§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHEB (Cumberland. Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 4:—
Amendment again proposed—
In page 3, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (2), and insert the words—
'(2) The justices of a licensing district on the grant of a new licence may attach to the I grant of the licence such conditions, both as to i the payments to be made and the tenure of the licence, and as to any other matters, as they think proper in the interests of the public, and shall attach such conditions as they think best adapted for preventing any private person from obtaining any benefit from any monopoly value of the licence.
'(3) For the purposes of this section anew on-licence may be granted for a term not exceeding seven years, and where a licence is so; granted for a term any application for a re-I grant of the licence on the expiration of the term shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new licence, not as an application for the renewal of a licence, and during the continuance of the term the licence shall not require renewal.
'(4) The amount of any payments made in pursuance of any conditions under this section shall be collected and dealt with in the same manner as the duties on local taxation licences within the meaning of Section 20 of the Local Government Act, 1888.
'(5) A licence granted for a term under this section may (without prejudice to any other provisions as to forfeiture) be forfeited, if any condition imposed under this section is not complied with, by order of a Court of summary jurisdiction made on complaint, or if the holder of the licence is convicted of any offence committed by him as such, by the Court by whom he is convicted, but where a licence is so forfeited the owner of the licensed premises shall have all the rights conferred on owners by Section 15 of the Licensing Act, 1874.'"—(Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.)
§ Question again proposed, "That Subsection (2) stand part of the clause."
§ MR. PEEL,
continuing his speech, said whatever view the Committee might hold on this particular Amendment everybody must agree that it was of very great importance. It established an entirely new principle of licensing, and he could not but regret that the discussion upon it had not commenced earlier in the afternoon, and that so much time had been absorbed in the discussion of other Amendments, which however useful they might be, were not comparable with this in importance. The diminution of the powers of the magistrates under this Bill had been referred to; it had been, in fact, made the football of the debate throughout these discussions. There, however, could be no doubt that in one respect the powers of the magistrates were diminished if licences were granted for a longer period than one year; but that power was purely optional. The magistrates could grant these licences for any time they liked up to a period of seven years. Looked at from another point of view the powers of the magistrates were greatly enhanced in the direction of imposing conditions and money payments. Those who complained of the diminution of the power of the licensing magistrates had not taken into consideration the position the holders of these licences would be in if a clause of this kind were not passed. By the general assent of the House these new licences were to be exempted from the contribution and compensation clause, and therefore the licence-holders would be in exactly the same position as they were previous to this Bill being introduced. They would have the liability of having the licence taken away every year, but on the other hand the knowledge that they would get a renewal of the licence every year subject 1426 to good conduct. Therefore, in discussing the diminution of power, they had to compare it not with the freedom enjoyed under this Bill, but with the freedom possessed in the years preceding the introduction of it. With regard to the monopoly value, he thought it would be a most difficult thing to make any calculation as to what the monopoly value was. It must always be a pure speculation, as it would be impossible to say what would be the profit of a particular house in seven years. But the magistrates might impose as a condition a money payment—not at the commencement of the granting of the licences, but the payment of a certain percentage on the profits on the principle of the gold tax in the Transvaal every year; and inasmuch as the monopoly value must be a purely hypo thetical value that would, in his opinion, be the wisest course to adopt. The only weakness in the proposal was, that, having to pay a considerable sum as monopoly value, the owner would make much less money out of the licence, and at the end of the seven years the magistrates, in consideration of that fact, might be apt to say, "We will continue this man's licence for another seven years," and so something approaching a vested interest would again grow up.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
said it appeared to him a most remarkable thing that a great financial Resolution such as this could be accomplished in the simple way in which this had been brought about. He did not challenge the Amendment. It meant the introduction of high licence duties into this country. For nineteen years he had stood almost alone in advocating high licence duties, and now the Government of the day had been converted to them. Nothing would induce him to vote against the Amendment, which was the one great financial provision in the Bill. But this scheme involved three distinct categories of licence duties—first of all, the duties imposed by the Act of 1880; then the additional payments imposed for the purpose of compensation; and finally the duties created under this Amendment. He did not see any representatives of the Treasury on the Benches opposite although this was a Treasury Bill. He 1427 believed that the time would come when all these payments would be merged in one, and that the financial system of the licence duties would demand simplification. The present scheme involved a financial confusion which no self-respecting Chancellor of the Exchequer would tolerate for a moment. What would the result be? There would be two kinds of licences. A licence under the the old Act of 1880, by which the licensee was compelled to give up a fractional part of its monopoly value. Side by side with that a totally new set of licences were brought into existence, which were to be taxed up to the hilt as regarded monopoly value. How could such a discrimination between the old and new licences be justified? It seemed to him incredible that anyone could expect such a system to last. The brewers had a vested interest in the Tory Party being retained in office, although it appeared to him to be a vanishing security. He welcomed the proposal now before the Committee. because it was the beginning of the end, and because it introduced the principle of high licence.
