whether, in these circumstances, he will issue instructions forbidding meat in that form to be imported.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): Considerable quantities of boneless meat are imported into this country from New Zealand and also some from Australia, but I am not aware that in recent months there has been any exceptional condemnation of it in England and Wales, with which alone I am concerned in this matter, or that the condemnation has been accompanied by a statement to the effect mentioned. As regards the last part of the Question, I may draw attention to the Foreign Meat Regulations which I lately issued and which will come into force on 1st January next. The regulations will have the effect of preventing the importation for consumption in England and Wales of meat of the class referred to.
  MR. WATTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to see that these importers would suffer detriment if steps were not taken to hinder defective meat of this description from being brought into the country.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that if the meat was unsound and unfit for consumption the importers would labour under the same disability as the butcher or grocer under the English law who tries to pass unsound food into circulation.

  Motor Speed.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has communicated with the London County Council, or any other authorities, advising them to make application to him for powers to reduce the speed of motor cars in populous towns to a speed not exceeding ten miles per hour; and, if not, whether he will forthwith do so, in view of the large number of accidents caused to persons by excessive speed.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Board have not communicated with local authorities in the precise sense suggested, but in the Circular which I recently issued on the subject of the Motor Car Act, I dealt at some length with the question of low speed limits and intimated my willingness to consider applications for the imposition of such limits in places where they may properly be imposed.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the right horn Gentleman state whether, in respect of the motor omnibuses and motor cabs under his control, the speed limit will be reduced to ten miles per hour?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I cannot say that.
  MR. MARKHAM: Then is the speed of twenty miles per hour to be recognised in the streets of London?
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: That depends on the Regulations of the Local Government Board and their enforcement by the police.

  Public Works Loans.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what were the full amounts raised on loan by local authorities for public works during each of the years 1906, 1907, and up to date this year.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The amounts of loans sanctioned by the Local Government Board for purposes other than Poor Law purposes during the periods mentioned in the Question are given in the statement issued on Monday last. I am not, however, in a position to give the total amounts actually borrowed during these periods. The Returns on the subject from the local authorities are only made for the financial year ending in March, and, moreover, for the most part they have not yet come in.

  St. Pancras Unemployed.
  MR. H. C. LEA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the St. Pancras Borough Council refuses to present for the consideration of the Central (Unemployed) Body for
  280
  London any work which is adequate to the needs of the large number of unemployed in that borough; and whether he has any means of putting pressure on that local authority to ensure that works such as an alteration from low pressure to 440 volt net-work shall not be sent up as a complete discharge of the authority's obligations.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am informed that the borough council have never refused to present for the consideration of the Central (Unemployed) Body any work which they deemed to be of practical utility and needing to be done, and which could be carried out by unemployed persons coming within the regulations. I understand that a special committee of the council are reporting to them to-day and recommending that a considerable amount of additional work shall be put in hand at once, provided that the Central Body will defray the cost of the unskilled labour, the council paying the cost of the supervision and materials.
  MR. H. C. LEA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the work proposed to be done by the borough council is work which should have been done long ago, and will have to be done irrespective of unemployment?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not think I can be held responsible for the dilatory conduct of borough councils which in the past have not put in hand the work they should have done, and for which they are responsible to the ratepayers. If they are willing to make reparation now by submitting schemes I can approve of I shall be willing to act. I have already sanctioned a housing scheme, on which £19,000 will be spent, and I trust the borough council will at once proceed with it.

  National Telephone Company—Discharges of Employees.
  MR. CURRAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South West Ham, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the National Telephone Company have discharged 171 men in London alone, including nine canvassers, besides standing off four

  281
  canvassers at Blackburn, two in Bradford, and two in Stockport, and that all over their system 50 per cent. of the canvassers have been reduced; and whether he can see his way clear to ask the National Telephone Company if they are prepared to re-engage the canvassers with a view to securing orders for the company.
  THE POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I am informed in regard to the discharge of men by the National Telephone Company in London that in many of the cases this was due to the termination of certain special work on subscribers' instruments in connection with a change in the system of working at some of the company's large exchanges and was not due to the cessation of ordinary works. I am also informed by the company that during the nine months ended 30th September, while 102 members of the canvassing staff were discharged sixty-six new men were employed, making a net decrease of thirty-six only in a total staff which numbers about 340 in all. I understand that the company propose to increase rather than to diminish the work of the canvassing staff in those places where they have a considerable amount of spare plant. Further, as I have already stated, the company inform me that they are prepared to meet all applications for new lines under ordinary conditions and that they have not refused such applications.
  MR. CURRAN: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make arrangements whereby the National Telephone Company may be prevented, not only starving people by discharging them, but also starving the service?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am in active communication with the company. So far as I am concerned I am anxious to come to some arrangement so that the construction work may be carried on smoothly until 1911.

  Telephone Services.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in many districts the Post Office telephone service compares most
  282
  unfavourably with the National telephone service, owing to the fact that it is not available either to subscribers or to the public between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m., nor at all on Sundays; and whether he will take steps to ensure a fuller service on the Post Office telephone system.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am, of course, aware that, while the National Telephone Company's service is continuous, the telephone service given by the Post Office at small exchanges is in many cases confined after 8 p.m. to the hours during which staff is on duty for other purposes. The cost of special attendance all night and on Sundays would absorb a large part, if not the whole, of the revenue of very small exchanges; and, if it were regarded as essential, would render the establishment of such exchanges impracticable.
  MR. COURTHOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some rural district offices where men are employed the telephone is not available either to the public or to subscribers after 8 p.m.?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of any such cases I will consider them. Where we have a night staff we endeavour to keep the telephone service open. Where there is no night staff we cannot do so.

  Unemployed Complaint against the Stafford Postmaster.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that an application was made to the postmaster of Stafford for employment, upon the statement made by the Prime Minister; that the applicant produced good references but was asked whether he had served in either the Army or the Navy, and upon his stating that he had been in neither the one nor the other he was informed by the postmaster that none but ex-Army or Navy men could be engaged; and whether this action is in accord with his instructions.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The man in question applied to the postmaster of

  283
  Stafford for employment as postman. He was informed that he was not eligible for such a post, as, under an arrangement of many years standing, they are reserved for ex-telegraph messengers or for ex-soldiers or sailors. The postmaster endeavoured, however, to obtain for him an auxiliary place but was not able to find a vacancy. His name was not recorded for Christmas work, as it appeared that he was in casual employment as a warder in the prison; and I have already informed the House we desire, as far as possible, to take on for this work men wholly unemployed. The man in question made no reference to the Prime Minister's speech and, indeed, as will be seen from the above, he did not come within its meaning.

  Motor Speeds.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been, directed to the proceedings in the prosecution of the hon. Member for North-West Wilts at the Marylebone Police Court on Thursday last, when Park-Constable Petherick stated on oath that the motor car of the hon. Member had exceeded the speed-limit in Regent's Park by twelve miles per hour, that the hon. Member had informed him he charged the police with blackmail, and that it was his intention to bring this case before the House at once; will he say whether he will give the hon. Member an opportunity of proving this charge of blackmail; and if he will investigate this charge forthwith.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. L. HARCOURT,): The hon. Member for North-West Wilts seems to have made a general complaint as to the methods of speed control all over the country; and the words used, no doubt at a moment of irritation, appear to have had no special application to the park-constable. I do not think it is necessary for me to take any steps in the matter.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the hon. Member an opportunity of bringing his case before the House?
  MR. L. HARCOURT: I will give any hon. Member anything he wants if it is within my power.

  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  MR. HORNIMAN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will state at what date the Vctoria and Albert Museum will be completed; whether there is still a considerable amount of painting and decorating to be done; how many men are at present employed on this work; whether he can arrange for more to be put on immediately; and whether he will consider the advisability of completing the new building and transferring the contents of the museum to the same as soon as possible, so that employment may be given by cleansing and redecorating the older portions of the museum.
  MR. L. HARCOURT: It will probably be completed by the end of January or beginning of February. There is some plain painting and distempering to be done; but nothing that can be called "decoration." There are about 170 men employed on this work, and I fear that there is no likelihood of a larger number being employed. The new building will be completed and the contents of the museum transferred to it as rapidly as possible.

  King Edward the Seventh Street Post Office.
  MR. HORNIMAN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what is the present condition of the new Post Office in King Edward the Seventh Street; whether the building is now ready for the plasterers to commence work on both the exterior and interior; whether contracts have yet been let for the said work; and, if not, whether he will consider the possibility of doing this immediately by direct employment, so giving work to many men belonging to a branch of the building trade at present suffering from great depression.
  MR. L. HARCOURT: The block next to King Edward Street is completed so far as the reinforced concrete is concerned; and the main building is so far advanced that part of the third floor has been constructed. The existing contracts provide for external cement work, which will be commenced by the builders at an early date. The date for the commencement of the internal plastering

  285
  cannot yet be definitely stated; it depends upon the progress made; probably it will be possible to begin it in March or April.

  Small Holdings in Hampshire.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: I bog to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the number of acres acquired in Hampshire under the Small Holdings Act is fifteen; whether this is the smallest number in any county in which land has been acquired; whether he will state what is the acreage applied for in that county; whether the Board is satisfied that the county council is making adequate use of its statutory powers; and, if not, what action it is proposed to take.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The replies to the first and second parts of the Question are in the affirmative, but I should add that negotiations are in progress for the acquisition of additional land, amounting to about 435 acres, in different parts of the county. Applications for 7,743 acres have been made. The Board have no reason to suppose that the county council are failing to carry out their obligations under the Act, but we are in communication with them, with a view to the expedition of matters, as much as possible.
  MR. ASHLEY: Although only fifteen acres have been acquired in Hampshire, is it not the fact that in 44 per cent. of the administrative counties of England and Wales no land at all has been acquired?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I think-that is not right.

  Land Values.
  MR. R. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in counties where land has been acquired in any considerable quantities under the Small Holdings Act, county councils are experiencing difficulties in acquiring further parcels of land owing to a rise in price.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: No, Sir.

  Potato Disease in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what steps are being taken to prevent the introduction into Ireland of the black scab potato disease.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): In February last, the Department issued and distributed in large numbers throughout the country a leaflet on black scab in potatoes. On the 2nd instant the Black Scab in Potatoes (Ireland) Order, 1908, made in pursuance of powers conferred by the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907, came into operation. This order requires every person, who has in his possession or charge any potatoes affected or suspected of being affected with this disease, to notify the fact to the Department. Failure to give such notice renders the defaulters liable to a penalty of £10. The order further prohibits the landing in Ireland of any potatoes diseased or suspected of being diseased, brought from any place outside of Ireland. A person landing such potatoes in contravention of this order is also liable to a penalty of £10.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the potato disease is prevalent at the present moment in many parts of county Cork where spraying was resorted to? Would it not be well to make known the best method of preserving potatoes which have been raised and stored and have so far escaped disease?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If my hon. friend refers to the disease known as black scab, I can reassure him. We have had hundreds of samples from all parts of Ireland, and in no case have we found that disease.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that potatoes are rapidly blackening in many districts?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: That is the ordinary disease, but the terrible disease known as black scab has not got into

  287
  Ireland. After the serious weather we have had I am afraid the blackening is almost inevitable.

  Criminal Statistics and Cattle Drives.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the cases of cattle-driving in which persons have been made amenable by summary proceedings directed to their entering into sureties for future good behaviour, such cases have been recorded in the official statistics of crime; and, if so, under what designation.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The reply is in the negative. The statistics of crime to which reference is made in the Question relate to indictable offences only.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the offence of cattle-driving is an indictable offence and that the great majority of such offences are not entered in the annual Returns of crime, he will consider the propriety of including with these Returns, for the purpose of public record, a table showing the total number of cattle-drives reported by the police and indicating the proportion of these offences recorded in the classified tables of indictable crime.
  MR. BIRRELL: As I have repeatedly stated, the question whether cattle-driving is an indictable offence depends upon the circumstances of each case. In the great majority of cases there is no evidence of unlawful assembly or other indictable offence, and such cases are therefore not included in the returns of serious crime. I have always given, and am prepared to give, full information to hon. Members as to the number of cases of cattle-driving and the number recorded as indictable offences, but I cannot undertake to include in the Returns of crime cases which do not properly belong to those Returns.
  In reply to a further Question—
  MR. BIRRELLsaid it was not always the case that a cattle-drive could be
  288
  classed as an unlawful assembly. It might be the work of one or two persons only. He was willing, however, to give the House all possible information in regard to these cases.

  Boycotting Outrages.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of persons returned as boycotted during the past two years who were, in addition, the victims of overt outrage; and will he indicate the acts of outrage committed in each case without specifying the names of the individuals attacked.
  MR. BIRRELL: During the past two years indictable offences were committed against sixty-one persons who were the subject of boycotting or attempts to boycott. The offences were as follows: Firing at the person, eight cases; firing into dwellings, fourteen; incendiary fires, nine; killing or maiming cattle, four; injury to property, fourteen; larceny, six; intimidation by threatening letters, twenty-four; intimidation by other means, nine.

  Woodford Civil Bill Office.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement of Judge Anderson at the Gort Quarter Sessions on the 19th, that owing to the system of boycott no man can be got to retain the office of civil bill officer for the Woodford district, and the result is that rents and ordinary debts cannot be recovered; and what action he proposes to take to suppress boycotting and restore respect for the law in this district.
  MR. BIRRELL: My attention has been drawn to the statement referred to. The police authorities inform me that they are not aware of any case in which a civil bill officer has been boycotted in the Woodford district. It would appear, therefore, that the County Court Judge—assuming that he is correctly reported—has been misinformed as to the reasons for the difficulties in filling the appointment. I may add that, when necessary, the police invariably

  289
  afford full protection to process servers in the discharge of their duties.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause communication to be made to Judge Anderson asking him where he got his information?
  MR. BIRRELL: I think the police are the better collectors of evidence of that kind.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it not the custom of the Judges at Assizes and Quarter Sessions to make statements as to the peace of the community on information supplied by the police?
  MR. BIRRELL: I obtained my information from the police.

  Mullingar Compensation Claim.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the claim for compensation made by Mr. George Alley, at Mullingar Quarter Sessions on the 19th instant; whether it was proved on oath that the claimant's cattle were driven to the point of exhaustion, that two beasts had their tails cut off, one having about two inches of the bone left, and that the drivers were armed with knives as well as sticks; whether the ratepayers have to pay the compensation awarded in this case; and whether any persons were made criminally amenable for this cruelty to animals.
  MR. BIRRELL: Mr. Alley's claim for compensation was heard at Mullingar on the 19th instant. The police who found the cattle gave evidence that they had been over-driven, and that two of them had had their tails cut off. Compensation to the full amount claimed, £50, was awarded, and is to be levied off the county at large. The offence was committed at night by persons unknown, and in the absence of evidence the police have been unable to bring the offenders to justice.

  Irish Government Appointment.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  290
  of Ireland if he will state what qualifications Mr. Donovan possessed for his appointment as Secretary to the Dublin Commission under the I Irish Universities Act; and what was his occupation previous to his appointment.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Irish Universities Act places the appointment of secretary in the hands of the Commission. I have no concern in the appointment but have no doubt that the Commissioners have exercised the powers conferred on them in a wise manner.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: This matter is of very considerable importance, and I think the public should know what qualifications this gentleman has. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inquire?
  MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir. I most emphatically will not. In this case I am glad to say that Ireland has obtained complete autonomy.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of handing over the entre government of Ireland to the Freeman's Journal?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: A veritable Daniel come to judgment.

  Castlereagh School Grant.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the National Commissioners of Education promised the manager of the O'Neill Memorial School, Castlereagh, County Down, that £287 6s. 6d. would be paid as a supplementary grant towards the erection and equipment of the school; and if he can say why such grant has not been paid.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that no definite promise of a supplementary grant was given in this case, but the manager was made aware that the Commissioners were in favour of granting his application if possible. The matter is still under consideration.

  Irish Public Appointments.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the Motion for the Return in the name of the hon. Member for North Armagh.
  The Return was as follows:—"Mr. MOORE: Public Appointments (Ireland).—Return showing the number of persons in Ireland, and the date of their respective appointments, now in receipt of public moneys who have been connected with the Freeman's Journal.
  MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

  Purchase Loans.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will request the Estates Commissioners in all future monthly returns of purchase loans sanctioned to distinguish between first and second-term rents, and to add a column giving the number of years purchase in each case.
  MR. BIRRELL: The returns to which the hon. Member refers are prepared by the Estates Commissioners in the form prescribed by the Treasury in pursuance of the Act of 1903. I will consult with the Commissioners and the Treasury as to the possibility of adding to the Return particulars of the nature suggested by the hon. Member.

  Land Purchase in Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state for each half-year from November, 1903, to May, 1908, and for the period from May, 1908, to 30th September, 1908, the number of agreements and applications for loans which have reached the Estates Commissioners, the area covered by these applications, and the amount of money applied for.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have received from the Estates Commissioners a tabular statement giving the figures asked for by the hon. Member, and will, with his permission, publish it with to-night's Votes.

  Monaghan Meeting on Land Purchase.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen a report of the county meeting at Monaghan, convened by the Nationalist chairman of the county council, presided over by the Lord-Lieutenant of that county, and addressed by the principal representative men of Monaghan, Nationalist and Unionist, landowners and tenants, at which, on the proposal of a canon of the Protestant church, seconded by a Catholic parish priest, an advisory committee was appointed to aid in the solution of outstanding difficulties on the land question; and whether he will avail himself of offers of friendly co-operation of that sort from all sides to try whether an amending Land Bill can be still passed through Parliament this session by fairly general agreement.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have seen a Report of the meeting to which the hon. Member refers. I shall be only too glad to avail myself of friendly co-operation from all sides, with the object of securing the earliest passage through Parliament of amending land legislation.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to take some practical steps to utilise the union of classes which both he and his predecessor have insisted is absolutely required for the settlement of the land question?
  MR. BIRRELLrepeated that he would gladly welcome frendly co-operation from all sides.

  Bail for Cattle Drivers.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in how many instances have persons under a rule of bail for cattle-driving beer, found engaged in a repetition of similiar offences; and in how many such cases have the recognisances been estreated.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police autho-thorities inform me that there have been four cases of the kind, in all of which the recognisances have been estreated.

  Oranmore Outrage.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that shots were fired into the residence of Mr. Myles J. Keaven, at Prospect, Oranmore, on Friday night; and whether the perpetrators of this outrage have been arrested.
  MR. BIRRELL: The reply is in the affirmative. The police have carefully investigated the case, but have not succeeded in obtaining evidence which would warrant any arrest.
  MR. LONSDALE: Has Mr. Keaven since received threatening letters?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have not heard so.

  School Disputes in Ireland.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps are now being taken to settle the question of the appointment of referees in all cases of dispute between managers and teachers of National Schools in Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: As I have repeatedly stated, the Commissioners of National Education are of opinion that it is desirable that a referee should be available in the case of dismissal of teachers, and two out of the four forms of agreement between managers and teachers provide for the appointment of a referee. The Commissioners, however, have no power to compel the adoption of a form of agreement which contains that provision.

  Athenry Outrage.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of 4th September last, six shots were fired into the house of a man named Farrington, near Athenry, County Galway; and what arrests have been made in connection with the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: Several shots were fired into this man's house on the night
  294
  of 4th September. The police have been unable to discover the offenders.

  Ballinderreen Outrage.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 14th September last, at about 8 p.m., eight shots were fired into the house of a man named Faley, on the Tyrone estate, near Ballinderreen, County Galway; whether any arrests have been made in the matter; and what steps are being taken to prevent the repetition of outrages of this nature.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police have reported the offence referred to. No arrests have been made. The police are affording protection in the case, with the object of guarding against a repetition of the offence.

  Untenanted Grass Lands.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a large proportion of the untenanted grass land which has been parcelled out to new tenants in Galway and other counties in Ireland has been already sub-let by the new owners as grass farms; and whether, in view of the declared intention of the Government to turn these grass lands into tillage farms, they propose to take any further steps in this direction.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no information to the effect stated in the first part of the Question, and the Estates Commissioners inform me that they also have no knowledge that the fact is as stated. I am not aware that the Government have declared their intention to turn grass farms into tillage farms.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it not the fact that people have sub-let these farms at rents representing three or four times as much as they are paying the Estates Commissioners?
  MR. BIRRELL: There is a legal question involved in regard to these tenancies, and it is not for me to express an opinion.

  Irish School Teachers' Insurance.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that managers of National Schools in Ireland have to pay out of their own resources premiums upon the insurance of teachers under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and whether, having regard to the fact that the salaries of the teachers are paid out of State funds, he will endeavour to induce the Treasury to provide funds for the insurance of the teachers against accident.
  MR. BIRRELL: I can only refer the hon. Member to the answers repeatedly given by the Secretary to the Treasury to Questions on this subject. I would refer in particular to the answer of 27th June, 1907.

  Anketel Grove Estate, Monaghan.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the partitioning of the Anketel Grove demesne estate, in County Monaghan, by the Estates Commissioners, injustice has been done to a number of Protestants, who, according to the rules usually followed by the Commissioners, ought to have received portions of the property; whether he is aware that on the preliminary list prepared by the Commissioners' inspector there were eighteen Protestants and seventeen Roman Catholics, and that although the Roman Catholics were allocated more than two-thirds of the estate, the list was subsequently altered, and the estate finally divided amongst thirty Roman Catholics and fourteen Protestants; and will he say who was responsible for this change, and on what grounds it was made.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have referred this Question, to the Estates Commissioners, who strongly deprecate the suggestion contained in it. In allotting lands the Commissioners do not make any inquiry as to the religion of the applicants, nor do they in any way take such matters into consideration.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Then how does the right hon. Gentleman account
  296
  for the extraordinary fact that the preliminary list contained the names of eighteen Protestants and seventeen Roman Catholics, while in the final list there are thirty Catholics and only eighteen Protestants?
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners make no inquiry whether a man is a Catholic or a Protestant.
  MR. DILLON: Are not two of the Estates Commissioners Protestants and only one a Catholic?
  MR. BIRRELL: I believe that is the case, but I always deprecate making inquiries.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 12:
  MR. ASHLEY, in moving the omission of subsection (1), said he had not up to now intervened in these debates, because there were many hon. Members far better acquainted with the details of these intricate questions of time-limits, reduction periods, and other terms which conveyed little meaning to the uninstructed mind, but he must say that when he read subsection (1) of Clause 12, it seemed to him that it was a section against which anyone knowing nothing about the question could venture to raise his voice in protest, because a more undemocratic, a more autocratic, clause had never been introduced into any Bill in that House. If hon. Members opposite would look at Clause 14 they would see that His Majesty was authorised to appoint a Licensing Commission consisting of a chairman and two other Commissioners. Clause 12, which they were now discussing, said that all sums payable in respect of compensation under the Act as a consequence of reduction—
  "Shall be paid by the Licensing Commission, and in order to meet those payments the Licensing Commission shall impose in each year of the reduction period, equally throughout England and Wales, in respect of the renewal of all old

  297
  on-licences, charges at such rates (graduated in the same proportion as the rates shown in the scale of charges set out in the second Schedule to this Act) as may be necessary for the purposes."
  He would draw the attention of the Committee to that extraordinary provision. It said they might charge at such rates, graduated in the same proportion as the rates in the schedule, as might be necessary. It did not say they must charge as allowed in the Schedule, but only in proportion to the Schedule, and therefore, if he read the clause aright, they were asked by the Government to part with the one power which he always imagined the House of Commons most jealously guarded, namely, the power to regulate the levying of taxes and of rates in this country. Every year they voted a tax of so much per pound on tea and on sugar; every year they said that the income-tax should be so much in the £; but they were asked here to say that the Licensing Commission, a Commission appointed nominally by the Crown but of course in practice by the Government of nineteen or twenty men, should be allowed to tax the licensing trade as high as ever they liked for the purpose of reducing licences, as long as they kept to the proportion laid down in the second schedule of the Act. It seemed to him that that was an absolutely unheard of proposal and one which the Committee ought to hesitate over before allowing it to pass into law. If they carried their minds back 250 years they found that that was the very thing which the Parliament of King Charles I. wrested from the Crown, i.e., the power of levying taxes without the sanction of Parliament, and yet the Government now said: "Trust the three Commissioners so much as to allow them to impose what taxes they like upon the licensed trade." It was not as if the Commissioners were a popularly elected body. The old school boards could make what rates they liked, but they were popularly elected; and in the same way any town council had power to levy a rate, but they were popularly elected and answerable to the electors for the rates which they levied. Even the Metropolitan Water Board, although it was a semi-popularly elected body, was limited in its power of levying a rate. There was really nothing more to be said. He should be very anxious
  298
  to hear what the Government had to say in support of the proposal, and when he had heard what they had to say he might be able to answer their statements. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 29, to leave out subsection (1)."—(Mr. Ashley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'reduction' in line 31, stand part of the clause."
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid that in the earlier stages of the Bill they discussed the authority which should have the control over the reduction of licences, and now they had got to say who should have control of the compensation fund, what should be the maximum of the levy, and how it should be raised. The Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, mis-described the compensation fund when he called it a national fund. The description gave rise to the criticism that the Bill only applied to England and Wales, and as he understood the homogeneousness of this country, under the name "nation" Ireland and Scotland were included, but they found no place in the Bill, for reasons no doubt well known to the Government. The second criticism he had to offer on the expression of the Prime Minister was that the nation were not finding the fund at all. Dust had been thrown in the eyes of the country from the first initiation of this matter until now as regards the so-called national compensation fund. The nation were not finding a penny piece. The people who were finding the money were a very small portion of the nation, only those interested in licensed premises. Therefore, let them no longer call it a national fund but call it what it was, an insurance fund paid by the trade to provide against their own extinction. What was the meaning of an insurance fund? They insured against some injury that might happen to them, such as fire, or death; they made a payment, and they presumed a benefit. But what was the method adopted by the Government in this Bill as regards the extinction of licences? They had chosen, in spite

