HC Deb 06 March 1903 vol 119 cc8-27

said the Bill which he had the honour to introduce arose from an Amendment moved last session to the Licensing Bill by his hon. friend the Member for Leicester, which provided that any person holding a licence for the. consumption of intoxicating liquor on the premises, who refused to supply a reasonable demand for refreshment, should be liable to a fine not exceeding 40s. for the first offence, and not exceeding £5 for the second offence. That Amendment was rejected in a full House by a majority of only nineteen votes, and its principle received a great deal of sympathy from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department, and many other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Derby. The hon. Members who favoured the principle of the Bill consulted together, and that consultation resulted in the drafting of the present Bill, which was printed, but could not have been introduced last year.

MR. NOLAN (Louth, S.)

called attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.

A count having been taken—


As only thirty-one Members are present, I will leave the Chair until a quorum is formed.

A quorum having been formed


resuming, said the Bill was a small one, which did not propose a new law, but made it possible to enforce the present law. Under the common law, an innkeeper was obliged to provide accommodation and refreshment, and his hon. friend's Amendment would have extended that obligation to all holders of licences. It was, however, pointed out that licensed victuallers under the present law were not obliged to sell even intoxicating liquor; and hon. Members who opposed the Amendment last session pointed out that it was absurd to ask a man who was not obliged to sell anything at all, to sell an article he did not profess to sell. The promoters of the Bill saw the difficulty, and accepted the present Bill, which was limited to innkeepers, as a compromise, in the hope that it would have a moral effect which would be far-reaching. The difference between an innkeeper and a licensed victualler was somewhat subtle. An innkeeper was described by an Act passed in 1863 as a keeper of an inn, but it had been subsequently held that an innkeeper was a man who "holds out" accommodation to travellers who were willing to pay an adequate price for it, provided also that if required they should tender payment in advance. Some doubt existed as to the meaning of the words "holds out," but he presumed that if a man said that he provided accommodation for man and beast, he was clearly an innkeeper, and might be compelled to provide refreshments. He should like to abolish the distinction between a licensed victualler and an innkeeper, because a tavern which was simply a place where liquor was sold and where drinkers were entertained, seemed to him to be unnecessary. A movement was now in progress which had very high support, and which certainly had his sympathy, not to take drink between meals. He certainly should never think of taking drink between meals. But the Bill was not brought in in the interests of people who only wanted tea and bread and butter. There was a great improvement in late years in the small inns throughout the country, which was mainly due to cyclists. When he had to travel about the country on Committees of the County Council, he frequently stopped at a small inn when he wanted something to eat; and he believed nothing would tend more to sobriety than if they made licensed victuallers victuallers in fact as well as in name. A great many people took two, three, and four glasses of beer, when, if they could have bread and cheese also, they would only take one glass.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year said that the arguments in favour of the Amendment were largely drawn from personal experiences, and that, although such experiences were exceedingly valuable, an alteration of the law based on them would not be desirable in the present instance. He remembered when his hon. friend the Member for Flint, whom they were all glad to see in the House again, brought forward a measure with reference to theatres, he was told he ought not to speak about them, because he had not any personal experience, and, therefore, it was difficult to please everyone. The licence of an innkeeper could, of course, be opposed for not supplying refreshments; but he did not think that magistrates would be justified in refusing a licence on that ground. An innkeeper could also be proceeded against by indictment, or he could be sued for damages; but both were very cumbrous methods. The Bill before the House would provide a simple and expeditious means of carrying out the present law. It was not at present proposed to apply the Bill to Scotland or Ireland, as they did not know whether it was wanted there; but if the Scottish or Irish Members manifested a unanimous desire to have Scotland or Ireland included, he did not think the promoters of the Bill would have any objection.

He wished to impress on the House that the Bill was not intended to bully or coerce innkeepers. It only proposed to stimulate them to meet the demand which had arisen, and which he believed they were in most cases ready to meet. Even the debate last session did a great deal of good. He himself on that occasion alluded to the refreshment-room at Ipswich, which had been turned into a regular drinking-shop, where no food was to be had unless after ordering it and waiting for it. He did not know whether his speech had been reported in the local papers, but he was glad to be able to state that food was now always obtainable there. An hon. Member said in the debate last session that he had never been in the refreshment-room where he was not able to get a good sandwich. Some refreshment-rooms were very fair, but generally the refreshment-rooms in this country were very inferior to the refreshment-rooms abroad. They quite agreed that if this Bill were allowed to pass there would be less intoxicating liquor consumed, but even if that were so, the innkeeper would make it up in other ways, and he thought if this Bill were allowed a Second Reading it would do more for temperance and sobriety than the coercive measures which were sometimes advocated. He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time.