§ MR. DUKE (Plymouth)
said his views in regard to licensing were not so revolutionary as those of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, but he agreed with him in welcoming the principle of the scheme, because it was a new departure. Anyone who regarded the public well-being would agree that they were too much fetterred by what their forefathers had done, and by conventions in regard to the liquor traffic. They on that side of the House disagreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the mode by which the difficulties of the licensing question could be got rid of. They, on that side, believed that the rights of property which had g own up by reason of the action of their predecessors should not be disregarded. They were entitled with regard to new licences, however, to make new conditions, because conditions that were the subject of free bargain between the licence-holder and the community could not possibly inflict any hardship on the individual. When a bargain was made for a fixed term, there was no claim either moral or equitable at the expiry 1428 of the term for a renewal of the bargain-The monopoly of the sale of liquor, if resting on proper grounds, must be a monopoly for the public benefit. The Amendment was in some parts ambiguous, and he suggested the adoption of phraseology which would make it perfectly clear that the public were parting for a term of years with a monopoly right, which was for the future, in respect of new licences, to be a public right. It was suggested that if the justices in licensing districts in the counties were to set up separate conditions, there might be difficulty in dealing with the matter. Perhaps, however, if there was a common understanding in the House as to the desirability of a scheme of this kind, the Home Secretary might propose words which would ensure something like uniformity in the county area. He gave his hearty support to the principle of the Amendment.
§ MR. DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham)
said he considered this clause was hardly adequate to deal with the object which it was intended to effect. The clause would affect the whole future licensing system of the country. He must say that the Government need not at the last moment have made so large a change in the procedure prescribed by the Bill in Clause 4. He did not want to find fault with the Bill; he thought it was a very good Bill; but it was now proposed, without any previous notice, to do away with the power of the magistrates in quarter sessions to make a county scheme for new licences. That power was to be given to petty sessions. There might be eight or nine petty sessional divisions in a county, and if each had their own regulations that must lead to confusion. He ventured to think that in altering the scheme from quarter to petty sessions it would put it out of the power of the magistrates to make a cohesive county scheme for dealing with new licences. He looked with alarm on the procedure by which new licences were to be granted on a seven years lease. Of course he might be told that great freedom would be given to the magistrates; but they might only give a lease for one or two years. The plan, he thought, would discourage the 1429 building of good houses, and would tend to increase the number of those mean public-houses in back streets, where so much drunkenness took place. It would also be unfortunate if licence-holders were relieved from the obligation of appearing annually before the magistrates and hearing what they had to say on matters affecting the trade. The effect of putting up licences to auction would be that nobody but large brewers would be able to obtain them. He very much regretted that he could not support the Amendment.
§ MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)
said it must be evident to hon. Members on both sides that this Bill marked a revolution in the licensing system of the country. They had been discussing how licences were to be managed, but he wondered whether hon. Members had asked themselves the question why a licence was ever granted? It was not for the benefit of the revenue, for that was comparatively insignificant; it was not granted for the benefit of the licence-holder or the large firm behind him. No; the licence was granted in the interest of the public and that was the reason why up to now no licence had ever been sold for money. Under the old system the wants of the neighbourhood were watched; but now that was to be done away with and the business was to be left to an authority sitting perhaps miles away. Having destroyed the system of local control the Government had now come to the point of saying, well, if the new licensing authority is to issue licences let it be to the highest bidder. In an hour and ten minutes this revolution would become law—they would have revolutionised the licensing system of the country. They were dealing in a hurry with the legal interests of the country; whether the holders of new licences had to pay any price at all had to be decided, but it should be decided with a view to the total revenue of the country and without regard to any accidental requirements of the local authorities.