  299
  of expostulation and protestation, to divide the whole of the country for reduction purposes into infinitesimal areas. They were not content with the large areas of the Act of 1904, the quarter sessions and large borough areas; nothing would content them but to cut up the whole country into the smallest possible areas—wards in the boroughs and parishes in the rural parts of the country. Then let the Government be consistent. Surely the same plan ought logically to be followed for compensation purposes. He would instance the City of Leeds, and take a ward in that city, which would not require to be interfered with under the reduction scheme at all, as it only had the number of licences it was entitled to have. But how was the compensation levy going to act in that ward? If no licence in that ward was going to be touched, surely the levy ought not to apply to it. Why was it to find part of the levy if not a single licence in that area was to be affected by the reduction scheme of the Bill? It received no benefit from the reduction, and therefore why should it pay? It might be said that the areas were so small that although this particular area would suffer no loss of licensed houses, it would gain in trade from some adjoining area which would lose licensed houses. That argument would come with strange force from the opposite side of the House, because the whole idea of the Bill, as he understood it, was that the reduction of licensed houses lessened the amount of drink consumed. Therefore, it did not lie with the other side to say that this particular area would benefit, because, according to them, as a licence was extinguished so was the amount of drink arising out of that licence also extinguished. If he enlarged the area the injustice would become more apparent. Under the scheme of the Government, Leeds would lose a number of licences, proceeding by areas, although, if they took the whole of Leeds, that city was entitled to more than it would get under the Bill. It was perfectly clear that the particular ward he had mentioned would not benefit. It would have to pay a compensation levy year by year at the maximum rate — and perhaps, as he would show, above the maximum rate—and yet it could receive absolutely no
  300
  benefit whatever. To put the matter even more forcibly still, why was one particular ward in Leeds, where reduction was not called for, to pay for the extinction of licences, say, in Northumberland or in Cornwall? Under the scheme, the Government did not intend to be content with the statutory reduction of 32,000 licences during the statutory period, but they had put in provisions for optional reduction and for local option in Wales. How, he asked, could a small area in Leeds be benefited by local option in Wales?
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not wish to call the hon. Member to order, but he would point out that there was an Amendment further down dealing with the word "equally," and if the whole question were discussed just now, of course the debate could not be repeated on that Amendment when they came to it.
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid that in that case perhaps it would be better if he did not discuss the matter, as he did not wish to prejudge any question which might arise hereafter and prevent hon. Members from going into details when that Amendment was reached. Therefore, he would try to apply himself to the more general discussion of the subsection, but it did seem to him most important to point out to the Committee how extraordinarily unfairly this new levy would act when it was applied to the licensing areas throughout the country. His whole understanding of an insurance fund had been that the person insuring had some chance of benefiting by the insurance.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER, referring to the point of order, said the Amendment as to the word "equally" came a very long way down in the Amendments. There was little chance of its being reached, and if the questions arising on this subsection were not discussed then they might not have an opportunity of doing them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood that the Chairman's view was that the discussion was not out of order but they could not have it twice over, and that if they were going

  301
  to discuss the matter generally, including all the questions which arose naturally and properly upon the word "equally," on the consideration of the omission of the subsection, he would not allow them to repeat the arguments when they reached the word "equally." If he were right, it would be a matter for the convenience, of the Committee whether they were to take the whole discussion, including the discussion on the word "equally," on the subsection, or whether they limited themselves to those questions which did not touch the word "equally." If that were so, he was inclined to think they ought to discuss the whole matter then.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he only mentioned it as a matter of convenience, and to make it clear that if the Committee desired to discuss that point later he did not think it should be discussed in detail then.
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid that, as far as he was concerned, without wishing in any way to weary the Committee or duplicate argument, perhaps it would be best that he should complete his argument on this point. He objected to the way in which the Government had divided the country up for reduction purposes. The Act of 1904 at any rate committed no mistake of that kind, and that statute was consistent within its own four corners. It had the Quarter Sessions area, and it provided for reduction and compensation within that area, so that if any licensed house was extinguished under the scheme, the surviving houses might be presumed somehow or other to get benefit, either a near or more remote benefit, according to the situation of the particular licensed house which was extinguished. But here under this ill - conceived and inconsistent measure they found in one part of the Bill the area of the country cut up into these small squares, like squares upon a chess-board, whereas when they came to deal with compensation it was to be from a so-called national fund. It seemed to him inconceivably unjust that a man who owned a licensed house in one part of the country, and in an area in which the number of licensed
  302
  houses was within the scale laid down by the Bill, should yet have to pay a compensation levy year after year in respect of licensed houses at the other end of the country. He had been taught from his childhood upwards that virtue was its own reward, but this was going a step further and saying that although a particular area was so virtuous as not to require the extinction of any licences, yet that area was to be mulcted and penalised in exactly the same degree as if it were a malefactor in the matter of drink. Then let them take local option in Wales. Why was his pet ward in Leeds to pay an unknown levy year after year in order to keep Wales sober? Why should it be appointed to discharge such an impossible task, and have to pay for it as well? The Government had mixed up their ideas. Where it was reduction they wanted to draw the net as close as possible and make the meshes of it as small as possible, but when they came to the compensation the net was thrown so wide that the whole licensed properties in the country had to pay for individual extinctions. As regarded the compensation fund, it had been well pointed out by the mover of the Amendment that even now, with all the patent hardships inflicted by the Bill, the trade knew nothing about the maximum of compensation. The Bill pointedly, and with malice aforethought, omitted to state the maximum. He thought the Committee would agree with him that there was no such malign intention in the Act of 1904. It was intended under that Act that the trade should know where it was, and in the schedule was found a "maximum rate of charge," but he could not find those words in this Bill—a most significant omission. If they looked here for a word of that sort, corresponding with the Act of 1904, they found nothing at all. The word "maximum" was never mentioned, and that was the difference between the two Bills, which was a malign and premeditated difference. The point became still more acute because of the unfairness of the Government in making one part of the country pay for another. That was to say, that an innocent ward, with an average number of public-houses, would not

  303
  only have to pay according to the Schedule, but might have to pay much more, and receive no benefit. That could never have been intended by the Government in their better moments, because even this Government had their good moments, though he must say their bad ones were much more numerous. But the Government could surely not have intended to give the authorities carte blanche as to the amount of levy. Great injustice might arise, because although there was a financial check provided further on in the section with regard to local option in Wales, no one could possibly tell, when once this scheme of compensation was set up, exactly what levy would be required. The Inland Revenue were going to assess the compensation. The Licensing Commission would have no more to do with the assessment than the man in the moon. What they were going to do was to fix the levy. If the Licensing Commission were ardent temperance reformers they might not be satisfied with the maximum levy. They could not directly impose anything more I than the maximum levy for local option in Wales, but they might start the levy for statutory reductions with a much higher levy than that named in the Bill and so would have a large amount in hand for purposes of Welsh local otpion. There was nothing to prevent them from doing that. The Bill said they could impose any levy they considered necessary. He would like to know under these circumstances whether there was anything to prevent the Licensing Commissioners starting in that way—imposing a high levy and utilising the surplus thereby gained for local option in Wales. If there was not, this clause was a dangerous one indeed. It was going to be a further chastisement of the licensed trade not by whips but by scorpions. It was not fair that the Committee should be left in this uncertainty with regard to the levy. They had a right to demand what was to be the maximum amount of the levy for all purposes.
  Which was the fairer of the two schemes—that of the Act of 1904, or that contained in this Bill? Under the Act of 1904 the trade itself paid the full compensation. The matter was put fairly
  304
  before the trade, who knew the burden they would have to bear, and who accepted it, because the licensed houses which were left either directly or indirectly got the benefit of the reduced competition of those who were extinguished, and there was no time-limit. What was the policy of this Bill? A short reduction period, with local option besides, and a time-limit. And when the so-called compensation scheme was put into operation it was in so flagrantly unfair a manner that those in one part of the country received compensation from those in another from whom they were not entitled to get it. He contended that this Bill was brought in simply for the sake of knocking down, one after another, the provisions of the Act of 1904. It might be magnificent, but it was not business. This clause was an unfair one from beginning to end, and therefore he should give it his most uncompromising opposition.
  THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS,)said that the points raised by the subsection were, broadly speaking, two. First of all, whether or not the fund to be raised by means of the compensation levy ought to be a national fund, and therefore administered by a central body; and secondly, what the levy ought to be. On these two general questions they must proceed on the lines adopted all through the Committee and the House, namely, that the policy of the measure, so far as it had already had the approval of the House, was that there must be a statutory reduction according to the scheme. That reduction was compulsory. The hon. Member who spoke last had again adverted to the injustice of raising a levy from a particular house for the purpose of extinguishing the licence of another house far away in some other part of the country. That was an incident which was inseparable from the Act of 1904. Any boundary they might take would raise inequalities of that kind. He had had complaints made to him over and over again in the county of Glamorgan that a new hotel in one corner of the county had to pay a large sum for compensating two or three small houses extinguished in another part of the county, without any chance

  305
  at all of benefiting itself, because its licence would not be taken away. Certainly, when they took a boundary as big as a county those inequalities constantly occurred. The hon. Member for York had said that they ought not to raise a levy from a house unless it would be benefited by the reduction directly or indirectly. It was quite conceivable that two houses in different counties were so situated that, if the licence of one was extinguished, the other would benefit, whereas in the same county they could have houses so far apart that there was no possibility of one benefiting by the extinction of another. It followed naturally from the scheme of the Government Bill that, in having a uniform compulsory reduction, the levy ought to be contributed to a national fund. What ought that levy to be? On that point important considerations would arise. The levy they had specified in the Schedule was exactly the same as was provided by the Act of 1904. It followed, however, from their having placed upon the justices the obligation to make this compulsory reduction of licences, that, if the necessity arose, there should be no difficulty in the way of their performing the statutory reduction because there were no funds in the coffers of the Licensing Commission. Therefore, in the case of the statutory reduction, the levy might be conceivably increased, though they believed there would be little possibility of a larger levy for the purpose. It was provided in the Bill that, should the necessity arise, some increase might be made to the levy for the purpose of making statutory reductions. He thought the Committee would at once come to the conclusion that, at any rate for the first four, five, six, possibly seven years, there would be no optional reduction at all. The Licensing Commission, dealing with the statutory reduction, would have their hands full, and it really was probable that until they had had the statutory reduction there would be no great necessity for an optional reduction. They would not be permitted to allow an optional reduction under this Bill unless they had the funds already at their disposal, which could only be obtained as by the Schedule which appeared in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had referred to the point that the levy would be made
  306
  all over the country. Practically speaking, there was little difference between the provisions of this Bill and what was done under the Act of 1904. Except the compensation authorities of Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Brighton, Bradford and Carmarthen, the levy was raised, to some extent, by every compensation authority throughout the kingdom. So, broadly speaking, the levy was raised all over the country. It was true that in a certain number of cases, thirteen, he believed, the levy of the licensing authorities had not come up to the maximum rate.
  MR. ASHLEYasked whether Blackpool had now to pay compensation under this Bill for licences extinguished in London.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid it followed from what he had stated that if there were houses to be extinguished Blackpool would have to pay compensation.
  MR. ASHLEYasked whether that could be so, having regard to the population of Blackpool and the number of houses there.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid he did not know what the population was, but whatever might be the amount realised by the levy all over the country it would go back only to the people who had contributed to the compensation fund. As he had pointed out, with the exception of the six cases he had mentioned, and the thirteen where a smaller amount had been raised, the levy had reached the maximum rate according to the schedule of the Act of 1904. Admitting that they were dealing with the counties, with the areas of the licensing justices, practically speaking they had the levy according to the maximum rate raised all over the country. With the few exceptions he had named, the operation of this Bill would be the same as under the Act of 1904. First of all, they provided that there should be a national fund; therefore, it followed that the national fund should go to the coffers of some body like the Licensing Commission, which would be a body, according to the Amendments the Government had on the Paper, responsible to Parliament, The Commissioners

  307
  would pay compensation out of their funds according to the schemes prepared by the justices. Having regard to what they had already decided in reference to statutory reduction, they thought that the Commissioners should have the power, if necessity should arise, to increase to whatever extent might be necessary the scale in the Schedule.
  SIR F. BANBURYasked whether that power was given to Quarter Sessions under the Act of 1904.
  SIR S. EVANSreplied that it was not given to Quarter Sessions under that Act, because there was no statutory reduction at all. It was because the justices were compelled to make a scheme of statutory reduction under the Bill that power of that kind was necessary.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid they were very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the effort which he had made to relieve their anxiety and doubts. There were still, however, some points to which he had referred, and some points to which he had not referred, on which he thought further discussion would be necessary. The hon. and learned Gentleman had begun by saying that even under the Act of 1904, or under this Bill which dealt with areas, some cases of inequality necessarily arose. Of course, nobody in the House would deny that almost self-evident proposition. In all those cases it must be a question of degree. They were dealing here with a question of degree. Take the instance of making roads in an agricultural county adjoining a county where minerals were raised. The roads of the agricultural county were used for the heavy mineral traffic from which the authorities of that county, who made the roads, derived no advantages. This, of course, was a great injustice to the ratepayers of the agricultural county. He quite agreed that, whatever branch of local government they were touching, whether it were connected with roads or asylums, or whatever it was, boundaries carried with them, and must inevitably carry with them, some tincture of the flavour of inequality. He did not ask the Government to do the impossible;
  308
  he did not ask them to avoid every case of inequality, because that would be to demand what neither they nor any Government could satisfy. But he did think that they had a right to ask them to minimise inequalities. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted the case, apparently within his own knowledge, of an hotel in the town which he represented, and which, itself in no danger of being extinguished, had been called upon to pay compensation in respect of those licences which were extinguished. He was glad to hear that the hon. and learned Gentleman took an interest in hotels, because, as he understood the Bill, it put them in a position of the greatest peril, and he had not made the smallest attempt to safeguard their position. They had passed without discussion, because there was not time for it, subsections which dealt with these hotels. No Amendment had been put on the Paper safeguarding them, and he really was amazed at the courage of the hon. and learned Gentleman when he quoted the case of hotels as though hotels had suffered under the Act of 1904, whereas under the happy and beneficial action of the legislation now proposed they were to be saved from some of the dangers to which a rash Unionist Government had exposed them. He would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at some of the Amendments which they had put down safeguarding them, and he hoped at a later stage he would consider some of the very points which he had himself raised by his illustration. Let him turn to what he admitted was a question of degree; it was not less important because it was a question of degree. If they were dealing with places like Blackpool, where, if he correctly interpreted his hon. friend's interruption, there was not more than the number of licences required, and where, therefore, there would be no statutory reduction, did not the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee see that every licence-holder in the country would have a real grievance when he was asked to contribute not to the good of his own neighbourhood, not to the improvement of the area in which he lived, not to improve the condition of the town in which he dwelt, but to

  309
  send his money to another region, perhaps not within 200 or 300 miles of where he lived, and to some other district for the purpose of abolishing superfluous licences there? In the first place, there was a very large number of cases where the owners of licences which remained had to pay compensation for the benefit of those whose licences had been extinguished. He did not say that that was universally the state of things, but it was a very common state of things. The owners of a licence in a particular county paid compensation, and the licence extinguished might be their own, while the house which benefited by the extinction of the licence might also be their own. In that case there was no feeling of hardship; on the contrary, the licences were extinguished without any great hardship to those who owned them. But these mitigating circumstances were absolutely destroyed by the method which the Government had gratuitously adopted, and now in the case of every licence-holder of whatever kind, whether he was one of those large national brewers who supplied beer to every part of the kingdom or a local brewer, whether it was a free house or one of those houses in which the licence-holder and the brewer were the same individual, the feeling of hardship created by this Bill would be inevitable and permanent. They would be compelled to subscribe for the abolition of licences in remote and unknown districts with which they had no connection whatever, and from which they could hope for no benefit. He thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman's defence, that in every system there must be some inequality and injustice, did not really meet the point. The amount of inequality and hardship was enormously and unnecessarily increased by this Bill; and, by the substitution of this paid trio sitting in London to manipulate these great funds, they had added a perfectly unnecessary element of hardship and injustice to the Bill, which, perhaps in the nature of things, must wear a harsh and unfair aspect. Who were principally affected by it? He was compelled to say on this branch of the subject that there was one obiter dictum of the hon. and learned Gentleman which they welcomed with satisfaction. The hon. and learned Gentleman said it was
  310
  admitted by the Government that the scale of compensation given under this Bill was much lower than that given by the Act of 1904. The scale under the Act of 1904 was the market value of the premises. Though he was quite unable to extract a plain answer to a plain question on that subject from the hon. and learned Gentleman yesterday, he was glad that he had been accidentally betrayed into an admission which gave away the whole case. There were only two or three points on which he wished to ask questions of members of the Government. As he understood their proposals the levy could not be increased in amount for the purpose of dealing with optional reductions. There was nothing in this Bill to prevent either the magistrates in England or the popular body in Wales from voting for a diminution of licences to any extent above the statutory limit. The only check was that they would be told by the central trio that they could not have their way, because there was not enough money to meet the compensation which would be necessary. If that was so just, let the Committee conceive the position of the licence-holders who were under condemnation in some Welsh parish, and who were waiting until their brethren in other parts of the country had been bled to the point which would allow them to be abolished. He thought it was the First Commissioner of Works who had told them that when a licence-holder was under condemnation they could no longer expect decent conduct from him. Let the Government consider what the position of these men and of the Welsh parish would be. The Welsh parish had determined that in the interests of sobriety every place within their limits where liquor was sold, except off-licences and clubs, was to be abolished. It wrote up to the central trio to inform them of the fact. They got back the answer that the central trio were very glad to find that this zeal for temperance existed, but, unfortunately, there were no funds forthcoming by which their policy could be carried out. That put everybody in a false position, and a grossly unfair and hard position. That seemed to him to be an insuperable part of the Bill. He did not see how that was to be got over, except by inflicting an even

  311
  greater hardship on the licence-holder, by giving the London trio power to increase the levy, not merely for the statutory diminution of licences, but for any eccentric and optional reduction which it might please the magistrates or the parish councils to insist upon. There was one other point on which he would like some satisfaction from the Government. As he understood the matter, it would be the business of the central trio to make an estimate of their obligations in the way of compensation. What was to happen if they made a wrong forecast? What was to happen, for instance, if they sanctioned the action of some Welsh parish, and informed them that a licence might be abolished, and then found they had inadequate funds for the purpose? If that was not provided for it was a very great mistake, because he understood the policy of the Government to be that no licence was to be optionally reduced unless there was actually money in hand with which to pay for it. He understood there was an estimate to be made of the obligations falling upon the central trio, and the money which was to meet them would be obtained under the Schedule. After all, the central trio were not likely to be better in their forecasts than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they knew Chancellors of the Exchequer were liable to great disappointments at some times and to very unexpected windfalls at others. But if it was a case of disappointment in regard to these central gentlemen in London, he did not see that there was any provision in the Act for getting over the difficulty. They could only obtain funds by an additional levy, not at present authorised upon the trade, or else by some contribution out of the central exchequer, both of which would be very inexpedient. The Government ought to provide some safeguard for this possible danger, and though it was a question of relative detail, on which the Government would be able to satisfy them later, it might be convenient to them if he were to ask whether they would explain clearly how they meant to deal with the contingency which, if not probable, was at all events possible.
  *MR. BARNARDsaid it appeared to him that there were a
  312
  great many points which would work out very harshly under the operation of this section. Under the 1904 Act in many places no levy was made at all, because it was agreed by most people that it was unnecessary, and there were many places which had altered in population so vastly that they would not come under the reduction clauses of the Bill. He quoted one alone—West Ham. If he understood it aright West Ham would not have anything approaching the number of licences that the Bill did not permit. It appeared to him extremely harsh that West Ham was for all time to be called upon to contribute towards that which, under no apparent possibility, would be required at that place. There were many little difficulties of a business character which kept asserting themselves in this Bill, and which unfortunately they did not get an opportunity of discussing. It was a very difficult position when they were to have 800 parishes in England and Wales, with under fifty inhabitants, who might be voting some one way and some another. In a large borough there would be wards. In the borough he represented with 20,500 people, it would be one vote and one vote alone. There did not appear to be any advantage in this great disparity, and he very much hoped the Government would alter their local option area. It would be a great deal better and sounder to state what was to be the maximum levy. The last Bill did that, and there was no reason why the present Bill should not do the same thing. He was very glad to hear the remark of the Leader of the Opposition when he said the Solicitor-General had admitted what they all knew, that the compensation awarded would in the future be upon a much lower scale than the present one. As far as he understood the situation, if they spoke it plainly and without trying to keep anything back, it amounted to this. The amount which under Schedule A they would be receiving would be greatly in excess of what they had been receiving before for purposes of compensation. There was no question that under this Schedule A treatment the trade would have to pay a vast amount more in rates, and a great deal more in compensation levy, and a great deal

  313
  more in licence duty. Let the Committee compare what they had been doing under the 1904 Act. They had been reducing, at a higher scale of payment, about 1,500 licences a year. They required to reduce a little over 2,000 a year under the present Bill. If that was done it was pretty clear that they would before long have a very big surplus of money, if they levied under the present scale, and paid out under the proposal of the Bill. He put it very seriously to the Government whether they could not put in the Bill a provision to settle what was to happen to any surplus, if there was any, at the finish of this transaction. Was it to go back to the people who had paid it? It was highly desirable that something should be put into the Bill to say what was to be done with any surplus, because there would be very many hands wanting to grasp it. It was also highly desirable that if such indefinite and unknown powers were given to these three individuals, they should be told exactly what was to be the control over them. Parliament he knew had control, but he had heard remarks about the Irish Land Commissioners and others, which did not give a very clear idea as to how the control was always used. According to the way he looked at it, Part II. of the Bill did not limit their control. In one or two places it said: "The Commissioners may, with the approval of the Secretary of State and with the consent of the Treasury," employ a certain number of people, and so on. If it was proper to limit them in one way, if they were to be given such powers as these, they ought to have something definite which would clearly state to whom they were amenable, and what opportunities there would be of discussing what they were doing.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that consideration arises on this clause.
  MR. BARNARDadmitted that the Chairman was perfectly right, but his troubles had been so numerous in these respects that he had to take the opportunity of saying this in the hope that the Government at a later stage, when he would not have a chance, would give him an explanation
  *MR. YOUNGERsaid that under this clause the valuation must necessarily be largely increased and the increase in the amount of the levy in consequence would throw a very serious additional burden upon licensed houses. That was the first consideration which ought to be present to the mind of the Government in dealing with this clause. They ought to give some attention to the arguments that had been used in reference to these glaring inequalities. The obvious reason for the charge was that the money was wanted to carry out an extreme, but, as he thought, unnecessary rate of reduction. The rate of reduction was to be accelerated to such an extent that the sum required every year would be very great, and in their desire to effect this reduction the Government had to constitute a national fund, and go to the extent of placing the levy upon Schedule A valuation in order to increase its amount. This, coupled with the fact that this clause gave the Licensing Commission the right to increase the levy in order to make the annual income meet the annual expenditure, placed not only an impossible burden upon the trade, but left them in a most unfair position with regard to the pecuniary liabilities that were being placed upon them. How was it possible for them to provide a sinking fund to meet the loss of all those licences at the end of twenty-one years and also to pay an unlimited levy? The Government had never attempted to find out what precisely would be the effect of their reduction scheme. They had not the ghost of a notion whether 30,000 or 40,000 licences would be taken away, and he challenged the Prime Minister to give any grounds for his estimated figure of 30,000. It would be just as well to remind the Committee what the twenty-one years time-limit meant in the way of providing a sinking fund for wiping out the £120,000,000 that was supposed to attach to these licences. That was the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, but they had not been told what portion of that sum represented the monopoly value. That remained in dark recesses of the Prime Minister's brain. Taking the annual return from