Sir Brampton Gurdon.

MR. BEOADHURST (Leicester)

In seconding the Motion said he had only a very few words to add. The Bill was so narrow and affected such small interests that he did not think there was any reason to occupy the time of the House. The Bill was in no sense a temperance measure. Its only object was that young men and women on their holidays through country lanes should be accommodated, if they so wished, to a cup of tea and a slice of bread and butter and an egg, to help them on their journey. If they preferred beer or whisky it would be at their disposal. Cyclists as was well known were in many cases comparatively poor people, who would never see the country except for the use of those wonderful machines. The Bill did not interfere with any rights and privileges of the trade, it only gave people power to assert their right in a particular class of licensed house to have what they required, and that class of house was a class which was compelled by law to give all kinds of refreshments to properly qualified persons. That being so, he appealed to those who took a strong line on the licensing question not to stand in the way of the Second Reading of this Bill, and so defeat for another long period the privileges many thousands of people desired to have.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second. time."


said he had listened with some attention to the earnest appeal of his hon. friend the Member for Leicester, and, so far as he was concerned, would be the last man in the world to interfere with his hon. friend having his cup of tea and slice of bread and butter, and his egg, or even a rasher of bacon and a pot of marmalade. But while he sympathised with his hon. friend, he was of opinion that it was necessary that this Bill should be well considered and thought out before the House allowed it to pass a Second Reading. As he had said, he had no desire to interfere with the comfort and welfare of his hon. friend, nor did he desire to inconvenience the hon. Baronet who had moved the Second Reading, but it appeared to him that this Bill was brought in simply because on one occasion the hon. Baronet had lost his lunch at Ipswich. It was preposterous and offensive to the House that its time should be occupied for hours on a Bill of this kind for such a reason. He thought before he had finished he would show the House that this Bill was absolutely unnecessary, and not only unnecessary but in absolute contravention to the present law of the land, because under the present law every innkeeper supplied the demands of every traveller. Already there was an endeavour to fix what a bond fide traveller really was, and was the House to allow an hon. Member to come to the House with a Bill of this character and define by it what a traveller was and what he was to be supplied with? He thought it was only right to tell the House that a similar Bill was passed some years ago in South Africa, and it led to the most grievous and disastrous consequences. There was a South African millionaire of, he believed, the German Jewish persuasion, who ordered, in a perfectly innocent way, drink without the accompanying luncheon, as provided by the Bill. He was taken before the Courts and charged with contravening the provisions of the Act. When the judge was about to condemn him, the South African German Jewish millionaire turned to his Lordship and said "Sir, there was nothing but pork to eat, and I prefer to keep the law of Moses than the law of the land." With that touching spectacle of the South African millionaire before them, they were asked to agree to a similar Bill which would act very hardly on people of different religions.

The hon. Gentleman had told them that the provisions of this Act should not apply to a traveller when he was intoxicated. He quite agreed with the hon. Member in that view, but having stated that reasonable provision the hon. Gentleman went on to say "or for any other cause whatsoever." That alone demonstrated that the Bill, which had been brought in a very unfinished state would give rise to every sort of complication. The hon. Member had referred to the Licensing Act of 1902 and had mentioned the word "innkeeper," but he did not define the difference between an innkeeper and a licensed victualler. Section 9 of the Act of 1902 set forth in a very clear form that on a conviction before the Court it should be the duty of the Clerk to the Justices to enter notice of such conviction. The hon. Member must confess that his Bill must fall short of what was necessary, because it did not explain the definition of an innkeeper, or the difference between an innkeeper and a licensed victualler, and this Bill was only applicable to one of them. He was sure that not even one of the teetotal party of the House desired to go back on the solemn compact of last year or to do anything in contravention of the Licensing Act of 1902. Then the hon. Gentleman had cited an Act as old as Methuselah, and entitled the Innkeepers Act of 1863. He (Major Jameson) was only ten years old at the time and had no recollection of that measure, and he did not anticipate that more than two or three other hon. Members would be better informed of its provisions than himself. The House would certainly take the view that the hon. Member was taking a very unfair advantage in citing that Act, because, whilst he thus imposed fresh liabilities on the innkeeper, the hon. Gentleman made no attempt to take away any of the old liabilities under that measure.