§ SIR PHILIP MUNTZ (Warwickshire, Tamworth)
said that the Amendment would make a revolution in our licensing system. In his opinion instead of improv- 1430 ing the class of houses and the class of tenants the new clause was calculated to deteriorate both. He failed to understand why the Opposition, who were opposed to tied houses, supported the proposal, because, speaking from a practical knowledge of the question extending over forty years, he could say that the whole of the new licences would pass into the hinds of the brewers. He objected to licences being granted for a period of seven years without the annual approval of magistrates. The new system was unsound because under it they would not get the best class of tenant, but the man with the most money or the great brewer. At the end of the seven years the licence was to be again put up for auction, and if it was worth anything the great brewer would again step in. That would perpetuate the system of tied houses. He could not help feeling that the proposal was wrong. It required complete reconsideration and revision in order that another System might be introduced securing the best class of houses, and that no licence should be granted until there had been the most careful consideration by the magistrates at quarter Sessions or petty sessions of the question whether the licence was required for the district. When it was determined that the licence should be granted it should only be granted to a house of the highest and best type, affording every accommodation, and to a man who would occupy it and who was in every way qualified by the highest character for the position. What guarantee was there that under this proposal they would secure a respectable licensee, if he knew that his occupation would only last for seven years. This was the worst system they could devise. The clause as it stood was unwise, unsound, and was based neither on the interests of the licensed trade or of those of temperance reform. He appealed to the Prime Minister to withdraw the clause and submit another in its place securing the objects he had suggested.
MR. LAWSON WALTON
said the hon. Member who had just Spoken based his criticism of this Amendment on his distrust of the licensing authority. Every one of his arguments assumed that the magisterial bench of 1431 which he had had forty years experience would not deal wisely and in a judicial spirit with the jurisdiction vested in them under this Bill. The Amendment, which he thought was an admirable Amendment, proposed to give to the justices of the licensing district power which they did not now possess.
§ SIR PHILIP MUNTZ
I said that in my opinion the magistrates had dealt wisely in the past with licensing questions and would do so in the future.
MR. LAWSON WALTON
said if that were the opinion of the hon. Member he was entirely at a loss to understand the feeling of apprehension with which he regarded an extension of the magistrates' powers. As he understood the hon. Member the power to impose conditions given under this Amendment would not be wisely exercised, and that so far from seeking the most eligible applicant the magistrates would be guided solely by financial considerations and would chose the highest bidder whether he were the best qualified or not. He asked the Committee to conclude that the justices would act wisely in the future. No argument whatever had been used against this jurisdiction being given to them. The magistrates would have ample power to clothe the granting of licences with any conditions they might choose to demand in the interests of the public, which by this Amendment they were expressly enjoined to consider. The attachment of some financial terms to the granting of a most valuable monopoly right was by no means inconsistent with the general policy of our licensing law. It was not an impossibility to choose the most eligible applicant and at the same time to recognise that they were conferring upon him a financial endowment in regard to which he might be fairly asked to make some contribution which would, to some extent, relieve the local burdens of the district. The hon. and learned Member for the Stretford Division was rather opposed to the provision under which it would be possible to have different conditions obtaining in different districts. But if they were to have experiments they must leave the magisterial discretion unfettered. If there magisterial Court was to be trusted, their was no reason why its discretion should be restricted.