  315
  these public-houses at 8 per cent. on the capital, a very extreme figure, it would give £9,600,000, and he found that the amount required to provide a Sinking Fund to wipe out the capital value at 4 per cent. for the twenty-one years would amount to 9s. in the £ on the annual produce of the premises. Supposing they were to double the income-tax, which was 5 per cent. or 1s. in the £, would there not be a great outcry? Yet the Committee was calmly proposing to put upon those people an obligation to provide 9s. in the £ upon the annual value for this purpose alone. This clause showed that the Government exhibited the same indifference—he might almost say spitefulness—to wards the interests with which they were dealing, as had been shown in the earlier clauses of this measure. He hoped that members of the Government would realise that something ought to be done to define clearly the responsibility placed upon the trade under this particular section. As years passed the value of the licences to be compensated would be increased; the cheapest houses would go first, and no man could tell whether the levy would be anything like sufficient to meet the demands upon this fund after a few years had elapsed. In the event of the coffers overflowing after the first few years, and optional reductions, either by veto or otherwise, being decided upon, presumably the overflow not required for the purposes of the year might be utilised for paying compensation for those houses which would be reduced under the optional plan. What would be the position of the fund under those circumstances and what safeguard would there be against the trade being charged a second time in the event of the levy being insufficient in later years to meet the liability of the year? That was a question to which the Under-Secretary might address his very brilliant talents, for there was no man who could deal more clearly or lucidly with figures. He supported the omission of this subsection, (1) because it increased the present levy by changing the basis, and (2) because it left those concerned in gross ignorance of the position in which they would be placed by it.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland)said the ideal system might be the minimum of centralisation, under which compensation levy would only be collected from the people who competed amongst themselves, taking the parish, part of the parish, or even the street, or part of the street. That was a totally impracticable principle on which to act; it would involve something in the nature of a betterment charge limited to a particular neighbourhood, as was the case in municipal improvements. They could not administer funds collected and levied on that principle, and even the Act of 1904 made no such attempt. That Act did not pretend to take the neighbourhood over which the effective competition extended, but it took a county or county borough area. The compensation levy was used to buy out publicans twenty, thirty, or forty miles away, and in a completely different part of the area. Take for example, the County of London. If he was a publican trading in Kensington, and had to pay a yearly levy, he would not mind whether it was used to buy out a publican in White-chapel or in Wales.
  MR. YOUNGER: You would prefer Kensington?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he would naturally prefer a man to be bought out in his own street. In the majority of cases in the rural districts publicans had been paying levies for the past three years, and they had not been relieved of any effective competition by the Act of 1904. Therefore, it was impossible to proceed merely on the principle that they were going to pay a compensation levy in order to get rid of competition against themselves. They were going to pay a compensation levy in order to insure themselves against the loss of their licence, and that principle applied equally in this Act and the Act of 1904. The national area must be taken for the purpose of this Bill.
  MR. YOUNGER: Hear, hear.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he was glad the hon. Gentleman admitted that.
  MR. YOUNGER: You cannot help it.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that having decided by a former clause that there should be a statutory reduction in proportion to the population, this was an inevitable consequence. [OPPOSITION cheers.] Hon. Members opposite assented. Therefore, it would be inconsistent to carry this Amendment, and it must necessarily be ruled out. The reason why both sides of the House must agree on that point was obvious. If they imposed statutory duties on the justices in any particular district, they must provide them with the means of accomplishing it. If they limited the compensation fund to the amount collected in a particular area there might not be sufficient money to carry out the statutory reduction under the scheme of compensation provided for in the Bill. Granted that there must be a national fund; who was to manage it? They could not properly put a duty of this kind on one of the ordinary Government Departments for two reasons. In the first place it was only temporary work. It would continue, so far as compensation was concerned, merely for the period during which the compensation was being paid. Secondly, all the Government Departments were already fully occupied, and some of them, indeed, had more to do than they could properly overtake. If they were to put this work on the Home Office or any other Department it would be necessary to create a special staff, and it was better to create a new authority altogether. When hon. Members opposite wished to denounce this Commission in terms of withering scorn and utter contempt they said it was to be a paid trio sitting in London. What was the objection to having a paid trio sitting in London? That they should be paid was reasonable. They could not expect a body of men to perform duties of this character without reasonable salaries. It seemed to him reasonable that the number should be three. Why should they be more or less? And if they were to sit at all, London was the most convenient place. Of course the Commissioners would be men appointed on the responsibility of the Government. They would be men of integrity and ability and of a proper status, and
  318
  they would be men to whom these interests might be entrusted safely. Another objection raised by hon. Members in this discussion was that the subsection did not limit the compensation levy to the present maximum. That, he thought, was in their view a greater objection than the other to the terms of the subsection. The Government had said again and again that it was impossible to form an exact estimate of the compensation which would have to be paid during the statutory reduction. If it were possible for hon. Members in a spirit of impartiality to examine this question, they would see that it was necessarily impossible to give an exact estimate. It was true that when Parliament was discussing the Bill of 1904 hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite did give estimates, but they were very unwise in venturing upon them, for events had shown the estimates to be sadly wrong. It was impossible to give any exact estimate, first, because they could not tell how far the present assessments for income-tax were too low. That could not be told beforehand, and, therefore, they could not make any exact calculation of the amount of compensation payable in any particular case. Secondly, because it was known that the value of licences would increase as time went on and licences were taken away.
  MR. YOUNGER: Fourteen years will be the run of them.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it was difficult to make a calculation on the basis of the experience under the Act of 1904, because the value of the licences remaining would probably increase as time went on.
  MR. YOUNGER: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the fixing of a limit will not seriously alter the market value?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he did not think he had made the point quite clear. It was a question as to the class of house chosen. If the licence of some small, decrepit public-house was taken away in the first year, and if in later years the licences of houses of better standing with larger trade were taken

  319
  away, they had an element of uncertainty which made it impossible to form an exact estimate. And it was impossible to assess with any definiteness the exact sums which would be payable to licence-holders under the provisions of Clause 10, which dealt with the licensees and the compensation with respect to their loss of business, but general estimates had been formed which showed that there was no reason to anticipate the need of increasing the compensation levy.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We want the information on which you have made those estimates.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the estimates were formed in the ordinary way. They were general calculations of possibilities, and they contained many elements of uncertainty. They were not sufficiently definite to enable them to be laid on the Table of the House. The hon. Member for York, speaking the other day on the optional reduction under the Welsh clause, said there was no question whatever as to money being available for compensation for additional reduction under this Bill, and he stated that there would be an enormous surplus at the disposal of the Commission. He remembered the words distinctly, and at the time he thought they would come in useful later on.
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid that for the purpose of statutory reduction under the Bill there was nothing to prevent a levy at a rate above the maximum in the schedule. Once they had got a surplus they could use it for optional reduction.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he would deal with that subject in a moment. The hon. Member for Kidderminister who had made a great study of the Bill—not from a friendly standpoint—had estimated that there would be a considerable sum. Although the Committee had had from the Opposition many estimates and figures of a most astounding character, based on no data that could possibly be accepted for a moment, he thought the most astounding figure of all was that given by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs who said that the
  320
  Bill would involve a compensation levy of 9s. in the £.
  *MR. YOUNGERremarked that he did not say anything of the sort. What he said was that that was equivalent to the sinking fund for the wiping out of the whole of the licences in twenty-one years. He complained that on the top of this charge they were placing unknown liability of an unlimited levy.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELbegged pardon; he understood the hon. Gentleman to say that 9s. would be the compensation levy.
  *MR. YOUNGERsaid he thought that would be 2s. or 2s. 6d. per £ of income.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELregretted that he had misunderstood the hon. Member. The hon. Member for York had stated that the Commissioners might put on a levy beyond the maximum, and use the additional amount raised for the purposes of optional reduction in Wales or elsewhere. He did not know how that conclusion had been reached.
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid everything would be in the air, in nubibus. Nobody would know what money would be wanted. The Commissioners might begin by raising their levy above the maximum rate, and thereby get into their treasury a larger sum than they would require for the purpose of statutory reduction. Having got that surplus, they would be entitled, to use it for the purpose of optional reduction.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that under the Bill they would be distinctly not entitled to use it for the purposes of optional reduction. They could not suppress, in the first two or three years, all the 30,000 licences which were to go, and then use the levy afterwards for optional reduction. That was impracticable for the Bill required the reduction to be spread over the whole period. The Leader of the Opposition had said that the Commissioners might make a mistake and think that they had enough money for optional reduction, and use it for that purpose in the first two or three years, and then

  321
  have to make a levy above the maximum in order to make good the deficiency that would result. In the first years of the reduction the charge upon the compensation fund would be very much heavier than in the later years, the reason being that the number of years purchase which had to be paid for each house would be larger at the beginning and smaller at the end. There would be no question of any optional reduction in the first few years. After the first few years the Commissioners would be able to form an estimate, and in later years would be able to look round and see whether optional reductions could be permitted to take place. In the first three or four years the charges on the compensation fund would be so heavy that probably the Commissioners, so far from having money to pay for optional reductions, might have to borrow for the purpose of statutory reductions. They had borrowing powers. The point he wished to make was that those borrowing powers were only exercisable with the consent and by the co-operation of the Treasury, and the Treasury, as indeed the Commission itself, could be fully trusted to see that the terms of the statute would be fully complied with. The hon. Member for Kidderminster had raised the point that the Commissioners might have a large surplus at the end of the period, and he asked what was to become of that. The Commissioners were instructed so to arrange their levies that they would not have a surplus at the end. They might reduce their levies during the last years, so that the balance, one way or the other, would at the end be exceedingly small.
  *MR. BARNARD: I contended that the words in the clause were not quite sufficient.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that if that were so, the matter could be considered when the words came up for consideration. Those Commissioners were fully under the control of Parliament. They would be appointed by the Government on its responsibility; and the Government would be responsible to the House. In the second place, their salaries would appear on the Estimates,
  322
  and that would give Parliament an opportunity to supervise their actions. Thirdly, reports of their actions would have to be laid before Parliament annually. The Government held that the clause was not open to the criticisms passed upon it.
  SIR E. CARSONthought everybody would admit that the clause now under discussion was a very difficult clause and required careful consideration. His first objection was to setting up this Licensing Commission at all. He did not believe that the Under-Secretary would find any precedent in our law for setting up a paid Commission appointed by Government, with unlimited powers of taxation. That was what they were doing, he ventured to think, for the first time. They might say that taxation was limited by the number of houses taken away; but that was a very small limitation, because no member of the Government was able to tell them how much it was going to cost. He really thought that before the House proceeded to set up a paid Commission of whose qualifications they knew nothing very definite estimates at all events ought to have been put before the House as to how far that authority of taxation was likely to go. It was an abominable system to set up a Commission to do those duties and not to put proper directions, limitations, and terms in the Act of Parliament. He remembered very well, when the Bill of 1904 was going through the House, and they left the power of a rate, which they limited by express words, in the Bill, and gave that power to Quarter Sessions, the outcry raised against it, because they took away power from the justices of the district who were immediately in contact with the needs of the neighbourhood, was almost overwhelming. Now the great champions of democracy and of the local justices said that neither was it to be these local justices, nor was it to be the Quarter Sessions, nor was it to be Parliament, but it was to be the blessed Commission they were setting up that was to have this unlimited power of taxation. He thought that was a matter on which they on that side of the House must enter their firm

  323
  protest. He did not think any justification for the system had yet been given. They did not even know who those gentlemen were going to be. He did not suppose that any gentleman connected with the brewery companies or any allied trade would be on it. He did not think that the Government would be allowed to appoint anybody but the merest partisan for the working of this Bill. What were those Commissioners going to do? The Under-Secretary, who always spoke with great clearness, himself saw the difficulty, and he simply played about by saying their objections to the Commission were that it was to sit in London and was to be composed of three. That was not their objection at all. They objected to the inherent nature of this tribunal, against whom there was to be no appeal. If the Commissioners said: "We require so much for the year, and therefore our levy must be so much in the £ of the valuation," there was no appeal, although in the most ordinary cases of fixing taxes there was always an appeal. Even on the question of the calculation of income-tax they could take the matter up to the House of Lords. Even in the case of death duties they could appeal. Here were these Commissioners—and he would show how uncertain their authority was—who could simply say: "We, on a survey of this matter before us, require so much, and call upon this particular trade to pay it," no limit being imposed upon them by Parliament. What were the Commissioners to levy this upon? They were to levy this rate in accordance with the valuation in Schedule A of the income-tax. Yes, but they had been told that Schedule A of the income-tax was going to be entirely altered by this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] They were told so yesterday; but probably the Government had changed their mind again. They were told that Schedule A was going to be on some new basis. [An HON. MEMBER: It cannot.] They certainly understood the Prime Minister to say yesterday that in estimating the proper valuation, under Schedule A, a very large number of the matters they said ought to be taken into account in estimating the value of the houses would be taken into account. If they were going to have a valuation ad
  324
  hoc, that showed that they must have an entirely new valuation. If they were going to have a valuation under the old system, the valuation must remain where it was. And not only that; the new valuation must affect every other trade in the country. Look, then, at the position in which they found themselves. They did not know what this valuation was going to be. They had no idea of it. They were told it would be greatly increased; that was all they knew. Here again they increased the power of the Licensing Commissioners, because the Commissioners would be levying their rate upon an increase under Schedule A of the income-tax. Really, what his hon. friend behind him said was absolutely true: that no person carrying on his business at all would know where he stood. He would not have the slightest idea, in the first instance, upon what he was going to pay his insurance levy or, in the second place, what the Commissioners were likely to think in any one year was a sufficient sum to charge him. Was that a condition they should be in when the Bill left this House? He did not think a more monstrous proposal could possibly be conceived. Look again at the injustice to the owners of these houses with regard to the increase of this insurance money—for it was an insurance fund—it might be very greatly increased not only by the fact that the powers of the Licensing Commissioners were without limit, but also because the valuation was going to be increased. What was the result of that? They were going to increase a tax on the trade, and decrease the amount of insurance for which this tax was levied. Really, every line of the Bill, every way in which it was worked out, showed the determination of the Government that as far as possible, when they were going to reduce these public-houses, they should do it in the harshest possible manner and in the most unfair way towards the trade. The hon. Gentleman said that some of the difficulties would be met by borrowing. He could not see the necessity for borrowing. It might be quite right to have the power to borrow; but was it necessary? He could not believe so, because the Commissioners could exact as much as

  325
  they liked. [Cries of "No."] But where was the limit? If the hon. Gentleman would tell him where the limit was, he would agree with him. If the First Lord of the Admiralty would tell him where the limit came in, he would be satisfied. He could not find it. The words to him were perfectly clear—
  "In respect of the renewal of all old on-licences, charges at such rates … as may be necessary for the purpose"
  That was for the purpose of the necessary reductions. Where did the borrowing come in? The hon. Gentleman said that they would not require to use it so much, and they had already stopped it under the Act of 1904.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it was quite true that borrowing had been stopped by the Secretary of State, but not in order to block the operation of the Act of 1904. It was thought, in view of this Bill passing into law, it would be wrong to allow the borrowing to take place and the future compensation fund to be mortgaged.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid as to that matter the Under-Secretary took one view and they took the other. As regarded this question of borrowing, he said there was no necessity for it at all, because there was unlimited power given to the Commissioners. Then the Under-Secretary said that it really was not open to them to discuss this question of area. He said for all purposes of the Bill it was absolutely unnecessary, in consequence of Clause 1. It was always the same. When they were on Clause 1 they were told to wait until they reached Clause 12, and then when they got to Clause 12 they were told that the question was dealt with in Clause 1. It was very unfortunate they did not get an opportunity of discussing it on the first clause. Was it really necessary for the purposes of the Bill? He did not see that it was. The question was one of substance. Here was the proposition of the Government—if the publican had a house in a neighbourhood where the number of houses had already been reduced to the maximum of reduction required by the Bill, the publican in that district must pay exactly the same as a publican who
  326
  lived in a district where there was a very large number of redundant public-houses.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is the same thing now.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid it was not. Under the present system, if they had reduced the necessary number of houses in a county, which was the present division, then they stopped the tax for insurance. But under the Under-Secretary's provision, even when they were in a neighbourhood where all this had been brought about or existed, they went on with the tax. Moreover, the tax was an unlimited one, which was not an unimportant consideration under existing circumstances. The truth of the matter was, from the way they were framing this Bill, in Sussex a man who had a public-house, the only public-house which was allowed by the Bill in that place, was in exactly the same position as a man in a place crowded with public-houses. He had to go on paying year after year and also any increase necessary for the purpose of bringing the number of houses down. He did not think a man in Sussex would be satisfied when he heard that he had to go on paying in order to carry out the intentions of the Government in Yorkshire or any other place. He could not think why the existing system had been departed from, which allowed each of the districts to manage its own affairs. Certainly the magistrates in the district, or any other tribunal in the district, was, to his mind, far more satisfactory than any paid Commissioners sitting in London. But the hon. Gentleman said the whole of this system would be under the purview of Parliament. That really was of very little use. This Licensing Commission was without an appeal. Apparently any Member of the House could criticise it. But how was this House going to review the proceedings of this Licensing Commission? Supposing the Licensing Commissioners had a surplus and applied it to optional reduction, could they imagine anyone getting up in this House and tackling such a state of things? Anybody would laugh at him. It would be said at all events the Commission had the money in

  327
  hand, let them go on reducing. The control of this House over a Commission of that kind was absolutely nil. It was only a pretence. It was not any real control. If they were to have any real control at all they had to set up some system of procedure in the Bill by which the proceedings of these gentlemen would be open to those who were concerned so that they could have their interests properly safeguarded. The Under-Secretary said the Licensing Commission was going to be the great success which the Irish Land Commission had been. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not know much about Ireland. He did not think he would find in any quarter in Ireland anybody who would say very much in favour of the Irish Land Commission, which he was afraid was at present in a condition that was almost hopeless. The truth of the matter was, on a question of this kind, perhaps the most important question in the Bill—the question of setting up these financial provisions and the tribunal that was to administer the finance of the Bill—very little attention seemed to have been given it by the Government. He submitted that even now it was worth while considering whether they would not go back to the system set up by the Act of 1904, and allow the district Quarter Sessions to administer their own funds and not to set up this Licensing Commission, which, apparently, would be responsible to nobody.
  *MR. GRETTONsaid that he did not propose to follow at any length the criticisms which had been made in regard to the Commission. The powers given to this body were set out in great detail in this clause, and they need not discuss them in detail on this Amendment, but he might say that he entirely agreed with what his hon. friend said as to the system under which it was proposed to proceed, being that of a Star Chamber, which was an innovation in the constitution of this country. The Under-Secretary, in a speech of candour and a great deal of interest, had explained that this Commission was subject to the review of Parliament, that the salaries of the Commissioners would come before this House, and there was
  328
  to be a Report of their proceedings which would also be presented. Not one of these safeguards was to be found in the Bill, and there was nothing to prevent the Government, if they found themselves in a difficulty, taking the expenditure off the Votes and putting it upon the Consolidated Fund. It was said that the control was there, because the Commission was to be paid for by money supplied by Parliament, but throughout the whole of the Bill the only sum of money, in spite of the philanthropy of the Government, which could be said to involve a public charge was the salary of the Commissioners. That was philanthropy in the form of cheapness surely. The Under-Secretary tried to deal with the question of area, and he knew what he was saying when he said the minimum was best, as of course, it was. But the Government had taken a different course, and had chosen the maximum area—the whole of the kingdom. A clause which preceded this would involve a higher expenditure in Wales, and whatever might be said in favour of including the whole of England in one area for the purpose of raising this compensation fund did not apply to the inclusion of Wales. Then there was the question of the amount of levy. The argument had been put forward that the terms of the Bill were too high, but at all events, there would be a large sum towards the end of the reduction period which could be applied towards "optional" reduction of licences. There was nothing that he could see in the Bill which would prevent the Commissioners deciding to raise the levy to double the rate of the scale of the schedule, so that the whole statutory reduction might be ended in five or six years. There was nothing to prevent them doing so. The Government had not put it in their Bill.
  MR. MONTAGUpointed out that there was subsection (b) of Section 2 of Clause 6, which provided for the statutory reduction under the scheme of the licensing justices being distributed reasonably over the reduction period.
  MR ASHLEYinquired who was to judge what was reasonable.
  *MR. GRETTON: It is left absolutely to the discretion of the Licensing Commission.
  SIR S. EVANS: The licensing justices are to prepare a scheme which shall "provide for the statutory reduction being distributed reasonably over the reduction period."
  MR. ASHLEY: Who is to be the judge of the reasonableness?
  *MR. GRETTONsaid that as the Solicitor-General very well knew the word "reasonably" carried very little meaning in a statute. The Licensing Commission were the persons who would have to determine what was reasonable. The word "reasonably" in subsection (b), Clause 6, was no protection and put no limitation on the action of the Commission. If the Government did not intend this clause to be carried out in that manner it was for them to insert words that would make their intentions perfectly clear. It was characteristic of the whole way in which this Bill had been brought before the House that when pressed the Under-Secretary for the Home Department was unable to give any information as to how far the levy in the schedule would meet the requirements of statutory reduction. The Government had never been able to state, or even estimate, the number of statutory reductions they proposed to carry out. The Government had now in the Bill defined the areas of reduction for each district and there would be no difficulty, if the Government desired to treat the House fairly, in laying upon the Table a statement in which the reductions were worked out for each district according to the scale laid down in the Bill. They could very well say how many licences it was intended to extinguish. After that it would be comparatively easy to estimate the levy necessary to carry out the statutory reductions. He hoped the Solicitor-General would bear this point in mind and would find some means before the Bill reached Report by which this might be made clear.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid the Committee had not yet had this
  330
  matter clearly brought out. There had been an explanatory interruption but nothing more. The interruption was to the effect that the policy of the Government was made clear in Clause 6, subsection (b) which provided that the reduction should be distributed reasonably. But the next clause gave the licensing justices absolute power. For instance, there might be a district where the licensing justices held strong temperance opinions and they might prepare a scheme which provided for the reductions being reasonably distributed. But it might be that in their opinion the word "reasonably" meant that the greatest part of the reductions should be carried out in the first five or six years of the period. "Reasonably" and 'proportionately" were two different things. If Clause 6, subsection (b) said "proportionately over the fourteen years" no difficulty would arise. But as he read the subsection the Licensing Commission might decide not to distribute the reductions proportionately, but that the word "reasonably" meant that the licences should be reduced in the first six of the fourteen years. It might be said that it was in the interest of the community that these reductions should be made in the first half of the period. Hence the Licensing Commission could start their levy at such a figure that after the first year it would leave them with a margin which would increase every year, and in that way a very evil and unjust levy would be made on the whole of the licensing trade of the country. If the policy of the Government was a proportionate reduction the clause did not make it clear. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General would serve the interests of the Bill if he would tell the Committee whether he thought it possible that the licensing authorities, acting on their rights under this Bill, would be able to reduce three-quarters or four-fifths of the licences during the first half of the statutory period. If they could do that under Clauses 6 and 12 as they stood, then, obviously, the professed policy of the Government, which was proportionate reductions spread over a period of fourteen years, was not being carried out. Many licensing justices, like hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, no doubt desired that there should be local option as soon as possible in Wales, and they

  331
  would throw their weight and power and influence into the scale in their anxiety to secure local option as quickly as possible. That was not what the Committee was led to believe was the policy of the Bill. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman to make it quite clear in the Bill that the reduction of licences should be proportionately distributed over the whole period and not unduly effected in the first few years.
  *MR. TOULMINexpressed the opinion that the levy should be a national and not a local levy. He considered that the Licensing Commissioners should receive the whole of the money, and the distribution should be all over the country. This alteration was one of the most important parts of the Bill. He favoured a levy over the whole area, as being most just to the licence-holders of the kingdom. The licences which were reduced might be far away from some which paid the levy; but he argued that the licence-holders in the area in which no licences were to be reduced were specially fortunate, but it must be remembered that they could not object, under the present law, to further competition being imposed upon them at the discretion of the licensing magistrates. Therefore, they were not entitled to be free from a levy which was intended to get the whole of the licence-holders out of the trouble they were in at the present time from undue competition through the granting of too many licences in the past. Where there were too many licences the licence-holders were suffering from undue competition, and to confine the levy to those areas where the licence-holders were suffering from the competition would not be fair to them. But they had no ground of complaint, for the licences had been put there by the public authority in the exercise of the discretion granted to them. Licence-holders, in his opinion, had no right to claim that they should receive a direct benefit from the levy extracted from them. That was not now so. In Lancashire, for instance, compensation levies might be taken from an area where no licences were reduced and paid in another, perhaps forty miles away, where those who paid the levy could not possibly receive any benefit from
  332
  their contribution to the compensation to be paid for those houses which were to be closed. It was plain that it was very necessary that there should be some improvement of the Act of 1904, because in a very little time it would have worked most unequally over the whole kingdom. In some areas they would have been paying no compensation, and in others they would, perhaps, have to be paying for a hundred years before the licences could be reduced. He thought, therefore, that a levy spread over England and Wales was vastly to be preferred.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid that under this system of a national in preference to a local levy, a district where there were very few houses and perhaps no hotels, would have to pay heavy compensation for the London district. A district where the magistrates had done their duty and brought about a satisfactory state of things, would have to pay the same levy as a district in which there had been a great deal too much drinking. The system of levying compensation under the Act of 1904 was much more just. He could not see how the proposed appointment of Commissioners could be justified, though he knew it was a favourite plan of the Government, who had appointed Commissioners in the English Land Bill and in the Small Holders (Scotland) Bill, where the Commissioners had unlimited powers with appeal only to themselves. Under this Bill there was no appeal to anyone except the Commissioners, who were given aribitrary powers over the justices. They were referred by the hon. and learned Gentleman to Clause 6, Subsection (b) as safeguarding the situation, but he submitted, in regard to that subsection, that those best qualified to judge of the circumstances of the district, were the local justices. As had been pointed out by his hon. friend there was a very considerable difference in the circumstances of different parts of the country, yet these three Commissioners sitting in London, were to override the decision of the justices, and introduce schemes of their own, levying what charge they liked under Schedule A. The Solicitor-General said there was hardships even now in the county divisions, and gave an instance

  333
  in his own county where an hotel had to pay compensation for other licences extinguished. If there were anomalies and difficulties in the counties, in making a national levy they increased them fifty-two fold. No answer had been given to the question, repeatedly asked, whether a special arrangement was to be made under Schedule A to apply to the licensed trade, and whether Schedule A was to be altered so as to be applied to every other trade in the country; but to-day the Solicitor-General said that they had made a mistake, and that the Government did not mean to make any alteration. Under the clause, and in the circumstances under which they had to discuss this Bill, it was impossible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. They had only two members of the Government present, for instance, the Solicitor-General, and the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, who certainly was often very lucid in his answers. He had told them just now that there would be a high levy for compensation under Schedule A during the first few years of the period, and then it would be reduced. He did not see what guarantee they had that it would be reduced. It might be raised above the maximum under this scheme of reduction, and it was not likely to be lowered again. It would be kept at the high level, and then the money would undoubtedly be used for optional reduction. The Solicitor-General told them that there were safeguards against such a result, but if that were so, then that was all the more reason why it should be made definite and clear now. The Committee ought to have some light and leading on this question. They had received no answer except a reference to future provisions of the Bill, and to this "triumvirate of tyranny." It was said that the Comissioners were to be under the control of Parliament, but all he could say was that they were going to have good salaries, and Parliament would have no control over them. The avowed object of supporters of the Bill such as the hon. Member for Appleby, was to reduce the number of public-houses by as many as possible. The hon. Member for the Appleby division had himself said that what he cared about was temperance, and not financial considerations. Such advocates of temperance were prepared
  334
  to smash everything in a public-house which contained a drop of drink, and then to rob the till, and the Amendment of his hon. friend was to prevent the till's being robbed. The advocates of temperance were not confined to the other side of the House, while the advocates of justice were entirely confined to the Opposition, so far as he could see. Temperance he had heard mentioned during this autumn session, but never justice.
  MR. ASHLEY said hon. Members of the Opposition had pointed out that there was absolutely no limit to the power of imposing a levy which was given to the Commissioners, and though Members on the Government Benches had given rather vague answers that there were some means of imposing a limit, they had not condescended to point out in what section that limitation appeared. He thought the Committee would get no enlightenment on this point until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, who was really in charge of the Bill, condescended to come to the House and inform them as to what were the provisions of the Bill relating to this point. He objected most strongly to this clause, because it enabled the Commissioners to tax a particular class of people absolutely at their own sweet will, and the House of Commons had parted with the most valuable power it possessed, the power of taxation, which it always so jealously guarded. From what he had heard that afternoon, Blackpool, which was in his constituency, would be put in a worse position by this Bill. In its present circumstances, Blackpool would need no levy for reduction purposes, the number of licensed premises in the town being 100, while the population was 60,000. Blackpool, not having above the statutory number of houses it was thought right and proper to have, would be called upon to pay for every town and district in the country. He considered it to be a case of the greatest injustice that a town which had not too many public-houses, and which, under subsection (3) was entitled to more licences because of the large number of visitors it had in the season, under this Bill was going to be penalised simply

  335
  because this levy was to be made over the whole kingdom, instead of, as in fairness it should be, over the smaller districts of the county. He protested on behalf of his constituents against this great injustice being done.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could cite even a harder case than that mentioned by his hon. friend, and it was one which arose in his own constituency. The hon. Member for Bury said that, in his opinion, the district which had already reduced its licences, or did not possess a number above the statutory limit, had no special claim to be exempt from the levy, and that it must be regarded as a favoured district. He gathered that the hon. Member's view was that it should rather be more heavily taxed for its virtue than relieved from the charge. He protested against that doctrine—a doctrine embodied in the Bill—on behalf of the city of Birmingham. He confidently invited sympathy from those who had been most interested in temperance reform and the reduction, of licences, on behalf of that great city. What had happened? Before Parliament had taken steps to reduce the number of licences, the Birmingham magistrates had set to work to secure a reduction in that city. They entered into negotiations with the brewers—and let him say in passing on behalf of the tied-house system, that their procedure was only rendered possible because most of the houses in Birmingham were tied. The negotiations with the brewers resulted in a voluntary surrender by them of a number of licences fixed by the magistrates. Before Parliament had levied any compensation for a national reduction, the licensed trade in Birmingham, at the instigation of the magistrates, made a compensation levy among themselves and bought out the houses, the surrender of which was required. They were to have no credit for that work voluntarily done, by which they anticipated the intentions of Parliament and carried out three or four years in advance what Parliament only began to enact in 1904. In addition to having to pay for the suppression of so many licences in their own town, they were now to have an extra levy made upon
  336
  them in order to extinguish licences in other places in which they had no interest, and from whose extinction they could reap no possible benefit. At the time this was going on temperance Members had no words of praise too high for the action of the magistrates and the trade in Birmingham, and were pressing on magistrates in other places to take a similar course, and he invited their sympathy for that city. They were doing bad work for temperance reform if they discouraged those who acted in advance of Parliamentary precedent and penalised them for so doing. Two arguments had been advanced from the front bench on behalf of the national rather than the local levy and application of the compensation. One consisted in saying it was a national Bill, and, therefore, the levy must be national. But the one thing did not follow from the other. They had no necessary connection whatever. They might have a scheme of compulsory statutory reduction throughout the whole country, but it did not follow that that reduction was to be paid for equally throughout the whole country without any regard to the circumstances of the locality or to the extent to which the compulsory scheme affected particular localities. That really was not an argument, but one of those excuses which Ministers sometimes used when they were very hard put to it to find an argument at all. The only argument really was that used by the Under-Secretary, that they must have a national levy because otherwise the funds might be insufficient for the statutory reduction. Why? They took power to raise the scale of charges for the compensation levy, but that could be done locally just as well as nationally. They could say that the levy on Birmingham should be whatever was required to reduce Birmingham to their limit. It was absolutely unnecessary that because they wished to have a single statutory scale, according to the population, throughout the country, therefore, in order to find funds for it the whole country should be made equally liable though the amount of reduction going on in different places was totally unequal. They ought to have some serious reason before so great and so inequitable a change was made.