The hon. and gallant Member proceeded to quote at length from the 1863 Act, when—

*MR. SPEAKER ruled him out of order, observing that his comments on that Act were quite irrelevant to the Bill before the House, which merely adapted from the Act of 1863 an interpretation of the word "innkeeper."

MAJOR JAMESON bowed to the Speaker's ruling, but contended that it was very difficult to deal with the items of the Bill when neither the proposer nor the seconder could give any definition of the word innkeeper. He had desired to refer to another Act, passed in the year 1828, before their grandfathers had gone into business, and if he had been in order would have shown the House the bearing of that Act on the present Bill. He appealed with the utmost confidence to the House not to allow a Bill of this kind to be brought before it without any opportunity being given hon. Members to consider it, and begged to move.


, the greater part of whose speech was inaudible in the press gallery, seconded the Amendment. He said that the term "innkeeper" had a broader meaning than was usually attached to it, in that it applied to any place of refreshment, and he contended that it was hardly fair that all such persons should be compelled to provide board and lodging to any traveller who might happen to be in the neighbourhood. Moreover, the term "refreshment" was very vague, and ought to be better defined. "Licensed person," embraced every individual who held any form of licence whatever, so persons who held off-licences or licences for the sale of wines and spirits in bottles, would be compelled to supply refreshments. The hon. Member was quoting from various Acts of Parliament in support of his rendering of the meaning of the different terms, when—

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

asked whether the hon. Member, by quoting Acts of Parliament, was not contravening the ruling already given from the Chair.


I was unable to hear what the hon. Member was saying.

MR. PATRICK WHITE said he was endeavouirng to show how a licensed person was defined by Act of Parliament. The hon. Member proceeded again to quote from various Acts.


The hon. Member is going too far. It is a very simple matter. Clause 7 defines the term, "licensed victualler," by reference to a previous Act, and the hon. Member is entitled to comment on the definition there referred to, but further than that he cannot go.

MR. PATRICK WHITE said the Bill proposed to penalise licensed persons for not doing that which a previous Act declared to be illegal. These matters showed that the persons responsible for the drafting of this Bill had not sufficiently considered its effects. Their object was no doubt a laudable one, but the Bill violated licensing statutes of previous years, and for that reason the House should reject it. The Bill also provided that persons convicted of the slightest infringement of its provisions should be subjected to the severe penalties provided for in the Act of 1902, and he would mention the offences with which that Act was intended to deal and compare them with the trifling matters for which the same punishment would be inflicted under the Bill before the House. He thought the House would agree that the Clause he had alluded to would be a very serious punishment under what was called this harmless Bill. The hon. Member was proceeding to quote other sections from the Act, when—

*MR. SPEAKER intervened and said: This is a Second Reading Debate. I will not say that these arguments might not be legitimate on the Committee stage of the Bill, when these clauses are under consideration. The hon. Member will not be out of order in referring generally to his objection that this Bill is inflicting a severe penalty as compared with the previous Acts; but by reading these numerous sections from previous Acts with reference to a mere detail he is doing something which is quite contrary to the practice of the House. I hope the hon. Member will confine himself to the main Question.