1432 There was another part of the Amendment which appeared to him more important, and that was the introduction of a system which he could not help thinking would ultimately be the licensing system in this country, viz., the power— which he wished was compulsory—to licensing justices to grant a seven years licence in place of the annual grant. No one who had considered this question could have avoided coming to the conclusion that the annual licence was an obsolete and inapplicable system. At present, when an application for a new licence was made, the justices asked to inspect the plans; plans involving expenditure possibly of thousands of pounds were submitted; they were inspected and passed, the house was constructed under the supervision of the Bench, and the licence was granted when the house was completed. But although it was obvious that many years must elapse before the capital expenditure was exhausted, the term of the licence was one year only. That was an obsolete system, totally inapplicable to modern conditions. If they were dealing solely with new licences, he did not think there could be the smallest question that the one year was doomed, and that they must give either an equity of renewal or a tenure of licence which would enable the person who obtained the licence to look forward to a definite period during which he would have some security for the capital he had invested. The problem in regard to new licences was so simple that the Government had been persuaded by the force of argument, and had provided under this Amendment that new licences should be for seven years, and that when that seven years had elapsed the licence would be enewed for another seven years. That system entirely removed the necessity for any compensation. The proposal under the section gave no compensation after the lapse of seven years, and when those seven years had elapsed there might be a review by the Bench of the whole situation of the district and its needs with regard to the trade.
If this argument was So sound that it had convinced the Government with regard to new licensing, was there no means by which the system might be applied to existing licences. If it was so 1433 sound that every new licence was to be granted on the footing of a lease of seven years', during which the tenant might count his risk of non-renewal at the end of that period, insure against loss, and limit the expenditure of his capital to the duration of his term—why should they not adapt that System, at once businesslike and logical, to the existing licences. Such a proposal he had himself made the Subject of a new clause, which, however, would meet the fate of many other suggestions under the closure. How might that system be applied to licences now in existence? If the licensee were allowed to have the option of taking the renewal for seven years instead of one, of abstaining entirely from any contribution to the fund, and of keeping out of the scope of the scheme of compensation, he might be given the power of putting himself into the Same category as the new licensees. He would become his own insurer. He might insure on better terms than this Bill provided and he would have all the advantages which a new licensee possessed under this clause. What was the objection to that system? He would gladly support the Amendment, which, if it could be carried one Step further so as to bridge the chasm between new licences and old licences and obviate the absurd anomaly of having two classes of licences, would make then the Bill a statesmanlike measure.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that, though the form of this clause was new, it was the fact that from the first moment the Bill was introduced he had always explained to the House that, in the view of his colleagues, and in his own view, it was an essential part of their scheme that as regarded new licences, where existing rights were in no sense involved, a new system should be adopted. The hon. Member appealed to their sympathies because he could not bring on his own Amendment, but although they could not have the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment they were delighted to have had his speech. They only regretted that it was not made on the First or Second Reading.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the Bill was before the House, and what he was dropping a sympathetic tear over was that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not deliver his speech on the First or Second Reading or on some subsequent occasion when the fundamental principles of the Bill were under discussion. For he had said that the system of annual licences was antiquated and obsolete, that it was not appropriate to the present condition of affairs, and that there ought to be either an equity of renewal or a lease. Where was "Sharps v. Wakefield"?
MR. LAWSON WALTON
said he was: indicating a perfect system. "Sharper. v. Wakefield" defined the existing law which was most imperfect.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Second Reading would have been most highly valued. The hon. Gentleman behind him, not content with "Sharpe v. Wakefield," went back to the 16th century to show that annual licences were the proper system, and the idea that there was a right to an equity of renewal or a lease would have been received earlier in the debate by the hon. and learned Gentleman's friend with shouts of disapproval. If the hon. and learned Gentleman voted against the First and Second Reading, holding the ideas he did on the equity of renewal or right to a lease, it was impossible to square his votes with the view which, with so much eloquence and acumen, he had now expounded to the Committee.