  337
  The Solicitor-General had assured them there was no probability that the Commissioners would raise the levy beyond the scale in the schedule of the Act, because such a scale would give them funds adequate for the reduction of the licences. He asked the Under-Secretary to give them the estimates on which the Government based their assurance, and the hon. Gentleman told them the estimates were not fit for presentation to the House. Then what was the value of the assurance? The estimates, he imagined, were so speculative, and so little-based upon any facts known to the Government, that they dared not lay them on the Table; they were not therefore fit to be the basis of their action, and they were entitled to say that what they were conferring on this Commission was a power of taxation which was unlimited, and for that there was no precedent. It was said that that power could be adequately controlled by the fact that the salaries of the Commissioners were to appear upon the Votes. How did they know they would ever be allowed to discuss those Votes? It might be inconvenient to put the salaries down. How, even if they reached the salaries, could they without any information or power to make accurate calculations, such as the Government refused to give, say whether their proposals were reasonable or not, whether they were acting bona fide or not, whether they were making errors or not? To offer them the discussion on the Estimates as a check upon the action of the Commission in this respect was indeed to invite them to lean upon, a broken reed. The management of the Bill was so peculiar that it placed the Committee in the very greatest difficulty. The Government seemed to be constructed on the same principles as certain boards of directors which refused to have a chairman, but where each member of the board took the chair in turn, with the result that no member had special responsibility, and as a general rule the business was not well looked after. They were always having snippets of information from a Minister who walked in and walked out again, and washed his hands of the future proceedings, and was ignorant of what took place before he entered the
  338
  House and after he left it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had made a statement, which was flatly contradicted by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who happened to be taking an interest in the Bill. Something had been said to the effect that the Commissioners would not exercise an unlimited right of taxation because they had powers to borrow, and that if the charge levied in a particular year was not sufficient they would meet the emergency by borrowing. His right hon. friend said there was nothing in the Bill to force them to borrow under such circumstances. That statement was flatly contradicted. His right hon. friend challenged the First Lord to point to the words of the statute which justified his contradiction. The First Lord retired under the Gallery and consulted the advisers of the Government, and then retired still further, and they had seen no more of him. Right hon. Gentlemen should either bring in the First Lord again, or else themselves take up the challenge and justify the First Lord's contradiction. It was dangerous to give an opinion on a Bill when, one was liable to be told he had not read it. He had read it, suffering under the disability that he was a layman, but he could find nothing to justify the allegation of the First Lord of the Admiralty. All he found in Section 6 was that the scheme must provide for the statutory reduction being distributed reasonably over the reduction period. Who decided what was reasonable? Not the licensing justices. They prepared a scheme, but if the Commissioners did not like it they ordered the justices to alter it, and if they did not like it then they ordered them to alter it again, and even if they sanctioned it they might still return to the matter and again compel an alteration. It was always these Commissioners who had these very arbitrary powers conferred upon them. But spreading the number reasonably over the period was by no means the same thing as spreading the expense over the period. The Under-Secretary had told them that the expense would not be equally spread. On the contrary, the argument was that the expense of the reductions in the early years would be so gigantic that the Commissioners

  339
  in those years would use every penny they were entitled to raise under the Schedule, and would not have the possibility of sanctioning any optional reduction in excess of the statutory limit. That might be true, but in that case it quite clearly showed that there was no obligation upon the Commissioners to distribute the expense equally over the period, and that they might raise, if they liked, very high charges indeed in the first year to meet the case of expensive houses, amounting to any sum they thought requisite for the purpose. Having pursued that course in a certain number of the early years, they might then have reduced a sufficient number of the expensive houses, and having charged more than the Schedule in the first year they were able within the Schedule to pay for optional reduction. That was the case presented to them by the Under-Secretary. He did not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman took it that the expense was going to be so heavy in the first years, unless it was in his mind that the Commissioners or the licensing justices were going so to arrange their scheme that the charge should be raised in those years with a view to giving them money for optional reduction in the later years.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: The houses suppressed in the first years have a larger number of years purchase, whilst those suppressed later have a diminishing number.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that threw a flood of light upon what the working of this Bill would be. The Government had devised a scheme to inflict the maximum penalty and give the least compensation to the trade with which they were dealing. Their idea was to deal first with the cheap houses which were the worst, and they would receive the maximum compensation. The best houses would be left in existence; they were the most valuable, and would have to pay the higher levy, and when their turn came round they would receive the least compensation. The lines appeared to be: "Pay as little as you can, and get as much as you can; inflict the maximum of injury, and give the minimum
  340
  of relief." It was true that they had to pay more in the early years, because they had to give a greater number of years purchase. As that process went on, the individual houses would become more valuable in later years, but whatever they gained by the fact that they had fewer years to compensate for they might lose by having to compensate houses of much greater value. The Government really did not know what was going to happen. They gave reasons of the most speculative character, and refused to place their estimates on the Table of the House. He protested against dealing with great trade interests and great national questions by individuals, instead of by the vote of Parliament, in such a slipshod manner. He respectfully asked the Government to give a reply to the questions which the Opposition had put to them.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid a large part of the criticism which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire had been offered earlier in the evening by the Member for the University of Dublin. It was not accurate to say that the powers of the Commissioners would be unlimited in the matter of making the levy, for three reasons. In the first place, their power was limited by the Schedule in the Bill. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] That was so, because they had to deal with the statutory reduction. The only power which the Commissioners had of increasing the levy at all was in respect of licences which would be extinguished by the statutory reduction. Therefore, the first limit was that of the statutory reduction contained in the Schedule of the Bill. The second limit was that they had the scheme of the justices; and the third was the discretion of the Licensing Commission themselves, and that would be controlled by Parliament. He believed that the justices, in the first place, and the Licensing Commission sitting subsequently as a Court of reference or appeal, would do their duty honestly and fairly. It had been suggested that the licensing justices might recommend a wholesale reduction during the first four or five years, and that it would be necessary in consequence of the licensing justices' scheme largely to increase the levy. But

  341
  that was not what the justices were directed to do by the Act, and that was not what the Commission would take into consideration when they came to revise the schemes of the justices. He would like to refer hon. Members to the section which imposed this duty upon the justices, which laid down that in any scheme they were to provide for the statutory reduction being distributed reasonably over the reduction period. Could anybody contend that a scheme which would reduce the whole number of licences which ought to be suppressed over the period in the first four or five years would be a reasonable one? It had also been suggested that whatever the justices might do there was always the overriding and absolute power vested in the Commissioners. There was nothing of the kind. If the hon. Member would refer to the words dealing with the powers of the Commissioners he would see that in Clause 6, subsection (4) it was provided that—
  "Every scheme prepared and every revision of a scheme made by licensing justices under this section shall be submitted as soon as practicable to the Licensing Commission for their approval, and that Commission shall consider the scheme or revision, and may, after consultation with the licensing justices, make such alterations (if any) therein as they consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of properly carrying into effect this Act."
  Properly to carry this Act into effect meant to carry the reduction of licences over the reduction period. The members of the Licensing Commission would be people of status, and they could be trusted to do their work faithfully and honestly. The right hon. Member for Dublin University had said that the provision putting the actions of the Commissioners under the review of Parliament was a mere pretence and the effect would be nil. As the Bill was first framed, the remuneration of the Licensing Commissioners would come out of the compensation levy fund, but the Government had altered that, and the work of the Commission would come under the review of Parliament. Having done that, now they were told that it was a mere pretence and the effect would be nil. There were ample opportunities in this House of putting questions with regard to the conduct of anybody. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for
  342
  East Worcester had omitted to give due importance to the 8th subsection of Section 14, which provided that—
  "The Commission shall, in every year, cause a Report to be prepared and submitted to the Secretary of State of their proceedings under this Act during the preceding year, and the Secretary of State shall cause the Report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament."
  The situation was that, first of all, they had got a body of justices who were directed by Parliament to perform their duties in a certain way, and he assumed that they would perform them properly. Then there was the Licensing Commission, and the various precautions they had taken. The Commissioners must report to Parliament, and their salaries and remuneration would be subject to the vote of Parliament, and therefore there was the fullest possible power for Parliament to review the conduct of the Commissioners. It had been said that Schedule A was going to be altered, but he protested against anything of that kind being said. That Schedule was passed fifty years ago, and it was idle to say that they were going to alter it now. The hon. Member for Gravesend said the Licensing Commission had power to raise the levy in order to make a compulsory sweep during the first four years. It had been suggested that provision should be made for the magistrates making the reduction "proportionately" instead of "reasonably." Although there was not much difference in practice between the two words, if they used the word "proportionately" in the sense the hon. Member referred to, they would make it absolutely necessary for the justices to reduce one-fourteenth of the licences every year, dividing them into equal compartments. That was quite impracticable, and, therefore, they had used the word "reasonable." The hon. Member for Blackpool had referred to his own division. He was not sure that the borough of Blackpool would not suffer a reduction of licences under this scheme. According to the last Return, on-licences in the borough of Blackpool were put down at 101. With reference to Birmingham, everybody recognised the good work which had been done by the local licensing justices, but they were advised that Birmingham would suffer a reduction in licences under the

  343
  scheme of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that, because a certain number of licences had been taken away in Birmingham, it was unfair to place a further burden on existing licences there for the extinction of licences elsewhere. He would point out that the compensation levy was a burden which was placed on licensed premises by the Act of 1904, and he thought it had been everybody's experience that it was a burden which could very well be borne by those on whom it was put. Presumably, if any houses had been shut up in Birmingham, there had, to some extent, been an increased trade in the others. He used his words very carefully; otherwise he would be told that a reduction of licences did not mean a reduction of drinking. Therefore, they were better able now to bear the levy for compensation than formerly. Was it unfair, in those circumstances, to say that Birmingham must come into the general scheme and contribute towards this national fund? With regard to borrowing, the provisions of the Bill were a copy of the provisions of the Act of 1904 as they applied to quarter sessions.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not dispute that quarter sessions could borrow. What the First Lord of the Admiralty said was that they would be compelled to borrow rather than raise the charges above the Schedule scale, and that that, as they understood the right hon. Gentleman, was in the Bill. They wanted to know where it was in the Bill.
  SIR S. EVANSsuggested that the misunderstanding had arisen through the use, or the supposed use, of the word compel. There was nothing in the Bill to compel them to borrow. They would know that the normal rate levied was that which was put in the Schedule. It was only because there might possibly arise a case where, by reason of the directions as to the statutory reduction, they might have to go slightly beyond that levy that they had put this power in. He thought the fears which had been expressed were fears which were raised in debate, which ever side in politics happened to be in opposition. He confessed that a great deal of the criticisms which were made when the Act of 1904 was passing
  344
  the House from those benches, perhaps some of them coming from his own lips, had been falsified by the working of the Act. And he ventured to prophesy that many of the theoretical grievances, and many of the supposed inequalities and injustices and unfairnesses, which were proper things to bring forward as matters of debate, would be found to have not the slightest foundation in fact when the Act was actually in operation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the Solicitor-General would feel that there was one point with which he had not thoroughly dealt. Let them grant, for the sake of argument, that these people were going to act reasonably—that the magistrates who were going to frame the schemes would act reasonably, and that the Opposition of the day, whoever might be in Opposition, would have full opportunity of criticising the action of the Commissioners and the magistrates. They were at present endeavouring to get a definition of what was reasonable, and that the Government had never attempted to tell them. It all turned on the rapidity with which the magistrates and the Commissioners agreed to abolish licences. The Government had refused to put in any words indicating that the reduction of licence; was to be proportionate and evenly distributed over the fourteen years. They said that was impracticable. It might be, but he did not see himself why it was not practicable, unless the Government thought that a very rapid reduction in the first year, or the first two or three years was reasonable—a reduction far beyond the amount that would be reduced if they had an even reduction over the whole of the fourteen years. Why was it not reasonable? Why should not the Commissioners and the magistrates think it reasonable? It was not accusing the Commissioners of corruption. It was not suggested that the magistrates were men of evil mind if they said: "The Government of the day have laid it down that the number of licences in a particular district shall be such and such a number per 1,000 of the population. Let us not hesitate to make that reduction according to the principles laid down, by Parliament in one, two,

  345
  or three years. That is reasonable." He thought he heard an hon. Gentleman opposite say it was reasonable.
  SIR S. EVANS: Reasonable over the reduction period.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Government did not mean by "reasonable" proportionate. They did not mean an even curve. It was perfectly consistent with the teetotallers' view that nothing should be left to the end of the period. In fact, was he not right in saying that it was only consistent with the teetotallers' theory of reduction that the bulk of the reduction should take place in the early years, leaving a small number to the end? [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Could anybody say that was unreasonable according to the teetotallers' point of view? Certainly if he were a teetotaller he should say it was reasonable, and he should base himself on the Government view. It must be the teetotal view.
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid that from the temperance point of view it was exceedingly important that the reduction should be gradual over the whole period. The indirect influence of the reduction process on the surviving license-holders was at least as important as the amount of reduction to which they were limited in the fourteen years. From that point of view they thought that the Government was absolutely right to distribute it equally, and not to get the reduction immediately.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had listened with a mixture of gratification and surprise to the interruption of the hon. Gentleman. He thought the hon. Gentleman belonged to a party which desired at one time local option to stop every licence in the trade. Had the hon. Gentleman abandoned the Bill of 1895? Had he any right to speak for his teetotal friends? Was there any other prohibitionist in the House who would get up and say that he attached this magic value to the fourteen years? He thought the hon. Member would see that, whatever his own personal view might be, the only consistent view for the prohibitionists to take up was that they
  346
  ought to approach the amount of abolition as permitted by the Bill as quickly as they could. That was the reasonable rate of reduction at which they ought to aim. That was the view which he should hold in their position, and as there were no words in the Bill defining the word "reasonable," and as the Government refused to say whether it was to be proportionate, he ventured to say that it was quite open, more than open, both to the magistrates and the Commissioners, to make, without anybody being entitled to call their action or motives in question, this immense reduction in the early period. Well, how were they going to make it? He understood the First Lord of the Admiralty most distinctly to hold that any large expenditure in the early years for the reduction of licences would be met by borrowing. There was nothing whatever in the Bill, supposing the policy adopted to be that of greater reduction in the early years, to suggest that that should be met by borrowing rather than by the adoption of a scale of levy far in excess of the scale in the Schedule. The result would be that in the early years they would greatly exceed the Schedule rate of levy. By exceeding the Schedule rate of levy they got a great deal of money out of the trade which they used for the rapid reduction of licences, and then, having made this near approach to the total amount of reduction per thousand contemplated by the Bill, they would evidently have an immense amount over to deal with optional reduction. If that course was pursued the result would be that the obvious intention of the Government would be defeated. That intention, as he understood it, was that they might exceed the Schedule rate in order to make the statutory reduction, but not in order to make the optional reduction. That policy would be completely defeated if the magistrates and the Commission carried out a course permitted by the Bill and undoubtedly suggested by the whole theory that temperance and reduction of licences went hand in hand—a theory rendered plausible by the fact that the Government were anxious to make the reduction of so many per thousand as quickly as they could. And with absolutely no limitations in the

  347
  Bill which the Government could point out to them it seemed perfectly evident that what they admitted to be an injustice—namely, an addition to the Schedule levy in order to deal with the optional licences, was not only a possible danger, but one that was extremely likely to occur. He had limited himself to a single point, and he ventured to say that so far no attempt had been made from the Treasury Bench to deal with that particular matter.
  *MR. TOMKINSONwished to say a few words on a subject on which the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire had dwelt at some length, viz., with regard to the inequalities which he said would be certain to result from the change of area for the compensation levy. But such inequalities and injustice—if any—already existed, especially in the case of large counties like Lancashire and Yorkshire, or even Cheshire, which, under the Act of 1904, formed one area for the compensation levy. The whole circumstances and conditions and manner of life varied in different parts of the county. In one part the licences were not numerous, either because they had never been granted, or because they had been already reduced, and yet they were taxed for the levy the same as other parts of the county. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt very forcibly upon the supposed injustice which would be involved in towns like Birmingham, where already a large number of houses had been reduced; but that reduction had been going on in many other places, like Liverpool, where the brewery companies who owned most of the houses made a voluntary agreement to give up some, probably the worst, of their houses. He would remind the Committee of a very remarkable fact in connection with the county of Hampshire. A committee of Quarter Sessions there, which was appointed to inquire into the matter, reported that in the town of Bournemouth, with a population of 70,000, there was only one licence to every 1,400 inhabitants, whereas in the county town of Winchester there was a licensed house for every 140 inhabitants, or ten times as many houses per ratio of population
  348
  as in Bournemouth. The magistrates were so much struck by that state of affairs that they said to the brewery companies who owned the houses in the city of Winchester that they must have a large reduction of the houses, and they called upon the companies to submit to the committee of Quarter Sessions a scheme of voluntary reduction, intimating that if that were not done the magistrates would proceed to reduce the number of houses themselves. The result was that the brewery companies came before the justices at the next sessions, and voluntarily offered to surrender fifty out of 100 licences without any compensation. That, however, was before the Act of 1904. After that Bill was introduced into Parliament, the licence-holders of another borough, who had previously made a similar offer to that of the brewery companies in Winchester, said: No, they would not surrender any licences without being compensated. His argument was that the compensating advantage for the surrender or extinction of some licences was that the rest were very much enhanced in value.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was getting very wide of the Amendment.
  *MR. TOMKINSONsaid he would conclude by stating that he did not think that to change the area of levy and to make a national instead of a county levy would entail any hardship or injustice whatever.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he wished to reply to one or two points raised by the Solicitor-General and the Under-Secretary, especially with regard to how this clause would affect the large county boroughs. The Solicitor - General had said that under the Act of 1904 those licence-holders who were left after the reduction did not benefit by the reduction; but he was entirely mistaken. Most of the houses in the large county boroughs were owned by local brewery companies, and when the extinction took place of one or more of the houses belonging to these companies the others belonging to the same company benefited because they

  349
  got extra trade. That was the case also in small county areas. And why were the owners willing to pay the compensation levy? For three reasons. First, because they got some benefit by the extinction going on; secondly, because if the licences were taken away they got the market value which the Government under this Bill were not going to pay them; and, thirdly, because there was no time-limit. Under this Bill they were to be called upon to pay the maximum levy during the whole of the time-limit, and when the time was expired the licence was to be taken away unless they paid the monopoly value. These were the three reasons why on the whole the brewers were satisfied with the arrangement made by the Act of 1904. But by this Bill the Licensing Commission were to take away entirely the local powers that were given to the large county boroughs. It had been the policy of Parliament of late years to extend as far as possible the powers of the county boroughs, but this Bill would take away almost entirely the powers of the local justices and only leave to them the invidious duty of saying what licences were to be suppressed. They knew the character of the three gentlemen who had been appointed by this Government on the Licensing Commission. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, he had an Amendment on the Paper—and he hoped the Government
  would adopt it—that one of these Gentlemen should be a lawyer. [Cries of "Order."] He would not pursue that subject because he would be called to order. But he was pointing out that under this Bill they were going contrary to the practice of Parliament, which had entrusted powers to the local justices of those boroughs and districts—the very men who knew the local circumstances, and what licences ought to be suppressed—and proposing to place that power in the hands of the Commissioners in London. That was certainly a grievance, and on behalf of those areas where a proper reduction of licences had already taken place, and where the owners had fulfilled their conditions, he protested against it. It was natural enough that those people who were willing to pay their own debt should protest against being called upon to pay the debt of other people all over England, as they would be under this Bill. It was not justice. The Government must on consideration come to the conclusion that their plan was not a just one in this respect, and for these reasons he had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 242: Noes, 95. (Division List No. 296.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brigg, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bright, J. A.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Alden, Percy

  Brooke, Stopford

  Duckworth, James

  Armitage, R.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cameron, Robert

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Barker, John

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Erskine, David C.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Essex, R. W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Clough, William

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Bell, Richard

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fenwick, Charles

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

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

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Bennett, E. N.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Crooks, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crosfield, A. H.

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

  Brace, William

  Crossley, William J.

  Glover, Thomas

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Seddon, J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Shackleton, David James

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Callum, John M.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hall, Frederick

  Maddison, Frederick

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Harcourt, RtHn. L. (Rossendale

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Snowden, P.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

  Massie, J.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Steadman, W. C.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Middlebrook, William

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mond, A.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Summerbell, T.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morse, L. L.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

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

  Nicholls, George

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Tomkinson, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Toulmin, George

  Hodge, John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nuttall, Harry

  Verney, F. W.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Grady, J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Partington, Oswald

  Walton, Joseph

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Waring, Walter

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Perks, Sir Robert William

  Wason, Rt. Hn E. (Clackmannan

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Radford, G. H.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rees, J. D.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson, E.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Kckewich, Sir George

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kelley, George D.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

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

  Lambert, George

  Robinson, S.

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Winfrey, R.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'h

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Elibank.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Collings, Rt. HnJ. (Birmingh'm

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Balfour, RtHn.A.J. (City Lond.)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Baring, Capt. Hn.G. (Winchester

  Cave, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fletcher, J. S.

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Forster, Henry William

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West

  352

  353

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Gretton, John

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Stanier, Beville

  Haddock, George B.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Starkey, John R.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hills, J. W.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-Lanark)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Valentia, Viscount

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Percy, Earl

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Keswick, William

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Young, Samuel

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Renwick, George

  Younger, George

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Ashley and Mr. George

  Lonsdale, Walter Brownlee

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Faber.