MR. PATRICK WHITE thought this Bill would harass innkeepers and others. There were a large number of people who kept restaurants and tea or coffee rooms, and who retired from their businesses at eight or nine o'clock at night; but under this Bill any traveller would be entitled to demand board, lodgings or refreshments. He thought it was hardly reasonable to impose such an obligation on them. Under the section to which the hon. Member had referred, a man might demand board and lodgings from people who knew nothing about him, and it would enable bad characters to get inside places in order to find out their construction and to facilitate, later on perhaps, the robbing of the house or the owners. He did not think that such legislation should be passed by the House of Commons. No doubt the promoters were honest in their efforts, but the Bill before them was coercive and restrictive, and penalised a very important and responsible trade in this country. Innkeepers and hotel people were not so inhuman as to deprive any one of facilities for obtaining lodgings or refreshments, and scarcely any cases of hardship had been made out in the discussion. He submitted that before this Bill was passed, instances should be adduced and examples given where the present law was unsatisfactory. This was an attempt at legislation which was not necessary to meet the requirements of the case, and there was no volume of public opinion asking for the measure except perhaps a few gentlemen who were anxious to promote the cause of temperance by supplying tea and sandwiches where they were not now supplied. The present Bill was contrary to the spirit of every Act which had gone before it, and evidently its promoters had not studied the full effect of the measure which they had introduced; for that reason he hoped the House would show a sense of their disapproval of this Bill by voting against it. If next session they introduced a Bill on different lines, without having this coercive and restrictive tendency, no one would be more ready to support them than himself. He thought it ought to be made compulsory on innkeepers to supply necessary refreshments, whether at a public refreshment room, hotel, or an inn, or otherwise. The present Bill did not achieve this, and it was a very feeble attempt to upset the present law without putting anything in its stead that would be of any use to the public.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months."—(Major Jameson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."


said he should not follow the hon. Member for Meath in his meanderings through several Acts of Parliament. This Bill did not define what was meant by "traveller" and the definition of "innkeeper" appeared to be that very elementary one that an innkeeper was the keeper of an inn. The hon. Member had read part of the section giving the definition of an "inn" as meaning any hotel, inn, tavern, public-house or other place of refreshment, but he did not call attention to the qualifying words— The keeper of which is now by law responsible for the goods and property of his guests, these words considerably limiting the scope of the definition. The hon. Member for Clare said the hon. Member for North Norfolk wished to promote this Bill because he did not succeed in getting a luncheon at Ipswich, but he hoped that the ventilation of this subject in the House would make innkeepers realise that it was highly desirable they should supply refreshments of a reasonable kind when they were asked for. What was the reason given? There had been instances given—not in this debate possibly, but in a debate which took place previously, where many instances were brought before the notice of the House—of country districts where a large body of their fellow countrymen who took pleasure in riding bicycles went to these various inns, and had been refused reasonable refreshments of a temperance character, although they had been offered a glass of beer. It seemed to him that this was a grievance, and in their own interests it would be wise for the innkeepers to supply reasonable refreshments.

If the proprietors of the village inns woke up to the necessities of the case, and provided reasonably clean and comfortable accommodation, he thought they would find their trade, instead of falling off, rapidly increase. The grievance undoubtedly was that they did not supply such refreshments as were wanted. There had been complaints that they did not supply the accommodation which the public desired. What had been the remedy in the past? The remedies had been of a very cumbrous nature; that was to say, it had been necessary to proceed by indictment, or to lay a complaint at the Brewster Sessions against the holder of the licence. Both of these forms of proceeding were very cumbrous. The Brewster Sessions were not held often, and the only remedy they could apply was of too drastic a nature. It would involve the loss of the licence if the innkeeper refused to give such reasonable accommodation as he was bound by law to give. He stated the law with the greatest diffidence in presence of his right hon. friend, but he thought no one could dispute that at Common Law a man who kept an inn was bound, if he had accommodation, to receive and provide food for a traveller, and that he might be indicted or be liable to an action if he refused to receive a traveller when he had accommodation and could make no reasonable excuse. It appeared to him that the best remedy would be to inflict a penalty on summary conviction, instead of by the more cumbrous methods he had indicated. Whether the penalty was too severe or not he did not venture to offer an opinion. He might say, generally speaking for the Department, that they did not oppose this Bill, but undoubtedly it would require, at a future stage, very considerable alterations to bring it into harmony with the views of the Government.

MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross)

said he was glad to hear that the Government did not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. He was sure that it was very acceptable that such a measure as this should be sent for consideration by the Grand Committee on Law. The hon. Baronet who moved the Second Reading of the Bill said he had no objection, and it had occurred to him that it might be possible to obtain something of a similar nature introduced into the Licensing Bill for Scotland which the Lord Advocate introduced last Wednesday. He did not know whether it would he better to have a clause in the Licensing Bill, or that the Bill now before the House should be made applicable to Scotland. Ipswich was not the only place where people could not get lunch without having something to drink. He knew that Americans who came to Ayrshire to see the haunts of Burns were very much surprised on visiting "Poosie Nansie's" that they could not get a biscuit to eat without getting at the same time a glass of whiskey.