MR. LAWSON WALTON
pointed out that his argument referred to new licences. Where a house was constructed under the sanction of the Bench in the anticipation of an annual grant, there should be either an equity of renewal or a fixed term during which the tenant might provide against his capital being unexhausted. He was not dealing with old licences under the present system under which there had been so many warnings of the precarious character of their tenure, of which warnings "Sharpe v. Wakefield" was the most pointed.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
did not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman. Many 1435 structural alterations had been required from men holding their licences on an annual tenure. The Government said it was an outrage to take the licence away without compensation. The hon. and learned Gentleman apparently thought it an outrage, but he had been voting steadily against the Bill, the object of which was to prevent that outrage. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was a lgood speech from his own point of view, but he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's interruption explained the inconsistency between his arguments and his votes.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he knew all that. He thought the criticisms of the clause from the Government Benches had been uttered under a complete misconception both of the purpose and effects of the clause. The purpose of the clause was to prevent in the future in regard to new licences that slow but inevitable growth of equitable rights, not recognised by law, which had grown up in regard to old licences under the existing system, and which had proved such a difficulty in the way of reducing licences. He did not believe there was an hon. Member in the House who differed from that particular statement of the policy which they ought to pursue. To effect that object, upon which they were all agreed, his hon. friends said they would prefer annual licences rather than leases for seven years. But there was nothing in the clause to prevent the issue of annual licences. The matter was left to the magistrates to determine. His hon. friend had added to the error of supposing that this Bill required the magistrates to grant leases, the further error that this clause required them to put the licence up to auction. The hon. Member not only misinterpreted the clause but he did so in a way which absolutely reversed its true character and the intention of those who framed it. He asked hon. Members to turn their attention for a moment to the phrase in the first paragraph of the second subsection—The justices of a licensing district on the grant of a new licence may attach to the grant 1436 of the licence such conditions, both as to the payments to be made and the tenure of the licence, and as to any other matters, as they think proper in the interests of the public.His hon. friends also interpreted that sub-section of the clause to mean that the licensing justices were bound to see that the extremest sum was obtained for the monopoly value of a new licence that it was possible to obtain in the open market. How could the monopoly value of the licence be separated from the rest of the property?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that the monopoly value was only part of the interest of the licence. How could they put up for auction that which might be of enormous value apart from the licence and from the monopoly value of the licence? What the clause contemplated was that the magistrates should draw a distinction between the value that would attach to the licence were there free trade in the sale of liquor and the value which attached to it because there was not free trade in the sale of liquor. That could not be put up to auction separately, and it must be done by a rough and ready method.
§ MR. AINSWORTH
said that if a license was to be sold for the benefit of the public the object must be to get the utmost possible value for it. If they did not do that they would not be selling the licence in the public interest, but in the interest of the man who bought it, because he would be getting it for less than its real value.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was not quite sure that he fully understood the purport of his hon. friend's interruption. His hon. friends were also puzzled by the words in the clause "private persons." Those words were meant to prevent the clause from being applied to cases in which the beneficiary from the monopoly was the corpoiation of a town or some other public body of the kind. He 1437 believed that some hon. Members thought this phrase had been inserted in order to protect or to aid one particular form in which it was intended to deal with licensed premises—namely, the Public-house Trust Corporation. It had nothing to do with it either directly or indirectly. It had no special reference whatever to any form of private trading in liquor; but it was conceivable that in some districts there might be a desire that any product of monopoly value should go to the public. It was intended to make this possible, and it ought to be possible. It would be very wrong so to arrange any licensing laws that the monopoly value should not go to the public. If they restricted the, liquor trade they were almost certain to create a monopoly value, do what they would. No one desired to have free trade in drink; it had been tried and it had failed, and no one wanted to try the experiment again. If they were going to restrict the trade, the mere fact that it was restricted had a strong tendency to give it a monopoly value. All that the Government desired was to give the monopoly value to the public and not to the private individual. It was therefore recognised that the clause was a serious endeavour to carry out an object agreed to by both sides of the House.
§ MR. WHITTAKER
said that there should be a term to licences with full power to deal with them at the end of the term. The right hon. Gentleman had prevented the possibility of this power from being enjoyed in the future. It was a principle of great importance that there should be full power on the part of the justices to deal with licences at sometime or other. The present proposal was an enormous improvement on the original proposal in the Bill, but the Prime Minister had not met the criticisms urged against it. There was, first of all, the loss of annual control. The licences would not come before brewster sessions until the end of seven years. That was an undesirable change. They should come up annually for review, as to conduct, because it was important not to lose the annual control. It was also undesirable that the licensing authority should, So to say, Sell the licence. They ought to sell the licence for an annual sum, and it ought to be a 1438 very substantial sum, but he did not like the system of paying down a lump sum for a licence to cover a period of years because under Such circumstances it would be very difficult to take that licence away. Therefore it would be much better if the payment was an annual one. If this principle was so sound and good why should it not apply to all licences, to off-licences as well as on-licences? The expressions "private person" and "monopoly value" were by no means clear. What was meant by monopoly value? The Prime Minister had suggested to them what it was not, but he had not told them what the monopoly value was.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that monopoly value was the difference in value between the sale of liquor in existing circumstances under the existing law and what the value would be if there was free trade in liquor.