  MR. CAVEmoved to insert after the word "optional," the words "or further." He put down the Amendment, he said, following the policy of endeavouring to find out exactly what the Bill meant. He had not yet been able to find out what provision was made for the payment of compensation to Welsh houses, which were reduced under the Welsh veto clause. Clause 12 provided for compensation for statutory reductions, and then for optional reductions, but it did not in terms provide for payment of compensation to houses which were reduced under Clause 9. At first sight, he thought the answer was to be found in Clause 9 itself, which provided that the licensing justices should prepare a scheme for carrying into effect the further reductions directed by the local option resolution, and the provisions of the Act as to schemes of statutory reduction should apply, but he could not think that that meant that all the provisions which applied to statutory reductions also applied to further reductions; because, if that were so, it would be plainly possible for the Licensing Commission to proceed to the consideration of any number of Welsh public-houses in any year, and to raise the levy without limit for the succeeding years. He thought there had been some omission in the clause, and for the purpose of finding out the intentions of the promoters of the Bill he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 31, after the word 'optional,' to insert the words 'or further.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR S. EVANSthought the Amendment was a drafting one, and if pressed very hard, he did not mind accepting it, although he thought the clause was much better without it. There were two kinds of reduction, and only two. The first was statutory, and the next optional. When a reduction was made, if ever it were made, under Clause 9, it would become statutory. Subsection (1) of Clause 9 answered the observation of the hon. Member with reference to what the provisions were regarding further reductions of the Welsh houses. Statutory reductions, with regard to everything except finance, included "further" reduction, so that the object of the Amendment was met.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked if there was not a question of policy beyond that of mere drafting. Statutory reduction was to be paid for by levy of any a mount. He always understood that statutory reduction was limited to the proportion of so many licences per 1,000 inhabitants, beyond which it could not be extended. Now he understood that in Wales they might go to any extent beyond that proportion of so many licences per 1,000 inhabitants, and they would still be statutory reductions.
  STR S. EVANSsaid the answer to the right hon Gentleman was that those reductions were provided for once and for

  355
  all in Clause 9. The right hon. Gentleman might not have observed that with regard to the finance of the question they were to be put on the same footing as optional reductions. If this Amendment was withdrawn he would, if necessary, amend the section. It was merely a question of drafting.
  MR. CAVEpressed his Amendment, as it would have an important effect on the following subsection, which at present contained no limit at all on the levy for further reduction.
  SIR S. EVANSaccepted the words on the distinct understanding that they were to be further considered.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 7, lines 32 and 33, to leave out the words 'the remuneration and expenses of the Licensing Commission.'"
  "In page 7, line 35, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'for which provision is not otherwise made.'"—(Sir Samuel Evans.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. CAVEproposed to insert the Words "and not exceeding," after the word "as" in line 40, the object being to limit the amount of the levy in any one year to the amount set out in the schedule. These words already appeared in the Act of 1904. If it was true that it was not intended that the Licensing Commission should raise in any area anything substantially over the amount specified in the schedule, the only possible risk that the Government could run, in accepting these words, was that by some miscalculation some small excess of the amount specified in the schedule might be required. But even that difficulty could, he believed, be dealt with by the provision in the Bill for borrowing money. If the power of the Commission were not definitely limited a very serious risk would be imposed on the owners and holders of property; for the Commission could levy for statutory purposes any sum it pleased, provided that the sum was apportioned between the houses. It was because the levy was absolutely unlimited and because of that serious risk to the owners of these houses
  356
  that he moved this Amendment, so that every man could know where he was and the worst that could happen to him.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 7, line 40, after the word 'as,' to insert the words 'and not exceeding.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR S. EVANSpointed out that this point had been considerably discussed during the afternoon, and he hoped to be relieved from repeating anything he had already said. For reasons already given, he was afraid that he could not accept the Amendment. Regarding the borrowing powers of the Commission, he reminded the Committee that the security of the compensation fund was required for Treasury advances.
  *MR. YOUNGERcharacterised the explanation of the Solicitor-General as the most astounding that had been heard in the Committee. Both the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Under-secretary for the Home Department had stated that there was no probability of the maximum scale being exceeded, and that the fears expressed by Members of the Opposition had no substance. If that was so, why not put in these words? Their insertion would be a test of the sincerity of the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleague, and if he refused to accept the Amendment then the Committee would know how far he was sincere in this matter.
  *MR. BARNARDexpressed the hope that the Government would put in these words. The Committee had heard a good deal of the reason for the refusal to accept the Kennedy award, that the public-houses were under-assessed. If there was any validity in the contention that the assessment of public-houses was all wrong and that the Schedule A assessment had been adopted to rectify it, it must be clear that the Schedule A assessment would result in a much larger sum of money being obtained than was before received. If that larger sum of money was to be got and if they were to pay out, not under the old system, but

  357
  under the revised method which undoubtedly would result in much less being paid, it was just to compare the 1904 Act with the present proposals. The 1904 Act got rid of 1,500 licences a year. This Bill would get rid of 2,400 licences a year during the fourteen years reduction period. If more money was received and less paid out it was obvious that there would be a balance from that source. If that was the case, what could be the reason for not inserting these words? After all that was said and done it was not public money that was being spent in this way, and it certainly seemed reasonable that the persons who found the money should have some voice in the spending of it.
  MR. G. D. FABERsaid the Opposition were justified in saying that the Government in the person of the Solicitor-General, by refusing this Amendment, confirmed everything the Opposition had said in the course of the debate. There must be something beneath the surface, seeing that the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not sufficient and satisfactory. The Solicitor-General, when it suited his purpose, was ready enough to quote the Act of 1904 in the matter of borrowing powers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had asked why the borrowing powers were put in the Bill, and the reply was that they were put in the Act of 1904. That was perfectly true, but why had the Government not put into the Bill of 1908 the words of the Act of 1904, imposing the condition that the levy should be to a certain limit and no higher? The Government adopted certain provisions for one purpose, but when it came to the great danger of the maximum levy being exceeded, as it would be under this Bill, it was pointed out that the danger was guarded against by the Act of 1904. They had never had an answer to their questions. There was nothing to prevent the Commissioners during the early years from making a levy which would exceed the maximum set down in the schedule, and if the words proposed by his hon. friend were accepted they would put a stop to anything of that kind. The levy could be doubled, and the Commissioners could utilise the balance which remained
  358
  to them for the purpose, in succeeding years, of having both English optional reduction and Welsh local option. He had no doubt that was the object and desire in the minds of the Government, or they would have accepted as a matter of course the most reasonable Amendment put forward by his hon. and learned friend. There was no doubt that his hon. and learned friend would go to a division in order to record the view of the Opposition.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid the Solicitor-General had stated the case on behalf of the Bill with the most conspicuous courtesy and good nature, but courtesy and good nature were not everything. A man might smile and smile, and still remain a Law Officer. He must say that he thought the courtesy and ingenuity of the Solicitor-General were somewhat more conspicuous than his application to any direct argument in support of the Amendment. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman say that there was any provision in the Bill for preventing a scheme, set up by the bench of licensing justices and approved by the Commissioners, which would bring the licences in any area down to the statutory limit within the period of five years from the passing of the Act? He submitted there was no provision whatever. The only defence put forward was the use of the word "reasonable" in the earlier section. The only argument put forward that night was that the justices were to prepare a scheme for the reduction of licences to be spread over a reasonable time. But when they came to the interpretation of the word "reasonable," might he ask the Solicitor-General what sanction there was for the Licensing Commission to approve a scheme of reduction which indicated that the operation of it was to be spread reasonably over fourteen years? Could it be taken into Court?
  SIR S. EVANS: I think we could mandamus them.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that if they could mandamus the Licensing Commission, that was a very valuable admission, and he would like to have it confirmed by other legal authorities.

  359
  He wanted to put this case quite clearly. Supposing a bench of licensing justices put forward a scheme whereby a very large number of licences would be reduced in the first few years, would it be possible for anyone in the district to apply for a mandamus saying that the justices did not provide for the reduction being reasonably spread over a number of years, that it would upset the trade of the district, and that it would upset the social arrangements of the district? Could it be argued in the High Court that the scheme was not a reasonable one within the meaning of Section 6? He would be glad of the view of the Prime Minister on that point, because the right hon. Gentleman was not altogether a layman; he had not forgotten his law, though he professed to have done so when the amenities of debate required. If what the Solicitor-General said was true, then, of course, there was an entirely new light thrown on the functions of the Licensing Commission. But he contested that he was not altogether satisfied with the mere obiter dictum of the Solicitor-General on that subject. To come to another point, what was going to happen in case of a miscalculation on the part of the Licensing Commissioners? Supposing the Commissioners agreed on a Budget which in fact they were not able to carry out. It was extremely probable that that might happen. Many interpretations had been put on the famous subsection (b) of Clause 6, but at any rate the operation of that subsection, in combination with the section they were now discussing, was extremely obscure. He submitted that many miscalculations must necessarily arise when the clause was put in operation. The Commissioners might give their sanction to a scheme which would take a number of years to put into execution, and he thought it was admitted that as regarded statutory reductions there must be mistakes; therefore he supposed that the Government did not want the levy to be limited because they realised that it would be impossible for the Commissioners, with the best will in the world, and with the best information possible, to be quite sure that the ordinary rates of levy would be sufficient to meet the changes in any year. He presumed it was admitted in regard
  360
  to the statutory reduction that there might be mistakes, and that in consequence of the miscalculations it might be necessary to make a higher levy. Then there was the more difficult point as to optional reduction which was additional to statutory reduction. Suppose that the Commissioners considered the scheme for statutory reduction, and calculated that after several years there would be an ample margin whereby there might be optional reduction, whether by the magistrates or by local veto. They would have already given their sanction to the scheme of statutory reduction, and when the first proposal for optional reduction came before them it would perhaps have to wait. At last, however, they would think that it would be possible to carry it out and sanction it, but they would not know for certain what would be the cost of the statutory scheme, and in the meantime assessments might havegoneup. If the assessments had gone up in the meantime the compensation would be greater than they had calculated or had been led to believe; so they might find that, when the actual time came for the optional scheme which they had sanctioned, the statutory reductions had exhausted all the funds available on the ordinary scale of levy. The question which he wished to put was this: What would be the position in regard to the scheme of optional reduction which the Commissioners had sanctioned when it came to the point that owing to the raising of the assessments in the meantime the amount payable in respect of statutory reduction was higher, and there was no money for the scheme of optional reduction to which they had given their sanction in the expectation that there would be an ample margin left? He submitted that, in the words of the section, once they had given their sanction it would be necessary to carry it out, even if they had to put the compensation levy above the maximum scale. Subsection 3 contained the words—
  "The licensing justices, if they consider, after taking into account any then existing or prospective liability for compensation (including compensation in respect of any optional reduction which may be sanctioned), that they will be able to meet the payments for compensation involved by the proposals without imposing

  361
  the compensation levy at rates exceeding those set out in the Second Schedule to this Act, shall give their sanction to those proposals, but not otherwise."
  That was to say that they were to consider, and if they came to the conclusion that they could carry them out, they should give their assent; but once they gave their sanction, whether rightly or wrongly, he submitted that the words made it absolutely necessary that the reductions should be carried out, and if they were to be carried out they would necessarily involve an additional levy. If the Licensing Commissioners gave their sanction to schemes, and there was nothing to prevent it, based on a false estimate, they were bound by this section to carry them through, and to impose more than the maximum charges, although it was the consequences of their own fault. He submitted that it was the proper and the only construction of the section; and it was in order to obviate the possibility of the injustice of an extra levy coming in under the section, simply through the miscalculation of the Licensing Commissioners, that his hon. and learned friend's Amendment was necessary, and he trusted even now would be accepted by the Government.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid this was one of the most important Amendments which had been brought forward. He congratulated his hon. and learned friend on the foresight with which he had acted all through the Committee stage, culminating in his bringing forward this particular Amendment. It must be evident to everybody that the most important question to be considered was the manner of levying the compensation and the amount to be levied. Who ought to be the authority to determine that? Was it to be the House of Commons or a central trio not yet created, sitting in London with absolute authority over the purses and business and livelihood of these unfortunate people which hon. Gentlemen opposite sought to destroy? Whether it was right or wrong to have a statutory reduction, it must be right that Parliament, which created the statutory reduction, should also create the levy and fix the amount of the levy to be raised.
  362
  The Act of 1904 was always quoted by hon. Gentlemen opposite when it suited their purpose. When desiring to refuse an Amendment, they said it was not in that Act, and they could not have it now. He had asked whether there was any limit in the Act, and the hon. Gentleman replied: "No, because there was no statutory reduction." He would ask the Home Secretary if he had made this statutory reduction without considering the result of that reduction. Had the Government not made any calculation as to the cost of the statutory reduction? It was based on proportion to population, and the calculation must be perfectly easy When they were dealing with a great trade in which £120,000,000 were invested, it was only the duty of the Government to see that proper calculations were made, to know where they were going, and that they were not running blindly down an incline, and putting all the awkward questions into the hands of the sacred trio who were to decide the fortunes of these unfortunate people. He presumed they had made the calculation, because they had put Schedule 2 in the Bill. The hon. Member who had last spoken had alluded to another point which bore upon this particular question. They were told there was to be a statutory reduction, and that there were to be other reductions. The safeguard for these other reductions held out by the Government was that no other reductions would be made if there were not sufficient funds to meet them, and when they asked how it was to be determined whether there were sufficient funds or not, they were told the power to increase the maximum rate was not allowed to the Licensing Commission in respect of optional reduction or of local option in Wales. He would suppose the Commissioners actuated by the best motives, determined to make a levy—indeed, they were bound to do so; they made the calculation which had not apparently been made by the Government, or was not given them, and they came to the conclusion that the sum to be raised in the first two years was, for the sake of argument, £20,000,000. They raised this amount, and in order to get it, they

  363
  found they had to exceed the maximum. Having done that, they found that in the two years all they spent was £15,000,000. What were they going to do with the other £5,000,000? Was it not evident that if there was a scheme prepared by the justices for further optional reduction or by the local option authority in Wales for further reduction, these people would say to the Licensing Commission: "You have £5,000,000." The Solicitor-General said they could not devote the money raised by a levy above the maximum to either of these purposes. How was he to know that the particular £5,000,000 was the result of the levy above the maximum? Were they going to earmark it and say to a man: "You are the holder of a licence. The maximum levy is £100 a year. We are going to make it £120." How were they going to earmark in two years time which of that £120 had been spent in the reduction of licences? Was it the £20 extra, or the £100. Talk about calculations! It would be absolutely impossible for the Licensing Commissioners to carry on their accounts or their business if they were to do that. Whatever the Solicitor-General might say as to the safeguard on the part of the Government to prevent these additional reductions being provided by rates levied above the maximum amount, no possible statement of that sort in the House would prevent in two or three years time that amount of money being spent, if it was available, on the reduction of licences beyond the statutory limit. He believed it was beyond the talents, great as they were, of the hon. and learned Gentleman to give him an answer to that statement. It was perfectly impossible for any result to occur other than that which he had stated. He hoped the temperance reformers in the House would pause a little in their crusade against the liquor trade. Would it not be enough to have injured them almost vitally without cutting their throats altogether? Surely the statutory reduction was sufficient during the fourteen years. Why, by a side issue like this, should they endeavour to provide for a further reduction? Let them have the courage of their opinions. If they thought the statutory reduction was not enough, let them say so, and make
  364
  a bigger levy and a greater reduction, but not allow poor people to suppose they were going to be limited to a certain number, when, as a matter of fact, very different results might happen.
  MR. REMNANTthought the debate would show the importance of allowing time for discussing the Amendments to the Bill. Thanks to the closure, many important Amendments had already been passed, and they had had no opportunity of discussing them, and in reference to this one he was quite sure the Solicitor-General would, after the debate had taken place, agree that it was one well worthy of consideration. Might he join in the tribute to the courtesy and ability with which the Solicitor-General had met them all through the discussion on the Bill? He congratulated the Government on having selected him to take charge of the Bill. The Solicitor-General had said it would be impossible to borrow beyond the compensation fund, but loans could be made on the future instalments of the levy under the Bill. Loans, it was true, had not been allowed by the present Government under the 1904 Act.
  [The remainder of the speech was inaudible in the Press Gallery on account of a disturbance in the Ladies' Gallery, where two ladies had chained themselves to the grille and endeavoured to address the House in favour of woman suffrage. Eventually the ladies were removed.]
  MR. RAWLINSONsupported the Amendment. If there was nothing behind the action of the Government in this matter surely they ought to see their way to accept this Amendment. He had the greatest mistrust of judicial tribunals appointed for a temporary purpose. He submitted that the second Schedule was absolutely useless unless they limited it by an Amendment such as the one they were now considering. Let the Committee consider for a moment the grounds for alarm which existed amongst the licensed trade. What were the grounds? Look at the position they were putting the trade in. They had a schedule which provided that there should be a certain rate levied, and they gave the power to levy that rate not to Parliament, or to the licensing magistrates,

  365
  but to a new body called the Licensing Commission. Such Commissions were contrary to the general spirit of the English law, and did not inspire the same confidence that ordinary tribunals did. Almost any Bill which the Government brought in carried with it a fresh appointment and set up a fresh tribunal. The Licensing Commission not only possessed the power to levy a rate in accordance with the schedule, but they had power to levy absolutely without any sort of limit at all. That would be the position under the Bill unless this clause were amended. The Commissioners had power to levy a far larger rate than was necessary, and there was a temptation put upon them to make a larger levy and there would be no difficulty about doing it. Surely the magistrates were the best judges upon this question. The Solicitor-General had said a mandamus could be obtained to carry out a scheme. He submitted that that could not be done, and that if the Commissioners acted unreasonably the High Courts had no power to interfere in order to declare that it was not the intention of the Government that the trade should suffer in this particular manner. He had not taken any part up to the present in the debates on this Bill, and he would not have addressed the Committee on this occasion but for the very strong point which this Amendment offered to him to put before the Government. He trusted the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. The clause was leaving to an ad hoc authority called the Licensing Commission a discretion which ought not to be left to any tribunal.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid he was not quite sure whether his hon. and learned friend was present during a former discussion in which this point was fully discussed. The obligation being upon the Commissioners, they must have the necessary power to carry out the statutory reduction, and they must have funds. That the justices might make a miscalculation was the reason why the Commissioners would have power to examine all schemes.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he referred to a mistake by the Commissioners.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid that if both justices and Commissioners made a mistake the
  366
  scheme would become operative and against those upon whom was the duty to carry it out a mandamus would lie as in every other case; the merits of the scheme could not be discussed. Whether there was a miscalculation or not the scheme would have to be carried out under mandamus. He had not the slightest doubt that separate accounts could be kept for statutory and optional reductions, and there would be no difficulty in distinguishing the amount available for the one and the other. The optional reductions would not be part of the scheme. If there was any reasonable doubt whether the optional reductions could fairly be carried out, the Commissioners might, under Clause 12, attach such conditions as they thought fit as to postponement. Earlier in the evening he made general observations as to the security there would be in the character of the Commissioners, and he suggested the Committee might now come to a decision.
  MR. YOUNGERwelcomed the frank admission that the reason a limit could not be placed on the levy was that there must be enough money to carry out the scheme. The Government had not the ghost of an idea how much money it would take. They ought by this time to have got in every licensing district proper statistics regarding the urban and rural areas, the population, and the exact number of licences, but they had not done so. They were asked by him in the beginning of March to get the information, but they had not got it. The Government were not treating the House in a respectful fashion in failing to inform themselves as to one of the most important parts of the Bill. The explanation of this carelessness and negligence was that the Government did not take their own Bill seriously. That was his view. He could not think that, if they did take it seriously, they would have left the Committee in ignorance on this important question. He thanked the Solicitor-General for his courtesy and frankness.
  SIR F. BANBURYdid not think that the Solicitor-General had given an effective answer. Supposing that the hon. and learned Gentleman was correct in saying that it would be

  367
  possible to keep the two accounts separately, he maintained that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the trio of Commissioners from so dealing with the accounts as to apply a portion of the levy made for the statutory reduction to the purposes of optional, or the Welsh reduction.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEsaid the explanation of the Solicitor-General had not left the matter altogether clear. He understood that if the Commissioners made an error in their budget, and the money would not carry out the scheme, still the proposals would be carried into operation.
  Sir S. EVANS: Subject to the power of revision.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEwas in doubt if the words of the section would carry that out.
  The proposal being sanctioned, the Commissioners would have no alternative but to make a levy in excess of the maximum. He gathered that the last word on the interpretation of the word "reasonable" would be with the Commission, and there was absolute necessity for the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided—
  When the House was being cleared for the division, a man in the Strangers' Gallery jumped to his feet, threw a bundle of papers on to the floor of the chamber, shouting: "Why do not you do justice to women and the unemployed?" "Votes for women." He was immediately removed.
  Ayes, 69; Noes, 197. (Division List No. 297.)

  AYES.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pease, Herbert Pke(Darlington

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fell, Arthur

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Renton, Leslie

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Renwick, George

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

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gretton, John

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Stanier, Beville

  Barnard, E. B.

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Haddock, George B.

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

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hills, J. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Cave, George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Young, Samuel

  Clark, George Smith

  Law, Anrdew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Younger, George

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Rawlinson and Mr. Lane-

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Morrison- Bell, Captain

  Fox.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Nolan, Joseph

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brace, William

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Brigg, John

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Bright, J. A.

  Armitage, R.

  Bell, Richard

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Brooke, Stopford

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bennett, E. N.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Atherley-Jones, L.

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Barker, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cameron, Robert

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Clough, William

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Seddon, J.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Kekewich, Sir George

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

  Crooks, William

  Kelley, George D.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Crosfield, A. H.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Crossley, William J.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lambert, George

  Snowden, P.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Steadman, W. C.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol,S.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Summerbell, T.

  Duckworth, James

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Maddison, Frederick

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Verney, F. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Massie, J.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Menzies, Walter

  Walsh, Stephen

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Walters, John Tudor

  Glover, Thomas

  Middlebrook, William

  Walton, Joseph

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Mond, A.

  Wardle, George J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hall, Frederick

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

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

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Nicholls, George

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

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

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Hemmerde, Edward George

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

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Hodge, John

  Rees, J. D.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Winfrey, R.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robertson,Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Hudson, Walter

  Robinson, S.

  Elibank.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  MR. CAVEmoved to insert in page 8, line 3, after the word "optional" the words "or further." This Amendment, he said, was really consequential on another Amendment which had been already accepted.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 3, after the word 'optional,' to insert the words 'or further.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR S. EVANSsaid he accepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEmoved an Amendment to provide that any proposals for

  371
  optional reduction, involving the payment of compensation by the Licensing Commission, should not be carried out until the Licensing Commission had considered "all" the proposals from the financial point of view. The object of his Amendment, he said, was to carry out what the Solicitor-General said was the intention of the Government, viz., that no invidious priority should be given for optional reduction in one part of the country over another. When they discussed this subject on an earlier clause he had in view that there was a probable danger that certain bodies of magistrates in their zeal for reduction might put forward their proposals with great haste, bring them before the Licensing Commission and get them accepted, so that other proposals from different parts of the country would have to wait their turn, because of the first proposals having drained away all the money available for compensation. The Solicitor-General on that occasion said there would be no priority. He himself doubted very much whether the words in the section lower down would ensure that. However, as the Solicitor-General stated that that was his intention, he begged him to make certain that that intention would be carried out. As to the consequential Amendment, he did not adhere absolutely to its terms. All he wanted was that the Commissioners should review all the schemes for reduction put forward by a certain date and consider them, not by themselves but compare them with one another, and that they should not be unduly hasty in deciding upon any particular scheme. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 6, after the word 'considered,' to insert the word 'all.'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'all' be there inserted."
  SIR S. EVANSsaid that the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the possibility of any optional reduction taking place until all the proposals had been considered at the end of fourteen years.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid what he meant was the proposals in any one year.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid that that was not the effect of the Amendment as it stood. The effect of it would be to limit the discretion of the Commissioners, which the Government did not desire to do. Even if the effect of the Amendment were that the optional proposals should be considered year by year, the probable result would be a scramble among the justices as to which should first get in their proposals, whereas it was the intention that full discretion should be given to the Commissioners. In practice the result of the Amendment would be that while they were dealing with the statutory reductions the Commissioners would be forced to hold their hands in order to see how they would stand from a financial point of view. Therefore, he put it to the hon. Gentleman that if his Amendment were carried it would have the the contrary effect to what he desired.
  MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he was afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman had not appreciated altogether the point of his Amendment. What he wanted to put forward was that if the Licensing Commission were to consider yearly all the schemes put forward in that year it was obvious they could not do that unless the schemes came in by a certain date. He maintained, practically, that the schemes should come before the Commission during the first half of the year; then in the second half the Commission could review these as a whole, and see whether they could be carried out in view of the financial means at their disposal. If that was done, there could not be any undue scramble, because there would be a fixed period for sending up schemes to the Licensing Commission. All he wanted to secure was that there should be no undue priority. The Government was pledged to that, and that pledge would not be carried out unless some such Amendment was accepted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the Solicitor - General must be conscious in his own mind of the importance of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Amendment was

  373
  in the wrong place, and did not carry out the intention. Let them come from the exact words of the Amendment to the substance of the policy his hon. friend proposed. The point to be borne in mind was that there was unlimited money for the purpose of dealing with the reduction that they had already passed—money that might be required from the trade for the purpose of reducing the number of licences to the statutory proportion. That money could be divided compulsorily among the existing holders of licences. When they came, however, to the optional licences they came to a different problem. The optional licences could only be dealt with by the surplus that remained after the statutory reduction had been dealt with. There was, therefore, only that financial margin to go on to make the optional reductions which localities might desire. Supposing one licensing area in the north of England had asked for so many reductions, another in Wales had asked for so many, and so on. These came in piecemeal, and the resources of the central committee were quite insufficient to meet all the demands. How were they going to allocate their money between them? He found that a difficult problem, and that it was not solved in the Bill was quite clear. Before he ventured further to criticise what seemed to him to be a gap in the Government scheme, he would like to know exactly how the Government would deal with these competing schemes. How were they to be compared and balanced one against another? He was assuming, in the first place, that the claims did not come in at one time; and in the second place, that the total amount of claims in the year was greater than the amount of money at the disposal of the central committee would meet. Neither of these hypotheses was extravagant in itself. If they did occur, on, what principle did the Government think the central committee would dispose of the funds?
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this was not a point which could be met by any machinery which could be inserted in a Bill. The Commissioners must deal with it as a matter of administration, just as Quarter Sessions did now in dealing with the competing claims in their areas.
  374
  Every year the Quarter Sessions had this problem before them. The Quarter Sessions had either by conference with the licensing justices beforehand, or else by taking the claims into consideration after they had been sent in, to decide how far they could be met. If, however, it was clear at the outset that there would be no money for optional reductions, he had no doubt notification to that effect would be made by the Commissioners, and so no schemes would be sent in. As money was available so schemes would come before the Commissioners, who would see in what proportion they would be able to accede to the requests made to them. If the Amendment was accepted let the Committee mark the absurd result that would follow. In the first year of reduction there was to be no statutory reduction at all. If this proposal were put into operation in the first year the Commissioners would be obliged to spend all their money, the whole of the levy, over £1,000,000, on optional reduction schemes which might have come before them. He was sure that was not a result the hon. Member desired, but it was certainly the result which would follow his proposal. Apart from that, the proposal would inevitably lead to a scramble between the benches in the country which might want optional reduction to place their schemes before the Commission at the earliest moment, and would not give the Commissioners an opportunity of taking into account the prospective liability as to optional reduction.
  MR. CAVEsaid that with great respect to the hon. Gentleman he did not think he had given due weight to the difference of language in the Act of 1904 and in the present Bill. Under the 1904 Act, Quarter Sessions had a right to select between competing proposals for the reduction of licences. They had an absolute discretion to deal with them as they pleased. But under this clause, supposing the fund amounted to £1,000,000, and £700,000 was required for statutory reductions, that would leave £300,000 available for optional reduction. Supposing there were schemes sent in during the year for optional reduction to the value of £600,000, where was the right