ME. GRETTON (Derbyshire, S.)

said he was advised that the Bill made no real alteration in the law as it stood. The object of the Bill was to make the law easier of application. In past times there had been considerable difficulty in obtaining refreshments in remote parts of the country. This grievance had been a standing one of the Cyclists' Union for a long time. He thought he might say that of recent years the difficulty had very considerably diminished, and that there would be great difficulty now in finding cases in any part of the country where reasonable refreshments could not be obtained, or where it would be refused to any one asking for it reasonably. On behalf of the trade with which he was connected he might say that they had no reason to oppose the Bill. They agreed with the principle of it, and so far as they had been able to bring their influence to bear they had already been trying to carry out what was now proposed. The hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Government suggested that the Bill would require some alteration in detail in order to make its provisions easier of application. He might say on behalf of the promoters of the Bill that they would be happy to accept Amendments to make the Bill more workable.


expressed his entire agreement with the hon. Member who had just spoken in what he had said as to this Bill not really altering the substance of the law as it at present stood. With the general object in view on the part of the promoters, he thought everyone would be in entire sympathy. It was most desirable that people going about the country should be able to get such refreshments as they wanted, and not only intoxicating liquors. He was glad to know that the habit was spreading of providing such refreshments for those who desired them, and he believed personally, that the great security for what was right in this matter being done, was that publicans would find it to be to their interest to meet the wishes of persons who were travelling, and that the self-interest of those engaged in the trade would lead them to discover that the wise and proper thing was to provide such refreshments as were wanted. With regard to the scope of the Bill, he thought he ought to point out that it was a great deal more limited than many hon. Members seemed to think. It applied only to England, and the definition in the last clause had, he thought, the effect of limiting the application of the Bill merely to inns properly so-called, that was to say, to establishments where lodging as well as refreshments was provided for travellers.


That is the intention of the Bill.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY was afraid that all the hon. Members who had spoken on the Rill thought that that was not the intention of the Bill. Of course, what was desired was that those who were going about the country for health or recreation should find suitable refreshment at every place where it could naturally be expected, and one would be very glad indeed that they should have such refreshments at public-houses, as well as at inns properly so-called, that was to say where lodging was provided. At the same time the promoters of the Bill very properly did not propose to apply any compulsion with regard to the keepers of such houses who were not innkeepers in the legal sense of the term, because they realised that, after all, they were in the position of ordinary shopkeepers who carried on their trade as they pleased, subject to the licensing law. it was their interest to meet the wishes of their customers. With regard to innkeepers proper, he understood that it was the object of the Bill to apply a slight spice of compulsion. The whole point of the question was in the application of the Bill to what was known as an inn. It had been held that if an innkeeper did not profess to receive everyone, and did not hold himself out as a general innkeeper, he was not subject to the liabilities of the law. Then a question arose as to who were travellers. Everyone was supposed to know, but he thought very few did know, what a bond fide traveller was. The whole point of this Bill was in the clause providing penalties, and that was the real matter that would require consideration when the Bill went before the Committee. There was, of course, always the danger—no one could speak with authority on this point—that if they provided penalties, a weapon of that kind might be used vexatiously. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a case in which an innkeeper was adjudged guilty of an offence against the law for refusing to serve a man who was accompanied by a dog. When the case came before the court, evidence was given as to the character of the dog, and the animal did not come out of the examination altogether scatheless, He instanced that case to show that there were occasionally very unreasonable people who came in contact with innkeepers.

*MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)

said it appeared to him from what had fallen from the speakers who had preceded, that the Bill was only declaratory of the common law. As his right hon. and learned friend the Attorney General had said, it had been decided that the obligation on an innkeeper did not apply to an ordinary restaurant keeper nor to a publican, and he ventured to say that it did not apply to the keeper of a railway refreshment-room either. The main feature of the Bill, which would require to be very closely watched in Committee, was Section 4, which provided that whenever a licensed person was convicted of an offence under this Act, the provisions of the Licensing Act of 1902 in regard to the endorsement of the licence with a conviction under it should apply. That was a very drastic penalty for an innkeeper refusing to supply, say, a cup of tea or coffee. At the same time he thought that one of the greatest incentives to temperance would be that every licensed victualler should be bound to supply tea or coffee at the request of those who entered his house. Such a provision would go further to promote, the cause of temperance than any penal. legislation Parliament could pass; and as. this Bill went in that direction, though not the whole way, he would give the Second Reading his support.

*MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)

said that this Bill did not apply to Ireland, but he thought it should receive the support of every Member of the House. Everything which would, encourage our young boys and girls to go into the country for fresh air and healthy recreation ought to be encouraged, and there was nothing in the Bill to which any respectable innkeeper should object. The first sub-Section said that an innkeeper must supply the reasonable demand of every traveller, and he took it that tea and coffee and food should be included. Speaking as practically a temperance man, he urged that the innkeeper should be obliged to supply him, if he wanted it, with a glass of beer, which he rather liked, or a half-of-whiskey if he so desired it. He spoke from that which had come under his own observation in this regard. There were numbers of cycling clubs in the big cities, the members of which took a run of forty or fifty miles into the country on a Sunday. If a cyclist had his tyre punctured and was unable to get on, why should that unfortunate individual be compelled to travel all night, pushing his bicycle in front of him, without the right to ask from an innkeeper reasonable accommodation? It should be the duty of the innkeeper to supply the unhappy cyclist with a succulent steak, a rasher of bacon, or eggs, tea, and marmalade, or accommodation for the night if necessary. That that should not be the case at the present moment was a crying evil; and if the Bill were passed he believed that there would be less drunkenness in the country at the present time. Of course there was no idea when it was asked that in an inn accommodation should be provided for man and beast, that that included a pack of hounds; but reasonable refreshment was what was asked for the traveller or cyclist. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for North Meath that there were several anomalies in the Bill, but these could be remedied in Committee.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.) expressed the hope that the division would now be taken, if a division were necessary. He knew nothing of the merits of the Bill, but it was sufficient for him that it had the support of hon. Gentlemen like the Member for

Leicester, who had always been an exceeding good friend to Ireland, and who deserved to have as much help as they could, give him. He was not going to start the session by being ruled out of order if he could help it, and therefore he would not attempt to discuss the Home Rule aspect of the question; but as long as the Irish Members were in that House Ireland should have a fair, square, and legitimate portion of the time of the House. Yet they found that an English Bill of only thirty-five lines had occupied two hours of the time of the House—which he thought was quite enough—while a Bill deeply affecting Ireland was waiting for consideration. He thought the House should either pass the Second Reading of this Bill at once or reject it, and go on to the consideration of other matters of great importance which aroused a great deal of interest on all sides of the House.

MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.)

agreed with the hon. Member for East Clare that they ought to come very soon to a division. He supported this Bill because he had had very considerable experience of cycling in the southern counties of England, and had on many occasions suffered exceedingly from inability to get such refreshment as he required—even his favourite soda and milk. There were some proposals in the Bill which would have to be considered, but he would suggest that the proper time for that would be in Committee. For instance, an innkeeper should not be permitted to supply board and lodging which a traveller could not accept. There should be some penalty to meet that. As he had said, he would vote for the Bill; and as he was anxious that a division should be taken as soon as possible he would not say anything further.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 16. (Division List No. 17.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Bain, Colonel James Robert Boland, John
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Brand, Hon. Arthur, G.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Bell, Richard Broadhurst, Henry
Arrol, Sir William Bignold, Arthur Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson
Atherley-Jones, L. Blundell, Colonel Henry Caine, William Sproston
Caldwell, James Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.) Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Cameron, Robert Lawson, John Grant Rose, Charles Day
Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.) Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Russell, T. W.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Leigh, Sir Joseph Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Levy, Maurice Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lonsdale, John Brownlee Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.
Corbett, A Cameron (Glasg.) Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth) Schwann, Charles E.
Crean, Eugena Lundon, W. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Crombie, John William MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sharpe, William Edward T.
Crossley, Sir Savile M'Kean, John Shipman, Dr. John G.
Delany, William Maple, Sir John Blundell Sloan, Thomas Henry
Denny, Colonel More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Donelan, Captain A. Morrell, George Herbert Soares, Ernest J.
Doogan, P. C Murphy, John Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants)
Elliot. Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute) Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Nannetti, Joseph P. Straehey, Sir Edward
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r Nicholson, William Graham Sullivan Donal
Ffrench, Peter Nicol, Donald Ninian Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Fisher, William Hayes O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'raryMid) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.) Thomson, E. W. (York W. R.)
Flower, Ernest O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Thorburn, Sir Walter
Forster, Henry William O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Foster. Sir Walter (Derby Co. O'Mara, James Vineent, Col. Sir C. E.H. (Sheffield)
Gilhooly, James O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wallace, Robert
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Platt-Higgies, Frederick Wason Eugene (Clackmannan)
Hammond, John Plummer, Walter R. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Haslett, Sir James Horner Power, Patrick Joseph Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale Rankin, Sir James Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Rattigan, Sir William Henry Wood, James
Hudson, George Bickersteth Redmond, William (Clare) Yoxall, James Henry
Jacoby. James Alfred Reid, James (Greenock)
Jones, David B. (Swansea) Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Renwick, George TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Joyce, Michael Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green) Brampton Gurdon and Mr.
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Gretton.
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Roe, Sir Thomas
Austin, Sir John Milvain, Thomas Reddy, M.
Burke, E. Haviland Mooney, John J. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Cullinan, J. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Duffy, William J. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) TELLERS FOB THE NOES-
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Dowd, John Major Jameson and Mr.
Greene, Hn. D. (Shrewsbury) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N) Patrick White.
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Purvis, Robert