§ MR. WHITTAKER
said that amounted to the difference in the value of the premises with a licence and without. In the ordinary case if there were free trade in liquor there would be no special value attaching to the premises, and they would be like any other premises. On that definition the real meaning of the monopoly value would be the additional value which the granting of this monopoly added to the premises. That, however, did not coincide with the definition given by the Solicitor-General, who seemed to think that it depended upon the profits. The ordinary profits resulting from the trade in drink would be distinct from the monopoly value which the licence would give to the premises. Every successful trade was conducted at a profit and it did not mean that all the profit of carrying on the trade would be taken. It seemed to him that there was substance in the contention that practically these licences would still go to the great brewers.. He did not think they would get rid of monopoly by selling at the highest possible price, but he thought they must sell at the highest possible price if they were to get the monopoly value. If they were to sell to the highest bidder in order to get the full monopoly value the licences would go to the great brewers as before. It seemed to him that was inconsistent with the provision in the 1439 clause that they were going to protect the public interest. The buyer would have to sell the largest possible amount of drink in order to get a return for the price paid, and that would not be in the public interest. The hon. Member for the Tamworth Division had said that the justices could select the men. He thought the justices had very few opportunities of selecting the men now. The brewers selected the men and the justices had largely to take those who were offered to them. There was one point in the new clause he should like to make a remark upon. He did not like the idea of the extra levy upon licences going to the relief of local rates. At present licence duties went to the local authorities, and, therefore, to the relief of rates. The amount at present was comparatively small, but if they were to get into the way of levying on licences their full value that amount would become very substantial indeed, and it was undesirable that local authorities should depend for a large relief of the rates on the number of licences granted. He thought this extra charge should go to the National Exchequer rather than to the relief of local rates. The hon. Member for Manchester had suggested that under this proposal surrenders and exchanges might still continue, that was to say, it might be possible to surrender two or three licences in one place in order to get a new licence in another. As he read the proposal that would not be possible. If a new licence was to be obtained by the surrender of two or three others it must be perfectly obvious that they were not getting the full monopoly value. Therefore, it seemed to him that such an arrangement was not included under the proposal. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for Dundee that this was introducing a very important change, and that they could not in any degree look upon the idea as a permanent one that one class of licences should pay full value to the State, while others would be allowed to pay only the nominal sum they paid now. He believed that in the near future they might look for very much increased licence duties.
There were unquestionably many respects in which this new proposal 1440 was an improvement on the old one. In the old proposal it was provided that the fees got for new licences should go to the compensation- fund. That was not to be the case now. That were to go to the service of the public. He thought the clause abolished the possibility of exchanges and surrenders for new licences, and further, the new proposal would retain the power of granting new licences in non-county boroughs to the justices there. These were, he thought, important improvements. The plan was not the best one, and he felt certain that it would be a somewhat temporary one. He was afraid that not one of the existing licence-holders would adopt the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend of exchanging their licences for new ones on seven years terms, because under the Bill as it at present stood they would be entitled to very full compensation, while under the new arrangement they would be required to pay a very much increased fee. This was the beginning of a very great change indeed, and he thought that in the near future it would be extended to all licences. It certainly meant the end of the old condition of things. He regretted that under the operation of the closure this question could not receive anything like adequate discussion.
§ SIR J. STIRLING - MAXWELL (Glasgow, College),
speaking as a friend to the Bill, ventured to repeat a Question of the hon. and learned Member opposite, which, he said, his right hon. friend had not answered. The Bill was designed to give compensation to existing licence-holders for an equitable right which Members on the Government side held that they possessed. That was laid down in the first part of the Bill; but they were now creating a new kind of licence in the future which would be unlike the old kind and would be much less valuable. How did the Prime Minister account for the discrepancy between the two? The difference did not represent the compensation, because that was already arranged for. It seemed to him that it only represented a flaw in the system which they were creating in this Bill. He would suggest that it might be possible at some date, without interfering with the system of compensation, to bring existing licences under the same 1441 improved conditions as were to be applied to the new ones.
§ MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)
said it was extremely important that the Committee should know what they were voting about, and he confessed he had some difficulty in interpreting some of the words in the Amendment. His difficulty was chiefly about "private person" and "monopoly value." He thought the Prime Minister misapprehended what was meant by "private person." These words had created a good deal of alarm, because it was thought the use of the words in this connection meant that individual arrangements would be excluded, whilst a similar disability was not inflicted on brewery companies or persons associated and brought together for the purpose of carrying on trade. He thought the matter ought to be made plainer. In regard to "monopoly value" it seemed to him a monopoly must mean an exclusive right to sell. He could understand the words "monopoly value" would apply to a licence granted to a publican to sell liquor in a village where he had no competitor within a radius of two or three miles, but in a town where there would be four, five, or six competitors he thought the term "monopoly value" could hardly be applied. He submitted that persons would not go into a business of a speculative character upon conditions of the nature indicated in the Amendment, and that the new clause would really have the effect of making it almost impossible to get new licences taken up. He could not but think that the passage of this clause in the form in which it now stood would go a long way towards bringing about a result he was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not desire, 1442 namely, that there would be hardly any new licences granted, even when they were required in the public interest.
§ MR. CRIPPS
said they all recognised that as regarded new licences no right of compensation should arise as in the case of old licences. He understood that licences would be put up to auction, and granted for a term of seven years, but the right of annual revision should be retained to the magistrates in order that they might see that a public-house was being properly carried on. Their object was to have the Bill in the best possible form in justice to existing interests, and he hoped the points which had been raised would be fully considered by the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General before the Report stage.
§ Question put and negatived
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 5th July, to put the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the allotted Business to be concluded on the 3rd allotted Day.1443
§ Clause 5:—
§ MR. WHITLEY
said that on behalf of his hon. friend the Member for Flint Boroughs he wished to move the omission of the words "may if they think fit," and insert "shall." The object of the Amendment was to make it mandatory upon quarter sessions to reduce the area of the district in which the compensation would operate, and in which the committees would act in the matter of reduction of the licences. [Loud interruptions.]
§ MR. WHITLEY
said he understood that it was not the intention to go on further with the Bill that night after the guillotine had fallen. The purpose of his Amendment, as he had said, was to reduce the areas of the districts in which the compensation fund would operate, and in which the committees would act in the matter of the reductions of licences-It had been found in connection with the Education Act that where the areas were large, administration was unsatisfactory. He begged to move.
In page 3, line 23, to leave out the words 'may, if they think fit,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Whitley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
§ MR. LOUGH
said that on a point of order he wished to draw attention to a paragraph in the Closure Resolution, 1444 which said that the Chairman should proceed—Successively to put forthwith the Question; on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments), and on every Question necessary; to dispose of the allotted business to be concluded on the allotted day.Now the Committee had disposed of the allotted business for this allotted day, and he would like to know whether it was in order to go on with the discussion of the Bill
said that although the allotted business for the allotted day had been completed, the Committee could go on with other business, as there were still fifty minutes until midnight.
It is competent for, the Committee to proceed with the Fifth Clause. If the hon. Member does not desire further discussion, it is open to him to ask the Government to move that Progress be reported.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said that, as far as the Government were concerned, they were quite prepared to proceed with the clause. He thought that was also the opinion of the Committee generally, in order that as many Amendments as possible might be saved from the application of the guillotine.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not move to 1445 report Progress. As regarded the Amendment, there were many districts which, if divided, would render the compensation area insufficient. He therefore hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.