  375
  of the Commissioners to select among these schemes those with which they should proceed? On the express terms of the Bill they were bound to proceed with them, but if there was not money enough they could not proceed with any. Were they entitled to choose between the different schemes? What right had they to give a preference to any? Therefore he held that the Commissioners should be able to consider the applications at certain definite periods, and use their discretion as to which they should grant. This was not merely a drafting matter, though he thought the drafting faulty in this respect. It was a matter of substance, and he thought before the justices sent in schemes they ought to know how they would be dealt with—whether there was to be this sort of scramble or whether there was to be allotted a time within which the schemes ought to be sent in. He thought there was a great deal to be said for this Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was really very reluctant to trouble the Committee, but he was quite convinced that anybody who thought over this matter would see that there was a great difficulty facing the Government, which they had not made the smallest attempt to meet. So far as the Commissioners had to deal with the statutory limitations it was simple enough, but after they had spent all the money which was required to deal with the statutory reduction, they then came to a number of applications, already sent in, and, what was more, they were conscious that a large number of other applications were going to be sent in for optional reduction. They had only a certain amount of money at their disposal, namely, the balance over that required for the statutory reduction. It was all important if this scheme was to work that this surplus should be divided fairly and equally between the various districts which asked for optional reduction. Wales, for instance, had special facilities for adding to what were really optional reductions. Other districts might have magistrates anxious to overstep the statutory limits of reduction. How on earth were the three gentlemen in London—he did not use
  376
  the words "in London" offensively, as was suggested by the Under-Secretary; one might be in London and yet be a very respectable man—but how on earth were three gentlemen in London to settle the allocation of the balance, which by hypothesis was less than the total sum required, or which they thought was going to be required, unless they had before them all the elements of the problem which had to be dealt with? They had to divide money amongst a larger number of applicants than the money would go round. How could they apportion the share of each fairly unless they knew the conditions of the district and what applications were going to be made to them, and unless they had an opportunity of considering the local interests of districts which asked for optional reduction? He did not think the Government had quite to ched the point. In the two explanations they had given they had not attempted to deal with the point. Under the conditions in which they were discussing the Bill they could not allow this opportunity to go without learning from the Government how they meant to deal with the difficulty he had explained. It might be that the Amendment was not qualified to meet the special difficulty, but there was a difficulty, and that the Government had not so far shown how it was to be met must be obvious to anyone who had heard the course of the discussion. He hoped the Government would really explain their views of the problem, to the solution of which he should be glad to give any assistance in his power.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid it was admitted on all hands that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman and argued so forcibly by the right hon. Gentleman could not be dealt with in the manner suggested by the Amendment or anything like it. Therefore, he was asked to state the views of the Government as a general topic of debate. The matter had not been overlooked by the Government, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the vigilance of his supporters was such that the question was raised some days ago and then debated. He did not think in practice there would be any difficulty at all. There would be nothing

  377
  in the shape of priority given to the various proposals which would come before the Commission. If they accepted the recommendation and put into the Bill what the Commission were to do, they would create endless difficulties. If they appointed a Commission to deal with a matter which required discretion and consideration from every point of view, it was far better to trust to their discretion than to say definitely what they were or were not to do. He believed they would deal equitably and impartially with the claims. It would be impossible for them to deal with all the claims in one year, and it was much better to trust them to deal with the whole matter in fairness to all concerned. Subsection (3) provided that in any case the Commission might attach to the sanction such conditions as they thought fit with regard to the postponing and carrying out of the proposals. That indicated to them that they must consider the whole circumstances. His answer to the right
  hon. Gentleman was that it was better, instead of attempting to lay down in an administrative matter of this kind exactly what they were to do, to leave the matter in the discretion of the Commission which they were about to appoint.
  MR. JAMES HOPEwished to know why, if there was to be unlimited discretion in the Licensing Commission, the word "shall" appeared in line 14 of page 8, because, as he understood it, as long as they could see their way clear to find the money they would be bound to give effect to any proposals before them; that was to say, up to the point to which the proposals could be met. If the hon. Member wanted to give them unlimited discretion he must accept an Amendment changing "shall" into "may."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 226. (Division List No. 298.)

  AYES.

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt, Hn Sir H.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Renton, Leslie

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Renwick, George

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

  Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Haddock, George B.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Stanier, Beville

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. C'live

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Carlile, E. Hildred

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

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Cave, George

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Clark, George Smith

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Young, Samuel

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Younger, George

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  James Hope and Mr. George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  D. Faber.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bell, Richard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barker, John

  Bennett, E. N.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Armitage, R.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Brace, William

  Astbury, John Meir

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Brigg, John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bright, J. A.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hudson, Walter

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Robinson, S.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jocoby, Sir James Alfred

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cameron, Robert

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jowett, F. W.

  Seddon, J.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Shackleton, David James

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Clough, William

  Kelley, George D.

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

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

  Lambert, George

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Levy, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Snowden, P.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crooks, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Steadman, W. C.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Summerbell, T.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Maclean, Donald

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell(Bristol, S.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Duckworth, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Tomkinson, James

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

  Toulmin, George

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Verney, F. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Maddison, Frederick

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walsh, Stephen

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Massie, J.

  Walton, Joseph

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Menzies, Walter

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wardle, George J.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Middlebrook, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Gill, A. H.

  Mond, A.

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Glover, Thomas

  Montgomery, H. G.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morgan, J. Loyd (Carmarthen)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Morse, L. L.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hall, Frederick

  Myer, Horatio

  Whittaker, Rt, Hn. Sir ThomasP.

  Harcourt, RtHn.L. (Rossendale

  Nicholls, George

  Wiles, Thomas

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Harmsworth, R. L.(Caithness-sh

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Williamson, A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Grady, J.

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

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Winfrey, R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Higham, John Sharp

  Radford, G. H.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Hodge, John

  Rees, J. D.

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Elibank.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

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

  MR. JAMES HOPEmoved to omit subsection (3), in order to get at close quarters with the point he mentioned
  380
  just before the Committee last divided. The word "shall" was the governing word of the whole of the subsection.

  381
  The effect of it was to make it absolutely binding on the Licensing Commission to take the schemes of reduction in the order in which they came to them. He did not think that could be evaded. So long as they saw their way clear to be able to pay for them, so long must they do so. The intention of the Government that there should be no priority would therefore be defeated. Under the subsection as it stood there must be priority. He submitted that it would be better to leave the matter vague and allow the Commission to carry it out in their full discretion, not seeking to bind them by the words of the subsection.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 8, to leave out subsection (3).'"—(Mr. James Hope.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'Act' in line 14, stand part of the clause."
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the point had really been discussed on the last Amendment. The Bill was perfectly clear. The Licensing Commission were empowered to take into account not only any existing but also any prospective liability for compensation, including compensation in respect of any optional reductions which might be sanctioned. That completely met the point of the hon. Member. He understood that what was really in the mind of the hon. Member in moving the Amendment was the alteration of the word "shall" into "may"; but he would point out that all through the debate they had heard that this Commission was an autocratic body, able to impose their will upon the justices, the people, and anyone. Now the Government proposed that, where the money was available, and where they could meet the payments for compensation involved by the proposals for optional reductions without imposing the compensation levy at rates exceeding those set out in the second Schedule, the Commission should be required to meet the wishes of the licensing justices, or the people in the case of Wales; the hon. Member wished completely to alter that and to give the Licensing Commission autocratic
  382
  powers to veto the wishes of the justices or people of the locality.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid the attitude of the Opposition was absolutely fair. When they objected to the powers of the Licensing Commissioners on very much more important matters, the Government insisted upon them. They objected to their autocratic powers of taxation. That was a very important matter, and they said it was unprecedented to give such powers to a Commission of this kind, which was not representative of any interest whatever in the county. When it came to the question of these proposals, the Government allowed no elasticity whatever, but it worked out in an extraordinary way. The Commission must agree to the proposals, but they could attach such terms as they pleased. Having said they agreed, they might put in terms which made the proposals absolutely nugatory. That was an extraordinary way to deal with the Commission. If they wanted a really fit body at all, they ought to leave them the discretion as proposed by the hon. Member.
  *MR. G. D. FABERsaid that the more he looked at the subsection, the more extraordinarily vague it appeared. He could perfectly understand these three estimable gentlemen on the Commission being able to take into account any existing liability, but how, in the name of common sense, were they going to take into account any prospective liability? They would not assess the compensation; the Inland Revenue Commissioners would do that. How were the Licensing Commission to know their prospective liability when they did not assess the compensation at all? Secondly, the subsection said that, if the money was sufficient for the optional reductions, the Commissioners—
  "Shall give their sanction to those proposals."
  Why "shall"? Why not "may"? The attitudes which these gentlemen were to take up were extraordinarily kaleidoscopic. At one moment they were to be supreme, and were to impose any conditions they pleased, and the moment afterwards it was not they "may," but they "shall" do this. He would prefer that they "may give their sanction" to

  383
  the proposals. Surely, it was better to make their powers arbitrary for all these purposes, and say that if the money was there for the purpose of the optional reduction proposals of the licensing justices or for the local option proposals in the case of Wales they might have the power to say "No." His third difficulty was as regards rival schemes of local option. The clause, as it stood, left it entirely to the whim of the Commissioners as to the order in which they would consider any proposals for optional reduction. It might be that the chief member of the Commission would be a gentleman passionately devoted to local option for Wales and who would prefer applying any surplus money there might be to securing local option for Wales although proposals for optional reduction might have previously been put forward for England. Why should Wales in that case have preference merely because the first Commissioner might have a desire for local option in Wales? It would have been better in this case if the point had been put over the "i" and the cross on the "t" and chapter and verse had been given as to how the optional proposals should be considered by the Commissioners.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not think the Committee appreciated to the full the humour of the proposals contained in subsection (3) of this clause. It was in the power of a Government to appoint three able administrators as Commissioners to deal with this problem; but it was really not in the power of this or any Government to appoint three prophets. What were these gentlemen asked to do? They were to take into account any then existing and any prospective liability for compensation, including compensation in respect of any optional reductions which might be sanctioned. They were not only to have in view liabilities already existing, but any liabilities which might be imposed upon them. Were these three Commissioners to be endowed with a peculiar sense of foresight and prophecy that would enable them to know what claims in the future the licensing magistrates and Petty Sessions were going to make upon the central fund? The action of the magistrates might be difficult to forecast,
  384
  but it would be even more difficult to forecast the action of popularly elected bodies. He did not think even the Government could say how the constituencies were going to act at the next general election. He should be reluctant to make any prophecy, and he did not know that the Government were more competent to do so than he was. How were the popular assemblies in the various parishes in Wales going to be subjected to an accurate forecast which would enable the Commissioners to know what their future liabilities would be? A merchant in business could form a forecast because he understood the market, and was able to make some prophecy as to the future and as to the relation which his assets should bear to the liabilities which might be imposed upon him. Would any commercial man accept as a business man any forecast of the liabilities which would be thrown upon him by the action of this or that parish in Wales or of this or that bench of magistrates? Yet, according to the words of the subsection, the Commissioners were to take into account not only what had happened and what was happening, but they were to cast their vision into the doubtful and obscure future, to interpret the action of every bench of magistrates, to forecast the changing moods of every parish in the principality, and, having formed accurate estimates of the various liabilities, an absolute command was thrown upon them to sanction the proposals. A more ludicrous and extraordinarily grotesque proposition was never put before Parliament by a Government pretending to deal with a question seriously. He did not for a moment suppose that had the Government not had that admirable substitute for reason and argument which was to be found in the Closure, and had it been possible to arouse interest in a Bill the fate of which seemed so doubtful, they would have had the audacity to propose to cast upon three gentlemen in London the duty of throwing their acute minds into the future and auguring the liabilities to be imposed upon them by he knew not how many different benches and parishes. It was grotesque and absurd, and not the smallest defence of it had been offered.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid the right hon. Gentleman had introduced a vein of

  385
  humour into the discussion. He said he had not the gift of prophecy, but before he sat down he went very near it as to the future, of this Bill. In that region he perhaps was the very best prophet in the House. What had called forth the right hon. Gentleman's humourous observations? Wales had nothing to do specially with this particular subsection. The subsection dealt with optional reductions, and there might be optional reductions in England as well as in Wales, and there was no special application of subsection (7).
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Because the popular assembly deals with it in Wales.
  SIR S. EVANS: But there are popular assemblies in England also.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Dealing with this Bill? In which clause?
  SIR S. EVANSsaid not upon this particular clause. The Commissioners were asked to consider the existing and the prospective liability, and the right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if it were to be written down in pounds, shillings and pence. They had to have regard—they could put those words in if thought fit—to the claims to be made upon them in the future, as well as to the existing liability. Why not? Were they, in dealing with these matters, entirely to look to the past and never to the future? There was a humourous situation here and he would tell the right hon. Gentleman what it was. He had not told them whether he was going to vote for the omission of this grotesque subsection. He wondered whether he was. He had no right to ask.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That depends upon the arguments I hear.
  SIR S. EVANSsaid the result of the omission of the subsection would be that there would be no limit upon the levy for either statutory or optional reduction, and the right hon. Gentleman would have put it on record that, so far as that was concerned, he desired that the Licensing Commission should have the fullest power to raise a levy for optional as well as for statutory reduction.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 10, after the word 'optional,' to insert the words 'or further'"—(Mr. Sherwell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (to substitute "may" for "shall") has been anticipated by the discussion on the Motion to omit the subsection.
  MR. CAVEasked, in view of the fact that the Amendment would afford the Government a way out of the difficulties they had been discussing, whether it would not be in order to move the substitution of the precise word that would cover the point already discussed.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It is a matter of order. The hon. Member who moved the omission of the subsection did so specifically on the ground that the word "may" should be substituted for "shall."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I remind you, Sir, that I was challenged by the Solicitor-General, and it was received with some cheering on the other side, with regard to our dividing on the whole subsection? I quite agree that you cannot omit the whole subsection, but it is grotesque as it stands, and this is the only opportunity we shall have of amending it. If it be understood that there is no discussion on this point shall we be allowed to vote on it? The Government dare not meet the real point.
  SIR S. EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said I had no objection.
  MR. CAVEsaid that he was quite prepared to move the Amendment without a discussion and let the Committee decide the point.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If that is the wish of the Committee I will accept it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 14, to leave out the word 'shall,' and to insert the word 'may.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question put, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 272; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 299.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Duckworth, James

  Lambert, George

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

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

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Armitage, R.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lupton, Arnold

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Erskine, David C.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Maclean, Donald

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Barker, John

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Callum, John M.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barnes, G. N.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Fullerton, Hugh

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

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Beale, W. P.

  Gill, A. H.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Bell, Richard

  Glover, Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Menzies, Walter

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Middlebrook, William

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Gurdon, Rt Hn Sir W. Brampton

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mond, A.

  Brace, William

  Hall, Frederick

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Nn. L. (Rossendale

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Brigg, John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bright, J. A.

  Harmsworth, RL. (Caithness-sh

  Morrell, Philip

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morse, L. L.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Brooke, Stopford

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

  Murray, Capt. HnA. C. (Kincard.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Myer, Horatio

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nicholls, George

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cameron, Robert

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Grady, J.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Partington, Oswald

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hodge, John

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Clough, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

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

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

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

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Radford, G. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Rees, J. D.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Crooks, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crossley, William J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jowett, F. W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Robinson, S.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kelley, George D.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rose, Charles Day

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Summerbell, T.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whittaker, Rt Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Sears, J. E.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Seaverns, J. H.

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Seddon, J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n)

  Shackleton, David James

  Tomkinson, James

  Williamson, A.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Toulmin, George

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Snowden, P.

  Walton, Joseph

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Winfrey, R.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Warlde, George J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Waring, Walter

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Elibank.

  NOES.

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Renton, Leslie

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Haddock, George B.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hills, J. W.

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Kennaway, Rt Hn. Sir John H.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Keswick, William

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clark, George Smith

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

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

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

  Whitbread, Howard

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Young, Samuel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Younger, George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Cave and Mr. Samuel

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roberts.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. CAVEsaid that formerly the power was given to Quarter Sessions to levy a fund for their own county, but that power had now been given to an
  390
  independent body who could levy a fund over the whole nation, and spend money in different parts of the country. There was no limit to the power given to the Licensing Commission, and nobody who was liable to contribute compensation under this Bill would be able to ascertain what his liabilities would be. A man

  391
  might calculate one year upon a certain basis of compensation, and make all his estimates and plans on that basis; but in the following year he might find that, for some reasons or other over which he had no control, the levy imposed upon him was very seriously increased. That was not a fair liability to place upon persons who, under this Bill, were already subjected to very heavy burdens. There was no guidance whatever in the clause which would assist the Commissioners in making a selection from the different schemes presented. Nobody could tell precisely what the effect of this clause would be, because it created confusion itself and added confusion to the other clauses. He knew

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

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

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Glover, Thomas

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clough, William

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Armitage, R.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gulland, John W.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

  Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

  Hall, Frederick

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harcourt Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cox, Harold

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Crooks, William

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

  Barker, John

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Crossley, William J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Curran, Peter Francis

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Harwood, George

  Barren, Rowland Hirst

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Bell, Richard

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

  Bennett, E. N.

  Duckworth, James

  Henry, Charles S.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Agustine

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hodge, John

  Brace, William

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Hooper, A. G.

  Brigg, John

  Erskine, David C.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Bright, J. A.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Brodie, H. C.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brooke, Stopford

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ferens, T. R.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fiennes, Non. Eustace

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Cameron, Robert

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gill, A. H.

  Jowett, F. W.

  that in consequence of the conditions under which they were discussing this Bill they could not expect concessions. He could not help saying, however, that many of the points urged upon the Government might have been met if the Government had possessed any real desire to meet them. For the reasons he had placed before the Committee he contended that this clause as at present drawn was one which ought not to pass, and if a division were challenged, he should vote against it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Aves, 300; Noes, 114. (Division List No. 300.)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Grady, J.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Kelley, George D.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Partington, Oswald

  Summerbell, T.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lambert, George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Tennant Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Pollard, Dr.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rees, J. D.

  Toulmin, George

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Verney, F. W.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Maclean, Donald

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walton, Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Wardle, George J.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Robinson, S.

  Waring, Walter

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waterlow, D. S.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Watt, Henry A.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Massie, J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Meznies, Walter

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Micklem, Natheniel

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Middlebrook, William

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Mond, A.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Sears, J. E.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Williamson, A.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Seddon, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Seely, Colonel

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

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

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Napier, T. B.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Winfrey, R.

  Nicholls, George

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

  Snowden, P.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Elibank.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cave, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Gretton, John

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Clark, George Smith

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston

  Barnard, E. B.

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

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

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

  Haddock, George B.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hills, J. W.

  Bull, Sir William James

  DuCros, Arthur Philip

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  394

  395

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Nolan, Joseph

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Percy, Earl

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Keswick, William

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Renton, Leslie

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Renwick, George

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

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Young, Samuel

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Younger, George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Stanier, Beville

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Starkey, John R.

  And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, successively to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of Clause 13.
  Clause 13:
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, line 36, after the word 'compensation,' to insert the words 'in respect of statutory reduction.'"—(Sir Samuel Evans.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 303; Noes, 115. (Division List No. 301.)

  Gulland, John W.

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Maddison, Frederick

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

  Hall, Frederick

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossondale

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose

  Massie, J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Menzies, Walter

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Snowden, P.

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

  Middlebrook, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mond, A.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Harwood, George

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morrell, Philip

  Summerbell, T.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morse, L. L.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

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

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Henry, Charles S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Napier, T. B.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls, George

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Hodge, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Tomkinson, James

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Toulmin, George

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Grady, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hudson, Walter

  Partington, Oswald

  Walsh, Stephen

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Walton, Joseph

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wardle, George J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Waring, Walter

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Radford, G. H.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Watt, Henry A.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rees, J. D.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Kelley, George D.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradfrd

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Robinson, S.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robsor, Sir William Snowdon

  Williamson, A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

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

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Winfrey, R.

  Maclean, Donald

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sears, J. E.

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Elibank.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Seddon, J.

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

  Seely, Colonel

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balcarres, Lord

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Ashley, W. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  398

  399

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Barnard, E. B.

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Haddock, George B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Renton, Leslie

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Renwick, George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hills, J. W.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cave, George

  Keswick, William

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Clark, George Smith

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

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

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Waldron, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Whitbread, Howard

  DuCros, Arthur Philip

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Young, Samuel

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nield, Herbert

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Nolan, Joseph

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Percy, Earl

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Viscount Valentia.

  Gretton, John

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  LICENSING [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beauchamp, E.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bell, Richard

  Cameron, Robert

  Armitage, R.

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bennett, E. N.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Black, Arthur W.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Astbury, John Meir

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Brace, William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Clough, William

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Brigg, John

  Clynes, J. R.

  Barker, John

  Bright, J. A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brodie, H. C.

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

  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."—(Mr. Solicitor-General.)
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 302; Noes, 113. (Division List No. 302.)

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Pollard, Dr.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

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

  Cox, Harold

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Radford, G. H.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Crooks, William

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rees, J. D.

  Crossley, William J.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jowett, F. W.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kelley, George D.

  Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Robinson, S.

  Duckworth, James

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lambert, George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsal

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lupton, Arnold

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Ferens, T. R.

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

  Sears, J. E.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Maclean, Donald

  Seddon, J.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Seely, Colonel

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Shackleton, David James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Crae, Sir George

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

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

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Glover, Thomas

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

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Snowden, P.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Massie, J.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Gulland, John W.

  Menzies, Walter

  Steadman, W. C.

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Middlebrook, William

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hall, Frederick

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Summerbell, T.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale

  Mond, A.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morrell, Philip

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morse, L. L.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Harwood, George

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Myer, Horatio

  Tomkinson, James

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Napier, T. B.

  Toulmin, George

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholls, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Verney, F. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Walsh, Stephen

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Walters, John Tudor

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walton, Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Hobhonse, Charles E. H.

  O'Grady, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Waring, Walter

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Partington, Oswald

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  402

  403

  Watt, Henry A.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Winfrey, R.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Williamson, A.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Joseph Pease and Master of

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Elibank.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Nolan, Joseph

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Percy, Earl

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Renton, Leslie

  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.)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hills, J. W.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred-

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanier, Beville

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Keswick, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cave, George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Clark, George Smith

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

  M'Arthur, Charles

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craig, Charles Gurtis (Antrim, S.)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Young, Samuel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nield, Herbert

  Viscount Valentia.