Bill read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc."—(Sir Brampton Gurdon.)

MAJOR JAMESON said he objected. The Bill was only a few hours under discussion, and should be considered by

a Committee of the whole House; that was the usual course. Many hon. Members had voted for the Second Reading because they thought the Bill would be amended in Committee, and he was surprised that the hon. Baronet should have made such a Motion.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 118 Noes, 13. (Division List No. 18.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Bell, Richard Caldwell, James
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Bignold, Arthur Cameron, Robert
Arrol, Sir William Blundell, Colonel Henry Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)
Atherley-Jones, L. Boland, John Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)
Austin, Sir John Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Condon, Thomas Joseph
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Caine, William Sproston Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)
Craig, CharlesCurtis (Antrim, S.) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Runciman, Walter
Crean, Eugene Lonsdale, John Brownlee Russell, T. W.
Crumbie, John William Loyd, Archie Kirkman Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Crossley, Sir Savile Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth) Samuel, Harry, S. (Limehouse)
Delany, William Lundon, W. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Denny, Colonel MacVeagh, Jeremiah Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.
Donelan, Captain A. Maple, Sir John Blundell Schwann, Charles E.
Doogan, P. C. Milvain, Thomas Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Mooney, John J. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Farquharson, Dr. Robert More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r) Morrell, George Herbert Sloan, Thomas Henry
Ffrench, Peter Murphy, John Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Fisher, William Hayes Nannetti, Joseph P. Soares, Ernest J.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Nicholson, William Graham Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants)
Flower, Ernest Nicol, Donald Niman Stone, Sir Benjamin
Forster, Henry William O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid) Strachey, Sir Edward
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Sullivan, Donal
Gilhooly, James O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthtyr)
Gretton, John O'Mara, James Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Hammond, John O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Thorburn, Sir Walter
Haslett, Sir James Horner Plummer, Walter R. Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale Power, Patrick Joseph Vincent. Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Purvis, Robert Wallace, Robert
Hudson, George Bickersteth Rankin, Sir James Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Jacoby. James Alfred Rattigan, Sir William Henry Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Jones, David B. (Swansea) Redmond, William (Clare) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Reid, James (Greenock) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Joyce, Michael Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Wood, James
Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.) Renwick, George
Lawson, John Grant Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen) TELLERS FOR THE AYES-
Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrinqton) Roe, Sir Thomas Sir Brampton Gurdon and
Leigh. Sir Joseph Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Mr. Broadhurst.
Levy, Maurice Rose, Charles Day
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Burke, E. Haviland O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) TELLERS FOR THE NOES-
Cullinan, J. O'Dowd, John Major Jameson and Mr.
Duffy, William J. O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Patrick White.
Flavin, Michael Joseph Reddy, M.
M'Kean, John Sheehan, Daniel Daniel