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  THE DISORDER IN THE GALLERIES.
  MR. ASQUITH: Mr. Speaker, in view of the disorderly and discreditable proceedings which occurred to-night in the places to which strangers of both sexes are ordinarily admitted, I have, as Leader of the House, to ask you whether, in your opinion, any steps can or ought to be taken to maintain the dignity and order of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Though I have not the same responsibility for the Whole House as falls to the right hon. Gentleman, I desire to associate myself with him, if I may.
  *MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman I have to say that, in consequence of what has occurred, the decencies of the House having been violated and the privileges granted by this House having been grossly abused, and not for the first time, I have felt it my duty, most reluctantly, to order that for a time the Strangers' Gallery and the Ladies' Gallery be closed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  List of efficient secondary schools and recognised pupil-teacher centres (England), 1907–1908.
  CANADA, AUSTRALIA, AND NEW ZEALAND.
  Further correspondence with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand relating to merchant shipping legislation (in continuation of [Cd. 3891], January, 1908).
  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 4156. Persia (Seistan and Kain): presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POST).
  The Foreign and Colonial Post (Cash on Delivery) Amendment (No. 4) Warrant, 1908, dated 30th September, 1908: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CHILDREN BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I am glad to say that this Bill which I ask your Lordships to read a second time this afternoon is not quite the formidable document which it appears to be at first sight. A large number of its clauses are really consolidation clauses, and it is only a comparatively small proportion of the total number which embody any new principle. Of the 133 clauses which there are in this Bill no fewer than ninety-four are consolidation clauses, and they consolidate 312 clauses in statutes which are repealed in another part of the Bill. Really this Bill is more of the character of an omnibus Bill dealing with children in different stages of their growth. It covers them while they are infants, while
  210
  they are children, and often follows them when they become young persons. There is only one question in their youth which is omitted, and that is the subject of education, and I venture to hope that the Bill will perhaps go through your Lordships' House with the greater case as that subject is omitted throughout the whole course of the Bill.
  Your Lordships will, I am sure, agree that in the complications of modern life it is very desirable that the weakest should be protected. The weakest are obviously the children, and what this Bill does is to ask your Lordships to assent to the extension of various principles which have been approved by experience in the past in this and sometimes in other countries. The Bill is divided into six parts, and I will take each part in turn and explain to your lordships the more important and the now provisions in the various Parts. Part I. embodies the Infant Life Protection Act of 1897 with a large number of Amendments of detail which experience has shown to be necessary in order to prevent evasion of the intention of the law. The first clause raises the age of children from five to seven years; that is in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee. All homes are included in which even one infant is maintained. Exemptions are allowed when these one-child homes are inspected by charitable organisations, and, in other individual cases, where the local authority thinks that the interest of the child does not require the inspection. Then there is a new provision in Clause 7 by which the life of infants put out to nurse may not be insured by the foster-parents. These are really the chief matters in Part I.
  In Part II. is embodied the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act of 1904, and I should like, in passing, to say one word of tribute to that excellent society, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and though the noble Earl is not present, perhaps I may add a special word of praise of the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, who for many years has watched over the work of that society and done a great deal to advance its interests in every direction. In the same way, in Part II. there are also a certain number of changes of detail. There is a new clause—Clause 15—which penalises

  211
  a parent of a child who has been overlaid while that parent was under the influence of drink.
  I should like to say a word or two with regard to that clause as it contains a new principle. Statistics have been taken showing the number of deaths which take place from suffocation in bed on the various days of the week, and it has been found that more than twice as many of these deaths take place in the course of Saturday night and Sunday morning. That is the time when those parents who are in the habit of indulging too freely in alcoholic liquor generally go to bed drunk. That is on Saturday nights, and it is on those nights that deaths are very much more frequent than on any other night in the week. The proportion per thousand on Saturday nights and Sunday mornings is 283, and the only night in the week which approaches that is Tuesday night, when there are 137. It is a very striking figure that the deaths of infants from overlaying should be twice as high on Saturday night as on any other, and it certainly does make out the case for the provision in this Bill. We can go further. There are figures that show that during holiday weeks, when, again, there is more drunkenness than at other times, there is also a larger number of deaths from this same cause than during non-holiday weeks. The proportion is 17·2 in holiday weeks, and 10·8 in non-holiday weeks. That is Clause 15.
  I go back for a moment to Clause 14. That is a new clause, because it imposes penalties where children are burnt to death or seriously injured through unguarded fires, where no precaution has been taken. Then there are three clauses which are intended to extend the law for the protection of young girls, and Clause 25 gives the Home Secretary power to arrange for the inspection of all homes for children which are in receipt of public-subscriptions. That is a demand which has been made for a great many years, and to which I do not think there will be any objection in your Lordships' House.
  With regard to Part III., that is a portion of the Bill which has, perhaps, provoked the greatest criticism outside. That part deals with the question of juvenile smoking. It is not necessary to remind all your Lordships, only some,
  212
  that a Select Committee of this House sat last year and dealt with the whole question of juvenile smoking. They recommended that legislation should be undertaken in order to deal with this difficulty, and in their Report they pointed out that legislation to this effect had already been passed in a large number of Colonies of the British Empire. I think I may say at once that it is the hope, or one of the hopes, of the promoters of this Bill, not that there will be a large number of convictions under any of its clauses, but that it will act as a deterrent, that it will help to form a public opinion, that will prevent children from smoking. It is not unlikely that the chief effect of the Bill will be to act as a warning, and I hope that if that really takes place there will be a comparatively small number of prosecutions under this particular part of the Bill.
  I think the provisions of the Bill which deal with juvenile smoking are perfectly simple. The tobacconist is liable for a first offence to a fine not exceeding £2, and it is also made the duty of a constable and park keeper or other person having the powers of a constable and being in uniform, to seize any cigarettes or cigarette papers in the possession of any person apparently under the age of sixteen whom he finds smoking in any street or public place. Really, comparing the provisions of this Bill with the various enactments which have been before the public, it is only fair to say that this is an exceedingly moderate measure, and does not go nearly so far as other proposals which have been put forward at various times.
  Then I come to Part IV., which is the most technical part. No fewer than nineteen statutes are embodied in this part of the Bill. Considerable changes are made in the law with regard to industrial schools, new categories of children are added, it is made compulsory on local authorities to contribute to the maintenance of children resident in their district who have been committed to reformatory or industrial schools, the day industrial school system is extended to Ireland, and there are a number of minor Amendments effected in this branch of the law. There is not, however, anything of great or startling originality in these proposals. Then I come to Part V. Clause 94 deals with juvenile offenders,

  213
  and here there is a very distinct principle which underlies the whole of this Bill, and it is that there shall be the most complete separation between the juvenile offenders and hardened criminals. That is a request which has been made by all those who have been interested in social reform for a great many years past. The object is to prevent children who are brought into the various police Courts from being contaminated by association with those who have been there before.
  And here it is only fair to call attention to the way in which I hope this Bill will do something to remove the effect as well as the cause of juvenile crime. Very often those juvenile offenders only become hardened criminals because of their association with those who have been in police Courts and in prisons before. If you do your utmost to prevent the juvenile offender from coming into contact with these hardened criminals, you go a long way towards removing one of the most potent causes of juvenile crime. The first clause under Part V. deals with the question of bail. It allows the police to release a juvenile offender on bail. The same idea runs through the following clauses — namely, that the juvenile offender should be kept away as much as possible from the contamination to which I have referred, and I think it is most important that this should be done because it is impossible to say that at the present moment juvenile crime in this country is decreasing. It is therefore the more important that every possible measure should be taken to prevent an increase of juvenile crime.
  Clause 98 enforces the responsibility of parents for the wrong-doing of their children. This is a point on which I think a large number of your Lordships are inclined to lay a good deal of stress Under this clause the presence of the parent can be enforced in all cases where he can be found, and the clause requires the Court to impose on the parent payment of a fine where it thinks the case can be best met in that way. Imprisonment in ordinary gaols is forbidden for children and young persons up to the age of sixteen, except in special circumstances. In Clause 103 the death sentence is abolished in the case of any child or young person, and I think that is a clause which will pass through your Lordships' House without any opposition.
  214
  Then comes the question of the places of detention, which is an interesting point. Local authorities are required, in Clause 108, to provide places of detention for children who are apprehended and cannot be released on bail. Children or young persons can only be sentenced to confinement in places of detention for a short period where other means of dealing wish them is not possible. It is expected that, generally speaking, except in very large towns, the local authorities will be able to make arrangements with existing institutions for this purpose, and the number of children who will be confined in any place of detention, except in the very largest towns, is not likely to be very great. The Treasury will pay for the maintenance of a child or young person committed to a place of detention on remand, or by any other order of the Court. Clause 111 establishes universally the system of juvenile Courts. These juvenile Courts are already in existence in other countries, and even in a considerable number of the larger towns in this country. They have been found to work very successfully, and therefore this clause, although a new one, may be said chiefly to extend what is already the practice in several parts of the country.
  Then I come to Part VI.—tho last part—of the Bill, which contains miscellaneous and other provisions. Clause 117 raises the age at which pledges may be received from children by pawnbrokers to fourteen. It is now twelve in all parts of the country except London and Liverpool, where it is sixteen. It is raised from twelve to fourteen, but the position in London and Liverpool is unaltered. In Ireland, where there is at present no restriction in this matter, the age has been fixed at thirteen. Then there is another clause which deals with vagrant children, the object being by applying the Education Acts to prevent the children being taken about the country at all. Another clause requires precautions to be taken for safety from fire and panic of children assembled in large numbers in places of entertainment, and a further clause deals with the case of verminous children and their cleansing. So that your Lordships will see that, while there is no great constitutional point of principle dealt with in this Bill, there are a large number of details. His Majesty's Government hope, therefore, that the Bill will go through

  215
  your Lordships' House without any difficulty, and they trust that the accumulative effect of its various provisions will go far to benefit the children of the country.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  *LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I trust your Lordships will permit me to occupy your time for a few minutes on this Bill. I wish to thank His Majesty's Government for the measure they have introduced and to congratulate them upon it, and also to thank my noble friend the Lord Steward for the very interesting statement he has made in introducing the Bill to the House. I trust I may have some small claim to speak on this measure, as I introduced and carried through the House of Commons the Act of 1894, and I also had a great deal to do in your Lordships' House with carrying the Act of 1904. Moreover, this is a subject to which for twenty years I have paid the closest attention and in which I have taken the greatest interest.
  The noble Earl is perfectly justified in saying that this Bill is to a large extent the outcome of the advance of public opinion, and I may take some pardonable pride in observing that four or five of the main provisions in this Bill were inserted in the draft which I presented to the House of Commons; but public opinion was not sufficiently ripe in those days to enable me to carry them. I do not propose to occupy your Lordships' time in the discussion of matters that might be more properly raised in Committee, but there are one or two points to which I wish to direct the attention of His Majesty's Government, because I think they may require some consideration before the Bill goes into Committee, and I think it would be not inconvenient if I indicated them rather than postpone entirely until the Committee stage the observations I have to make.
  I am very glad to find that the provisions in Clause 7, dealing with the avoidance of policies of life assurance of infants kept for reward, has been introduced, limited though it is to the person in charge of infants having a direct or indirect interest in the insurance of the child. At one time we proposed to go further. Probably we were wrong. At
  216
  any rate, nobody, I think, can object to the clause as far as it goes now, but I think it will require strengthening. It will be necessary to make provision against insurance in other names. I am aware that the word "indirect" is used, but the common way is for these people to take the insurance out in the name of the parent. That provision, as I say, will require strengthening.
  The noble Earl referred to Clause 14, which deals with exposing children to the risk of burning. That, again, was one of the clauses we discussed. I think that clause, too, requires consideration. I am not quite sure that the mother who may be accidentally out of the room for a short time is sufficiently protected. The reason why I call the attention of His Majesty's Government to that clause is this—that a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons last year, supported by both parties, but largely backed by supporters of His Majesty's Government, which proposed a provision in rather a better shape. Possibly the noble Earl, the Lord Steward, would not mind considering that Bill to see before the Committee stage whether Clause 14 might not be brought in line with the Bill as then proposed. Then, with regard to the clause dealing with the suffocation of infants, I am well acquainted with the statistics to which the noble Earl referred, and with the fact that a large number of these deaths occur on the days of the week, and at the periods to which the noble Earl referred. But I wish to make this observation. This clause has created a great deal of public outcry, I think most unjustly. It has been said, "If the mother takes the child into bed for the purpose of its warmth and the child happens to be suffocated, she will be made a criminal." That really is not so. This clause only deals with cases where it is proved that the parents went to bed drunk, and I am sure no objection could really be taken to that provision.
  There is a question, which I do not wish to discuss for obvious reasons, arising on Clause 17. I refer to the introduction of the word "favours." I think it is doubtful whether the law is improved by this provision, but I will communicate with the noble Earl on this point. I would ask His Majesty's Government to consider whether it would

  217
  not be better to delete from the Bill altogether Clause 26—the clause as to habitual drunkards. It is a little foreign to the general scope of the Bill, and my experience is that the power of dealing with inebriates under 61 and 62 Victoria, c. 60, under which they can be dealt with without their consent, is far more effective than the provision in this Bill. This Bill practically only enables an inebriate to be kept under control with his or her own consent, and the result of a conviction under the Bill would be that if they went in they could get out the next day. This is a practical question. The society to which the Lord Steward has referred has not infrequently taken proceedings under 61 and 62 Victoria, and has been met with the objection, "Why do you not go under your own Act?" I venture to think it will be found better that Clause 26 should go out of this Bill. Personally I do not think any amendment of the law is required, but, if that is thought desirable, it should be by an amendment of the Act to which I have referred, and not by the provision in this Bill.
  I am afraid that I shall not, perhaps, meet with the same support from His Majesty's Government in the next appeal I am going to make. But I would earnestly ask the Government to take the clauses about smoking out of this Bill and to make them a separate measure. They have nothing to do with the main scope of the Bill. I am not going to discuss now whether those clauses are good or bad clauses. There is a great deal to be said on both sides. I do not urge their being taken out for the reason that I am a smoker, because I am not. These clauses introduce into the Bill an element which must be controversial, and, further than that, I think the clauses as they now stand are by no means sufficient. As now drafted they involve questions of difficulty, and I do not think it is wise that they should remain in the Bill. There are matters in the Bill which ought to pass your Lordships' House with the consent of the great majority, if not unanimously, and I know that those who are most anxious that the Bill should pass share my opinion that into the Bill has been introduced a controversial and difficult question, and one which certainly was not in the scope
  218
  of the Bill as it was introduced in the House of Commons. I ask that His Majesty's Government will be good enough to consider whether or not something might not be done to make the provisions as to juvenile smoking the subject of a separate measure instead of finding a place in this Bill.
  I do not do more, with regard to Part IV. of the Bill, than add my testimony to what the noble Earl has said. I believe it to be a very valuable consolidation of the existing law, removing difficulties which we, His Majesty's Judges, have felt in executing the criminal law, and I trust that that part of the Bill will receive careful consideration. I believe it to be admirably done and to present no controversial question.
  With regard to Part V., I do not think there is any amendment of the law which would be likely to produce more good than the separation of the juvenile criminal from the old offender. With the best care possible on the part of superintendents and sergeants, there still is from time to time contaminating influence, and we who go down to the assizes to try these poor young boys constantly have it brought to our notice by the very fair inspectors, who never state a case against a person unfairly, that the offence has been largely due to association with those who were steeped in crime. As to separate juvenile Courts, that, to my mind, though desirable, is a very small branch of the matter. Magistrates throughout the country do now take care that children's cases are practically heard by themselves, but it is well that the Legislature should recognise this. I think the other provisions of the Bill are more likely to conduce to the beneficial results at which we aim than the mere establishment of children's Courts, though in my judgment that provision also is an extremely good one. I am afraid I have occupied your Lordships' time longer than I should have done. I hope this measure will, as I am sure it will, receive the fairest consideration at your Lordships' hands, and my only desire is to make it a measure which will work well. It is for that reason that I have ventured to make the appeal concerning the smoking clauses.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, although at a later stage I hope to be

  219
  allowed to move some Amendments, I desire to associate myself with the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down in my congratulations to the Government for having introduced what I cannot help saying is a most excellent measure. At the same time there are certain parts of the Bill which I believe many of your Lordships think might be improved. As an Irishman, I thank the Government for having extended the day industrial school system to Ireland. Then there is the question of being able to punish those who are drunk in charge of children. I think that is a most important provision. Then, with regard to the question of remand, I am very glad that imprisonment is abolished, and I hope the remand will mean that the parents will be fined if they do not take some trouble to train their children properly and punish them for wrong-doing. I have seen with pleasure that some magistrates have remitted the fine for the moment on the understanding that the child should be punished. I think it is a most important thing that the responsibility of the parents should be brought home to them.
  With regard to juvenile Courts, I am proud to think that Dublin was the first city in the United Kingdom to establish these Courts, and I am very glad indeed that in this Bill steps have been taken to make them universal. There is another point of very great importance. It has saddened my heart for years to see miserable children being dragged about the country from workhouse to workhouse by idle ruffians, and it is a very great satisfaction to me that these children will in future be taken out of the hands of these people and properly trained. The one thing which it seems to me we have to bear in mind above everything is lest we should in any way weaken the responsibility of parents for the bringing up of their children. It is to my mind an important thing that we should make parents understand that if a generation of virile and good men and women is to be brought up, it can only be done through them. We should force them, if we can, to take charge of their children and train them properly. Character is everything, and character can only be trained in the home.
  Let us also, in our endeavour to shelter the children, take care that we do not in any way destroy their moral fibre.
  220
  I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the rising generation of this day have been a little pampered, and that there are signs of a lack of discipline among them. As President of the Church Army, I know that a large number of those men who call themselves unemployed would not take a job if they could help it. I saw in one of the illustrated papers the other day, a group of so-called unemployed, carrying banners containing the words "Work or riot." Most of them were lads. I want to know how many of them are going into the Territorial Force. My impression is that Mr. Haldane will get very few of them. Has not this something to do with want of discipline in the home at the present day? Has it not also something to do with the general feeling that we should make everything easy for the rising generation? I do not object to that myself, but it must be remembered that the finest characters have been formed by hardship, toil, and struggle. I hope we shall bear that in mind. The days of harshness, thank God! are gone for children. My only fear is lest we should now err in the other direction.
  *LORD LEIGH: My Lords, I would venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government whether it would not be better, as regards Clause 1, which deals with baby farming, to reinstate the regulation as to notice being given where the period for which the infant is received is twenty-four hours or less, instead of forty-eight hours, as in the second paragraph. Also as to whether it is not inadvisable to exempt particular premises from being visited, as is proposed in Clause 2. No hardship is inflicted by such visits where the home or institution is properly conducted, and the revelations that are made from time to time as to what occurs in some institutions would seem to point to the wisdom of not relaxing periodical inspection.
  With regard to Clause 57, may I suggest that any superannuation scheme be instituted by His Majesty's Government instead of its being left to the various committees of the reformatory schools to decide on. There is quite an epidemic of old-age pensions raging now. For good or for evil the principle has been adopted; but in the case of superannuation allowances, there is, at all events, the guarantee that they are for

  221
  services rendered, and it would seem rather unfair if in some cases, the reformatory officers were granted thorn and in other cases not. It is worth bearing in mind that the reformatories of the country furnish it, on an average, with a battalion of 1,000 young soldiers every three years, and excellent soldiers they are, as a rule. It should be remembered that masters of workhouses, relieving officers, clerks of boards of guardians, the police, elementary school teachers, and others, already have the benefit of superannuation allowances, and it cannot be denied that reformatory officers have responsibilities at least as great as have any of those mentioned, and it would seem to be more certain that equal justice would be meted out to all the reformatory officers, should the scheme be brought under State control. Perhaps His Majesty's Government may think the suggestions worthy of consideration.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON: My Lords, I should like, in the first instance, to associate myself with what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, has said, that one of the great facts which will make us most welcome a measure of this sort, is the indication which it gives of an improved public opinion. If it is true that legislation can never go beyond public opinion, thon certainly we ought to be thankful that a measure of this sort has been entrusted to our care, because it does indicate that there has been an immense advance during the last fifty years.
  Those whose temperament is pessimistic are often inclined to tell us of our defects, but surely it is a wise thing at a time of this kind to look back. Fifty years ago it might be said that children had no rights at all, and I think I am correct in saying that twenty-five years ago, and even loss than that, it was difficult for us to imagine that the law took any cognisance, so to speak, of cruelty to children. But during the last twenty-five years a marked advance has been made, and I conclude that we might call this measure the high water mark of public opinion. It is in that respect that I think we ought to give it the heartiest welcome, because it does mean that behind the measure there will in all probability be that active support of public opinion which will give it effectiveness in its working.
  222
  I am sure I am only voicing what many Members of your Lordships' House must have felt in saying that when I looked at the Bill I was a little daunted. It is bulky and contains an enormous amount of detail. In point of fact, it is so multitudinous in its provisions that it might almost frighten anyone from undertaking its consideration; but I think we may have no hesitation in dealing with so large a measure because we have good hope that it will be well supported by the public at large.
  Having said that much, may I go a step further? I welcome this Bill not merely because it indicates this great advance in public opinion, but because it indicates a determination on the part of His Majesty's Government to deal with these evils. I welcome the direct advantages of this Bill. I welcome the increase of the age of protection from five to seven years, for, after all said and done, can anyone looking into the faces of children imagine that it was a wise thing to draw a line at five years, remembering the little difference there is between five and seven and the fact that in the time of our ancestors seven was regarded as the age of infancy and not five? I welcome also the step taken in dealing with the insurance of child life. Those who remember the Committee which sat on this subject some years ago will recall that it was one of the matters which exercised the gravest consideration. It was impossible at that time to secure effective legislation, and I am glad to welcome the step contained in this Bill towards protecting child life from these dangers.
  Besides that, I welcome as directly valuable the facing of the question of the over-laying of children. We live in a time in which we are being constantly told, and told truly, that it is a very important thing for us to safeguard the infant life of the nation. We are not in a position to be able to afford to diminish in any way, or to leave any opportunity of diminishing, the number of children that will be effective citizens in the future. The dangers of our diminishing population are far greater than many of your Lordships are aware of, and, therefore, anything which will protect child life is of the greatest importance. As I understand it, the evidence of coroners goes to show that the number of cases

  223
  arising from overlaying amounts to 1,200 or 1,700 in the course of the year. Think what that means. If you can in any way protect the lives of children as numerous as those, you are preserving for the rights and the opportunities of citizenship a small army, and those who may be valuable citizens in the days to come.
  As to the direct advantages of the Bill, I welcome the very matter concerning which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice feels some misgiving. I cannot help thinking that it would be a very great mistake if we were to drop out of this Bill the provisions against juvenile smoking. We are here considering what can be done to safeguard the life and the health of the children. The medical evidence as to the injury of smoking in infant years is very great. I remember being very much struck by an investigation which was made in America concerning a particular school in which the boys were allowed to smoke, and the result was that the teachers reported that the children who did not smoke were always physically, mentally, and morally in advance of those who did, and I think it is a most important thing that we should express our opinion against this injurious tendency, which is likely to disturb and destroy both the physical and moral well-being of the children of this country. I quite admit that the provisions regarding juvenile smoking may appear to some to have been somewhat artificially grafted upon this Bill; but, on the other hand, would it be wise to lose this opportunity of protecting the boys of the next generation by dropping valuable provisions which have been successfully carried through the other House? Surely it would be a mistake to lose this opportunity of dealing wisely and well with what I cannot help thinking is a real national evil.
  I could have wished that other things had been added to the Bill. I could have wished, for instance, that there had been some provision to protect children after they have left school from being exposed to the over-working of their system under the pressure of modern life. Whereas the number of young people employed doing work while at the same time partially attending school—commonly known as "half-timers—"was 348,000 a year or two ago, it rose to 381,000 in the following year. I
  224
  suppose the pressure of circumstances in the homes of the people is responsible for these things, but surely from a national point of view it is very undesirable that the growing physique of children should be taxed by undue labour at this critical period in their existence.
  I welcome perhaps more than anything else in the Bill what is proposed for the protection of the mental and moral environment of children. Something has been said by the noble Earl on the cross benches concerning the great danger of diminishing parental responsibility. I endorse every word of what is said on that subject. It would be an appalling danger to our country if we were to do anything which weakened the moral fibro and therefore brought down the strength of character of the people of these islands. But there is behind that another question which we cannot ignore. When we find that parents are not accepting their responsibility, when we find that their influence over their children is injurious rather than good, when we find that children are dragged about the country, and have, as it were, formed within their little natures almost before they are aware of it that restless habit of the tramp and vagrant, then I say it is fitting time for the Government to step in and say that all children are the natural care of the State, and that where parental responsibility is not understood and not acted upon, we must for the very sake of the preservation of the State, step in and say we cannot afford this wastage of human life. We are bound at all costs to see that the children grow up in such a fashion that they may become useful, serviceable, and profitable citizens of this great Empire. It is for that reason more than any other that I welcome this measure.
  We need not be under any pessimistic apprehension concerning the condition of the population. It seems to me to be established, almost beyond the power of being rebutted, that if you can only change the environment you can so fashion the physique and the character of the child that he shall grow up to be useful and profitable in the citizenship of the country. And hence it seems to me it would be ignoring the lessons of the past and losing the opportunities of the present, if we were to fail to give effective result

  225
  to a measure which dealt with the change of the environment of the child, so as to give it opportunities of the freest and fullest and West development. My Lords, I have done. I only rose to speak these few words because, having looked into this matter from various points of view, I felt that this Bill deals with one great need and pressing need of our time. I trust your Lordships' House will pass, with such modifications as may be deemed wise, this useful measure, for which we are all very grateful to His Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I should like to add a few words of congratulation and of gratitude to His Majesty's Government for the amendments of the existing law which they have introduced in this Bill. The speeches which have been made, although they indicate some points upon which criticism may be raised at a subsequent stage of the Bill, indicate, I think very clearly, that we have passed a long way from the day when a Bill of this sort could be considered a revolutionary measure.
  This Bill introduces into the strife and turmoil of our usual political controversy a very gratifying and refreshing spirit of harmony and peace. It is in direct contrast to the usual proposals which we are accustomed to from the Government benches, no matter by what Party those benches may be occupied. In fact, if the Government introduce many more measures of this kind, I feel that noble Lords on this side of the House will have to join the ranks of the unemployed. It is their business to criticise Government measures, and their business will be taken from them. But, perhaps for that very reason, this Bill is likely to arouse less interest than some of its more controversial companions in the Government programme. It is an inevitable fact in politics that the acuter the policy the greater the interest. Where all are agreed, then interest wanes and enthusiasm dies down. It is probable, therefore, that in this House, perhaps, this Bill may be overshadowed, if not altogether eclipsed, by the licensing proposals, the education proposals, the land proposals of His Majesty's Government.
  But, my Lords, outside the walls of Parliament there are a great many people who regard this Bill as the reward of
  226
  long years of labour, people who for a great many years have been toiling patiently, silently, and laboriously, amassing facts and putting together statistics collected in the workhouses, in the industrial and reformatory schools, in the criminal Courts, and in the slum homes of this country. These people will, I believe, consider this Bill to be of more value than all the other measures of the Government put together. Not only great organisations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Church of England Waifs and Strays Society, the State Children's Association, and other similar bodies, but individual men and women have been working for the reforms which are granted in this Bill for some ten years past, and though their attempts have not reverberated upon the ordinary political platforms, though they have not been trumpeted in the Press, I am glad to think that they have at last found their way to the ears of His Majesty's present advisors.
  I am glad also to acknowledge that on the whole this Bill has been strengthened and improved since its first introduction. I take as one example the very first clause of the Bill, which includes for the first time the single-child cases in foster homes. In the past lack of inspection of the children situated in these homes has led to a long chapter of crime and cruelty. In the last four years the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children investigated no fewer than 3,000 cases of cruelty to such children, yet the noble Earl on the front cross bench said we had passed away from the days of cruelty and hardship in child life. I wish it could be said that that was strictly true. Not only have these 3,000 cases of cruelty been investigated, but in a much less time than these four years four women have been executed, having encompassed the death of the single child committed to their charge. But, apart altogether from these very terrible facts, there is existing still in these homes a great deal of quite unnecessary misery and suffering duo to the carelessness or ignorance of entirely well-meaning foster-parents. I am glad to think, therefore, that these homes are being brought at last within the scope of the law.
  I do not propose to follow the noble Earl who introduced this Bill in a very

  227
  clear and admirable speech through the various details of amendments which the Bill makes in the existing law. I would only like to express my great satisfaction at one clause in Part IV. which deals with industrial and reformatory schools. I refer to Clause 54, which now gives to managers of industrial schools a power which has long been used with great advantage by Poor Law guardians—the power of boarding-out the children under their care in homes that they may consider suitable for the purpose. The result of this provision will be that children will no longer be condemned during all the precious years of their childhood to the monotony and tedium of life in an institution. Though fate has robbed them in their early infancy of their own real home, yet they will be able, under this system, to realise some of the meanings of that word. They will be able to experience some of the tender influences of real personal affection under circumstances where their own individual character and temperament will be given opportunities of being fostered and developed.
  But, though the provisions contained in the first four parts of the Bill are immensely valuable, I cannot help thinking that they are small when compared with the great merit of Part V. of the Bill—those provisions which establish Courts for the trial of juvenile offenders and seek to save young hoys and girls from the contamination of the police Courts. These are, after all, only a tardy recognition of principles which for many years past have been accepted, and been found of immense value in many of the States of America. The whole of this part of the Bill is conceived, not only in a spirit of tenderness and affection for child life, but also with real interest in the future welfare of the State. Its provisions hold out to us hopes for a marked diminution of crime in the future. This part of the Bill completes the work which was begun by the Probation of Offenders Act, and it paves the way for that other measure which the Government have in view for substituting reformatory methods for punitive ones in our police Court system. Without the clauses contained in Part V. of this Bill, that other measure would be of very little use.
  The penal reformer, the man who believes it is possible to turn a criminal
  228
  into an honest and useful citizen, is always having the habitual criminal thrown in his teeth. Cases are brought up where a man or woman, after a long life of crime and imprisonment, is charged again with some ghastly offence or some crime of brutal violence Such a man or woman is held up, and we are asked "What are you going to do with a person like that? Do you imagine that by reformatory methods you are going to turn such a person into an honest citizen?" In such cases it is too late to do anything at all. It is impossible to do anything with the man or woman upon whom habit and circumstances have I already laid their mark beyond all control. The only answer you can return is this: "If you had brought me that person when a boy or girl, if you had kept him or her from contamination with the criminal class, then it is possible that person never would have developed into the criminal that you bring up before me now."
  It is because, by the provisions of Part V., the Government do seem to be going for once at the very root of this important matter, that I offer them my most fervent and devout gratitude for the introduction of this Bill; and when the day comes, as it must come in time, when they lose the confidence of their present friends and when they are obliged to give place to those who are now their political opponents, I hope that this Bill, at any rate, will be remembered to their credit. I hope that history will record of them that, whatever else may have been their faults, at any rate, they gave us the Children's Charter.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments, but I should be sorry, in view of the far-reaching character of this Bill, not to add a note to the chorus to which you have already listened, in grateful recognition of the pains which have been taken in the putting together of this Bill. It has for long been felt among those who are engaged in philanthropic work that there was an immense need for consolidation of the various Acts of Parliament dealing with the subjects of which this Bill treats. A great many of those on whom rests daily the responsibility of carrying

  229
  on, either individually or in connection with institutions, the sort of work I refer to are not people who are exceedingly expert in finding their way through a mass of often overlapping statutes dealing with these delicate questions, and some of those who have acted in a manner which has brought them within the law have been found afterwards to plead, I think with very great plausibility, as their excuse that it was almost impossible to ascertain on some of those subjects what exactly the existing law was. Therefore the consolidation part of this Bill is certainly not the least valuable feature.
  I wish to congratulate the Government also, or whoever is responsible for the actual workmanship of this measure, upon the lucidity of its arrangements. It compares favourably with other measures in regard to the facility with which it is possible to find one's way about it. The measure is, as has boon said by more than one speaker to-night, marked by the complete absence of anything that can be twisted into political partisanship. That is curiously evidenced if we look back into the history of those clauses, from which we find that neither party can claim to have anything like A monopoly as to the sources from which the clauses are drawn which are consolidated in this measure. The gradual progress made—and here I join my expression of thankfulness to those which have been already spoken—is an evidence of the development of a quickened sense of responsibility among people at large with regard to those matters.
  As one of those who took a somewhat persistent part in the inquiry about twelve years ago with regard to infant life protection which resulted in the Bill of 1897, I am exceedingly glad to see that some of the suggested provisions which we then found to be in advance of public opinion are now accepted by public opinion, and that it is even proposed to extend them. I refer to such matters as the inspection of one-child nursing homes and the extension of the age-limit from five to seven. I believe that all the changes that have been made with regard to the Bill of 1897, for which I was in part responsible, are improvements. With regard to Part II., I want to express, as one of those who have a large responsibility in regard to the management and control of philanthropic homes, my satisfaction
  230
  that the inspection of these homes is to be made practically universal—not because I have any fear that things will be found to be far amiss, but because the absence of inspection makes people imagine things to be amiss when they are not. I therefore welcome all the provisions for the inspection and control of homes and institutions of that kind.
  As to the juvenile smoking clauses, I confess to finding myself in a difficulty. I listened attentively and with a sense of anxious curiosity to what the Lord Chief Justice said on the subject. Prima, facie my own feeling is that you are running a grave peril of making almost a joke of something that is meant to be on the verge of a legal offence. The danger is that you are thereby lowering the standard of the notion which should be implanted in boys of what is meant by breaking the law. That is where I see a difficulty. A somewhat cynical friend of mine remarked that he would support these clauses because they would add such immense zest to the boy life of London. We can understand that attitude when we learn that a policeman or park-keeper is authorised to seize cigarettes, and then read the proviso that—
  "Such constable, park-keeper, or other person as aforesaid, shall not be authorised to search any person so found smoking."
  The amusement to the boy when he finds that he can defy search as soon as he has put the cigarette in his pocket seems to me to be a detail rather suggestive in its character. But when I have stated what seems to me to be the difficulty of the matter, I am confronted by the mass of evidence which was brought before the two Committees who inquired into this subject, and whose opinions cannot lightly be set aside; and I shall be exceedingly anxious, in Committee, to hear what is to be said for this part of the Bill by those who represent those Committees; certainly I do not propose to yield to my primary impulse to, so to speak, laugh those clauses out of court. I am not prepared to do that. I desire them to be carefully discussed.
  With regard to reformatories, no one who is familiar with the subject can look at that part of the Bill without feeling how happily it has been dealt with and how admirable the provisions are. I was surprised to hear the noble Earl on the

  231
  cross benches, Lord Meath, say that this Bill might weaken the sense of parental responsibility. On the contrary, some of the provisions of the Bill throw upon parents a responsibility which was not theirs before. Part v., dealing with juvenile offenders, is also worthy of all praise, and I doubt not that we can trace there the benign influence of the work done by Sir E. Ruggles-Brise for prison reform. That no imprisonment, in the real sense of the word, should be possible for a boy or girl under sixteen is, to my mind, an unmixed gain. The question of juvenile Courts is one to which I was privileged to give a little attention some years ago in the United States, and I am very thankful that the provisions of this Bill follow closely what seemed to me to be the very best parts and to avoid what seemed to me to be the weaker parts of the laws in force in the United States with regard to the conduct of Courts for juvenile offenders. The experiment, as I think the Lord Chief Justice reminded us, has also been made in some of the large towns of England, but it has not yet been made with anything like the effectiveness or on anything like the scale which I hope will be possible when this Bill is passed. There has been forty-five years experience of the working of this provision in the United States, twenty years' experience in Canada, and some experience in South Australia. In all those cases I believe the result to have been unmixed. I can understand that some of the particular points mentioned may not have all the merit and possibility in them which some of their warmer advocates suppose; but, on the whole, the provisions are such as we can cordially welcome, and I rejoice exceedingly to think that before many weeks have passed this Bill will become part of the Statute-book of England.
  *LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG-WORTH: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with everything that has been said in favour of this Bill. At the same time, as other speakers have pointed out, there are many points in the Bill which will require serious consideration before the measure can be regarded as thoroughly satisfactory. I have particularly in mind the provisions relating to the vexed question of juvenile smoking, and it seemed to me that the great point we have to face in
  232
  dealing with the matter is that it will be extremely difficult to eradicate this practice by mere legislative enactment. Bad habits may be engendered in children by the neglect of parents or by defects in their system of education, which so often overlooks the moral training of the children. If by any chance we could carry into effect a system by which juvenile smoking should be made unfashionable, if through methods of education, through the schools, or through general advice, we could bring that pressure to bear on the children, I think it would be found that this evil would disappear. If, however, you simply enact penal restrictions I am afraid boys will be encouraged to defy the law. But with this, and, perhaps, some other exceptions, I am sure your Lordships will give your cordial support to this great measure, and when it has been improved, as perhaps it may be in some of its details, I trust it will become law and have the success which it deserves.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have no idea of detaining the House for more than a moment, and I certainly would not say a word which might mar the chorus of approval with which this Bill has been received. I think the promoters of the Bill and all those who for many years past, like my noble and learned friend Lord Alverstone, have worked in the interests of the protection of children and young people in this country, are to be congratulated upon having been able to take the tide of opinion at the flood and to bring forward a measure going very much further than anything which would have had a chance of being listened to a few years ago.
  The Bill, we have been told to-night, is mainly a measure of consolidation. It is a very voluminous measure, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord who introduced it is quite right in giving credit to the draftsmen for having telescoped a great number of provisions and reduced them into a comparatively manageable shape. But the Bill is still a very voluminous document, and it is not very easy to find one's way through it. We are grateful to His Majesty's Government for having published with the Bill a kind of guide book to its intricacies. That

  233
  was a great assistance to us before the Bill had been altered in the House of Commons, but I am afraid I must add that the references to the provisions are references to the Bill as originally introduced and are consequently extremely perplexing when one endeavours to apply them to the Bill now on the Table.
  Apart from consolidation, the Bill is an attempt, I suppose I may so describe it, to tighten up generally the law as it affects children and young people in this country, and, so far as I am able to see, that has been done mainly in a reasonable manner. But at some points there are provisions which go further than that, and which appear to be of an entirely novel character. Those provisions are, however, no doubt in accordance with a widely-prevailing feeling and with a general belief that this question is very closely connected with some of those other most perplexing problems which are now engaging the attention of the public in this country—I mean the problems of pauperism and unemployment. There is, I should say, a general suspicion that poverty and unemployment are very closely connected with the deterioration, I will not say of the whole race of people inhabiting these islands, but of some sections of the people, and that if we are to have healthy and vigorous men and women: able to take their place as citizens of this country, we must see to it that the boys and girls are properly looked after, and are, as far as possible, removed from those deteriorating and contaminating influences which this Bill seeks to get rid of. I say, therefore, that I entirely applaud the general purport of this Bill.
  Those of its provisions which treat of the separation of the younger from the older criminals, those which impose penalties upon parents where it is possible to punish the parent instead of the child, those which deal with what we commonly speak of as the practice of baby farming, those which deal with juvenile Courts, and those which deal with infant insurance, amongst others, all seem to mo to be most well adapted to the purpose which we have in view.
  I will only utter—and I do so in no critical or uncharitable spirit—one word of warning with regard to legislation of
  234
  this kind. It seems to me that there is always a certain danger of arriving at a point at which excessive interference with the private life of the people may have the effect of alienating their sympathy from the legislation which is proposed. That is particularly the case when, as in this Bill, you create new criminal offences, and when you give now powers to persons and officials who are at present not clothed with those powers. I will say in the next place that I agree with my noble friend on the cross benches when he tells the House that in his view there is some danger that if you go too far in the direction of depriving the parents and the employers of children of their responsibility for the proper treatment of those children that you may diminish their feeling of responsibility, and induce them to do less than they would otherwise do. In the third place, I would point to what seems to me to be also a danger—I mean that of imposing too many new duties, and, above all, too much new expense upon the local authorities who are entrusted with carrying out the provisions of the Bill. I am certainly not going to attempt to review the different clauses of the Bill, but I would say that one illustration of my meaning is to be found in that part of it to which attention has already been called by one or more Peers tonight—that part which deals with the question of juvenile smoking.
  The noble Lord who has charge of the Bill told us that it was the hope of His Majesty's Government that those clauses would have a useful effect in forming public opinion with regard to smoking by young people. I am very much afraid that the clauses as they stand may form a kind of public opinion about smoking by young people which is precisely the kind of public opinion you do not want to form. I mean that you may inspire the British youths with the idea that it is a very fine thing indeed to defy the law and to smoke under conditions which enable them to snap their fingers at the constable, or it may not even be a constable, but the person in uniform who is told off for the purpose of catching them when they indulge in a surreptitious smoke. I think it would be very unfortunate that we should encourage legislation which I am afraid

  235
  will be treated, and has already been to some extent treated, as something very like a huge joke. When, therefore, we arrive at the Committee stage I shall certainly consider with a not unfavourable mind the proposal made by my noble and learned friend behind me that the matter should be reconsidered.
  As an example of the tendency to impose new burdens upon local authorities, I would only mention one case. I refer to the suggestion to be found in this Bill that local authorities are to be henceforth expected to provide reformatories, industrial schools, and what are spoken of as places of detention. These may be, I daresay, very useful inventions, but they seem to be rather of the nature of matters which would more properly fall to the charge of those who are responsible for the prisons of this country. I will not say more this evening, but I certainly desire, on the part of those who sit beside me, to express our general approbation of the Bill and our hope that it may pass into law.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend behind me, the Lord Steward, and other noble Lords in the House who represent the Government, can feel nothing but deep gratification at the reception which this measure has met with at the hands of the House as a whole. There has been a unanimous and harmonious chorus of approval, all the more welcome to us because we often have occasion to listen to a different kind of music.
  This measure has several features to which attention, I think, ought to be drawn. In the first place, it is a universal Bill dealing with England, Scotland, and Ireland. It is universal in another sense, in the sense that it endeavours to cover the whole ground, so far as it can be covered at one time in agreement with public opinion, on the subject relating to children and young persons. The most rev. Primate and other noble Lords have complimented the authors of the Bill. I think the man to whom the greatest credit of all is due is my hon. friend Mr. Samuel, the Under-Secretary for the Home Department. He has been responsible all through for the conduct of this Bill and in considerable measure for its shape,
  236
  and I am certain that your Lordships will agree with me that to him the highest possible credit is due.
  But it is also undoubtedly the fact that various societies and public bodies have played a very considerable part in the arrival of the state of things which has made the introduction of this Bill possible. Lord Lytton mentioned two societies—the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, of which, in my opinion, it is impossible to speak too highly, and a body called the State Children's Association, over which I at one time presided in succession to my noble friends Lord Peel and Lord Grey, and with which Lord Burghclere, and, I believe, Lord Lytton, have since been connected. In the time of the late Government, and since, those societies have pressed upon the Department concerned the need of legislation such as that contained in Part V. of the Bill. This Bill, as has been said, consolidates a number of old provisions. That has been necessary, not only on the ground which I think was mentioned by the most rev. Primate, that it is most helpful to those who administer the law and also to those who have to obey the law to know exactly what the law is, but also because it has been found in practice that various means and methods are discovered by ingenious and ill-disposed people for evading the provisions of the law, and it is hoped that the Bill will meet any such evasions.
  At the same time there are provisions which are new, and which I should be the last to say are otherwise than far reaching. One part of the Bill which has received something like serious criticism is Part III., which deals with the subject of juvenile smoking; and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice made the first complaint that it seemed to him that these provisions were not relevant to the Bill as a whole. I rather think that that can hardly be maintained. This Bill, as has been said, is very much in the nature of an omnibus Bill. You cannot establish any very real relation between such clauses in the Bill as those which oblige parents to take precautions against their children being set on fire, and, on the other hand, clauses dealing with the provision of industrial schools and the clause which says that children and young persons are not to be condemned to death, except the general

  237
  connection that they are all in different ways provisions for the protection of young children. That is exactly what may be said of Part III.
  For some reason or other a somewhat facetious turn has been given in another place to the discussion of this particular part of the subject, which caused delay in the arrival of the Bill in your Lordships' House, and the most rev. Primate drew attention to one provision which he said might be treated in a jocular spirit. But, my Lords, the matter itself is not at all a jocular one. It is an exceedingly serious one. It has been regarded by that very important Committee on Physical Deterioration, and also by the Committee of your Lordships' House, which sat on the subject itself, as one of the first importance. And why not? By common agreement legislation is passed for preventing children and young persons from having access to one particular kind of drug—alcohol. The effect of these provisions is to prevent them having access to another deleterious drug, to them at any rate—nicotine; and it seems to me that the arguments which you apply to the one kind of prevention might, with equal force, be applied to the other.
  I do not want to speak in support of these particular clauses now, but merely to say this. If one speaks lightly of juvenile smoking, I should like to ask what would be the opinion of those noble Lords in this House who have sons at public schools, if the rule against smoking at Eton and Harrow, for instance, were relaxed, and smoking became the custom there. I am perfectly certain that it would load to the strongest protests on the part of the parents; and some attempt, therefore, to make what is an invariable rule in the case of the children of better-to-do parents, apply in the case of children of poorer parents, seems to me at any rate worthy of the sympathy of your Lordships' House. I sincerely hope that, even though the clauses may be closely examined, and if your Lordships' please, subjected to some Amendment, there will be no attempt to strike them out of the Bill altogether. It is perfectly clear that the only result of that would be that, having already passed another place, there would be no chance of this particular legislation being there considered again at present, and the effect
  238
  would be that what I regard as this very useful provision would be lost, at any rate for the time being, and possibly for some considerable time.
  The noble Earl on the cross benches spoke of the risk that parential responsibility might be in some way weakened. He did not, however, call attention to any clause in the Bill by which that unfortunate result might be expected to occur, and, as the most rev. Primate pointed out, there are clauses in the Bill which draw attention, and very real attention, to the responsibility of parents. Such clauses as Clauses 98 and 99, one of which renders a parent liable to be fined for his child's offence, may be right or may be wrong, but nobody can say that they tend to decrease the responsibilities of parents. On the contrary, they increase them in a way which the parent might at times find exceedingly inconvenient. Thon the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, made another caution. He drew attention to the dangers which, in his opinion, might arise from over inspection. What I feel about inspection, speaking generally, is that you cannot have it both ways. It is perfectly true that the Englishman is, speaking generally, greatly averse to being inspected. His house is his castle, and he particularly dislikes the interference of any Government or other officer with his private arrangements. We are continually told that this or that social object is very much better carried out in France and even more so in Germany than it is in this country. If you look into the details of those matters, you will find that those results abroad are almost always brought about by some close system of Government supervision and inspection, and, therefore, if you are to have the one you must be prepared to undergo the other.
  The only moral, I think, that is to be drawn is—and so far I am in complete agreement with the noble Marquess—that it is possible to go too fast in these matters; it is no good going ahead of public opinion, and I do not think this measure does so. I think the particular method of inspection provided for by this Bill is one which all right-thinking parents of the classes who are likely to be affected by it will sincerely welcome, and if the wrong-thinking ones do not welcome it I do not think we need trouble ourselves greatly about that. I

  239
  do not know that there are any further points of the Bill to which I need draw attention. We do expect very good results indeed from the provisions relating to the trial of juvenile offenders and to the subsequent system of detention. It is true, as has been pointed out, that this is no new matter. The system of children's Courts has been carried out in some of our own Colonies and in the United States, by common consent, with unvarying success for a great number of years past, and so far as attempts have been made to introduce the system into this country the first successful effort, if I remember rightly, was at Birmingham. There an equal measure of success seems to have been attained; and in order to carry out the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act of last year it is obviously necessary that these remaining bricks, so to speak, should be put into the edifice if juvenile offenders are to be treated as we desire to have them treated. I have nothing more to say, but merely once more to thank your Lordships, on the part of the Government, for the very cordial reception and very fair criticism which this measure has received.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

  LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order of the Day read for the House being put into Committee (on recommitment).
  Moved, That the House resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Courtney of Pen-with.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The EARL of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  The EARL of HALSBURYhad a series of Amendments on the Paper to Clause 1. Clause 1 ran—
  "1. If any superior landlord shall levy, or authorise to be levied, a distress on any furniture, goods, or chattels of any under tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord for arrears of rent due to such superior
  240
  landlord by his immediate tenant, such under tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord may serve suck superior landlord, or the bailiff or other person employed by him to levy such distress, with a declaration in writing made by such under tenant, lodger, or other person, not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord, setting forth that such immediate tenant has no right of property or beneficial interest in the furniture, goods, or chattels so distrained or threatened to be distrained upon, and that such furniture, goods, or chattels are the property or in the lawful possession of such under tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord; and also, in the case of an under tenant or lodger, setting forth the amount of rent (if any) then due to his immediate landlord, and the times at which future instalments of rent will become due, and the amount thereof, and containing an undertaking to pay the superior landlord any rent so due or to become due to his immediate landlord, until the arrears of rent in respect of which the distress was levied or authorised to be levied have been paid off, and to such declaration shall be annexed a correct inventory, subscribed by the under tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord, of the furniture, goods, and chattels referred to in the declaration; and if any under tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord, shall make or subscribe such declaration and inventory knowing the same or either of them to be untrue in any material particular, he shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanour."
  The noble and learned Earl's first Amendment was to leave out, at the beginning of the clause the words "any under-tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord" and to insert (a) any under-tenant liable to pay by equal instalments not less often than every actual or customary quarter of a year a rent which would return in any whole year the full annual value of the premises or of such part thereof as is comprised in the under-tenancy, or (b) any lodger, or (c) any other person whatsoever not being a tenant of the premises or of any part thereof, and not having any beneficial interest in any lease, under-lease, or tenancy of the premises or of any part thereof." The Bill, he said, owed its origin to the complaint of a particular club and to artistic property not being within the exemptions of the law of distress. Sentimental comments were made upon the hardships of a law that had for two centuries been found adequate for giving security to the owner, and facilities for letting premises. There was not only the question of a

  241
  supposed tyrannical castle-owning landlord, there was the position of poor people whose only possession was a little house used for letting. The law was intelligible when properly administered, and this was a sentimental attempt to provide for every case. But suppose a tenant, instead of reserving a proper rent to which the landlord would be entitled under the Bill, took a lump stun down and reserved merely a peppercorn rent for the owner, justice would not be satisfied. He proposed by his definition that persons to whom the Bill should apply should be those who had reserved a proper rent.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words, 'any under-tenant, lodger, or other person not being the immediate tenant of such superior landlord,' and to insert the words'(a) any under-tenant liable to pay by equal instalments not less often than every actual or customary quarter of a year a rent which would return in any whole year the full annual value of the premises or of such part thereof as is comprised in the under-tenancy, or (b) any lodger, or (c) any other person whatsoever not being a tenant of the premises or of any part thereof, and not having any beneficial interest in any lease, under-lease, or tenancy of the promises or of any part thereof.'"—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH, in opposing the Amendment, said the promoters of the Bill desired to protect the goods of an under-tenant from being seized for rent due by the immediate tenant, but with the proviso that the under-tenant should, after the situation was made known to him, pay the rent reserved on the tenancy to the superior landlord. The noble and learned Earl wished this provision to be limited to those cases in which the rent reserved and to be paid by the under-tenant was of the full value of the premises. He submitted that the case imagined by the noble and learned Earl was one of a most extraordinary and almost inconceivable character. Could they conceive the case of a man who took premises as an undertenant paying the immediate tenant a lump sum for his interest, and contracting to pay a peppercorn rent afterwards? The right of the superior landlord to re-entry was not affected by the Bill, and this should be sufficient for the protection of his interest. If, however, that power was not, on full consideration, deemed sufficient, he was prepared to strengthen
  242
  that right by acceptance of an Amendment of which Lord Avebury had given notice to Clause 4, by which the tenant in possession would have to clear out in twenty-eight days. He suggested that the noble and learned Earl might be content to let the Bill go through Committee now, with the acceptance of Lord Avebury's Amendment, and then if that did not satisfy his anxiety, Lord Halsbury might put down his Amendment again on Report. But if the matter was to be decided that afternoon, he submitted that the power of re-entry was enough to protect the superior landlord from any injustice.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid he had never heard a more cynical proposal. The landlord was not to get his rent, but would have power to re-enter. No doubt the landlord would be very much obliged, but he would rather get his rent. As to the statement that the case he had supposed would never occur, he thought that people nowadays were not slow to discover the possibility of making arrangements of this sort if the law allowed them to do so. With regard to the remedy of re-entry, was the noble Lord sure that the Courts of law worked quite so harmoniously as he suggested, and that there was no difficulty in getting repossession? In many cases persons had been compelled to agree to very ruinous terms in order to get rid of undesirable tenants. He adhered to his Amendment and declined to postpone it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)said his view was entirely against the Amendment. The principle on which he had supported this Bill was that they had no right to rob Peter to pay Paul—to take the money of one man in order to pay debts due by another. That, at all events, was a doctrine which had the merit of simplicity, and he was not sure that it did not commend itself to natural justice. According to the noble and learned Earl's Amendment this could take place: A man might let a tenement to another person and that other person might take a premium from an under-tenant and then accept a rent not equal to the real annual value. For instance, the superior landlord might let a house at £50 a year to a person who might sublet it to another at £40.

  243
  In that case, if the landlord did not get the rent from the person with whom he had made the bargain, he would be entitled, under Lord Halsbury's Amendment, to take the furniture of the sub-tenant.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid that was the law as it stood, and it was 200 years old.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid it might be the law as it stood, but it was not the law as it should be; for, although it was two centuries old, it was a bad law. It was because this ought not to be the law that the Bill had been brought in. He knew perfectly well that the noble and learned Earl could command a majority in their Lordships' House, and, as the Amendment was to be persisted in, he was afraid the prospects of the Bill did not look as bright as they had done.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsupported the Amendment, and said the protection to the superior landlord in the Bill might
  prove entirely illusory. The under-tenant might conceivably come to an agreement on going in that he would pay a substantial sum down and a trivial rent afterwards. But that was by no means an exhaustive statement of the way in which the superior landlord might find himself absolutely without remedy if no substantial safeguard, such as that suggested by Lord Halsbury, were introduced.
  *LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH, referring to Lord Halsbury's statement that the Amendment was moved equally in the interest of small people whose only possession was a little house used for letting, said that a deputation from a society of small house-owners in North-East London, the very class on whose behalf the noble and learned Earl had pleaded, waited upon him and stated that they had looked through the Bill and were entirely satisfied with it as it stood.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 57.

  CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Glantawe, L. [Teller.]

  Herschell, L.

  Crowe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Allendale, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Armitstead, L.

  Marchamley, L.

  Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

  Colebrooke, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Courtney of Penwith, L. [Teller.]

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain)

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal)

  Russell, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Hindlip, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Westmeath, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Wicklow, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Ailcsbury, M.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Bath, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Lansdowne, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Goschen, V.

  Lamington, L.

  Hood, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Leigh, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Cromer, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Ardilaun, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Halsbury, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Lichfield, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Londesborough, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

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

  Lytton, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITHsaid that, as Lord Halsbury's Amendment had been agreed to, it was a matter to be considered whether it was worth while proceeding further with the Bill. In the meantime he moved that the House do resume.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.