§ MR. J. H. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
said he was not convinced by the argument of the Home Secretary. He thought it desirable that the quarter
§ sessions should be told distinctly that it would be necessary for them to subdivide their districts in the interests of the efficiency of the Act. There was an undue centralisation of authority in the Bill.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 267; Noes, 157. (Division List No. 224.)1449
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hall, Edward Marshall|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hambro, Charles Eric|
|Arrol, Sir William||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Davenport, William Bromley||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th|
|Austin, Sir John||Denny, Colonel||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Dickson, Charles Scott||Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Helder, Augustus|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds||Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.||Hoare, Sir Samuel|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Hobhouse, RtHn. H(Somers't, E|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Duke, Henry Edward||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Hoult, Joseph|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.)||Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham|
|Bigwood, James||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil|
|Bill, Charles||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Bingham, Lord||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Hunt, Rowland|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Jameson, Major J. Eustace|
|Bond, Edward||Fisher, William Hayes||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Fison, Frederick William||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton|
|Bull, William James||Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.|
|Butcher, John George||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Kerr, John|
|Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.||Flower, Sir Ernest||Keswick, William|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Forster, Henry William||Kimber, Henry|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S.W.)||Knowles, Sir Lees|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Galloway, William Johnson||Laurie, Lieut.-General|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gardner, Ernest||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Garfit, William||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A (Worc.||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.|
|Chapman, Edward||Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin& Nairn)||Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Graham, Henry Robert||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)|
|Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C.R.||Greene, Sir E.W(B'ry S.Edm'nds||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)||Lowe, Francis William|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Grenfell, William Henry||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Groves, James Grimble||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Percy, Earl||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Pierpoint, Robert||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Stock, James Henry|
|Maconochie, A. W.||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|M'Fadden, Edward||Pretyman, Ernest George||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G(Oxf'd Univ.|
|M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W.||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Pym, C. Guy||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Randles, John S.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Majendie, James A. H.||Rankin, Sir James||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Martin, Richard, Biddulph||Ratcliff, R. F.||Tuff, Charles|
|Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.||Reid, James (Greenock)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Maxwell, Rt.Hn. SirH. E(Wigt'n||Remnant, James Farquharson||Valentia, Viscount|
|Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)||Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge||Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H(Sheffield|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Milvain, Thomas||Robinson, Brooke||Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.|
|Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne|
|Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh., N.)|
|Mount, William Arthur||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland||Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Simeon, Sir Barrington||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Myers, William Henry||Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Young, Samuel|
|Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Smith, H.C(North'mb. Tyneside||Younger, William|
|Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Spear, John Ward||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|O'Dowd, John||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)||Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington||Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)|
|Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark||Grant, Corrie|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cremer, William Randal||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Allen, Charles P.||Crooks, William||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill|
|Asher, Alexander||Cullinan, J.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Hain, Edward|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Harcourt, Lewis V- (Rossendale|
|Barran, Rowland Hisrt||Delany William||Harmsworth, R. Leicester|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Harwood, George|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Dobbie, Joseph||Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.|
|Benn, John Williams||Doogan, P. C.||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Black, Alexander William||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.|
|Boland, John||Duncan, J. Hastings||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Brigg, John||Edwards, Frank||Higham, John Sharpe|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Ellice, Capt. E. C(SAndrw'sBghs||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Ellis, John Edward (Notts)||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Emmott, Alfred||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Burt, Thomas||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)|
|Caldwell, James||Fenwick, Charles||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Cameron, Robert||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Joicey, Sir James|
|Cawley, Frederick||Flynn, James Christopher||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||Joyce, Michael|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgo w||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid||Slack, John Bamford|
|Kilbride, Denis||O'Malley, William||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Kitson, Sir James||O'Mara, James||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Langley, Batty||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Parrott, William||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Partington, Oswald||Sullivan, Donal|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Paulton, James Mellor||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Leigh, Sir Joseph||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Levy, Maurice||Perks, Robert William||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Lloyd-George, David||Price, Robert John||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Lough, Thomas||Priestley, Arthur||Tomkinson, James|
|Lundon, W.||Rea, Russell||Toulmin, George|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Reckitt, Harold James||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Roddy, M.||Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Rickett, J. Compton||White, George (Norfolk)|
|M'Crae, George||Rigg, Richard||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Mansfield Horace Rendall||Robson, William Snowdon||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Runciman, Walter||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Morley, Charles (Breeonshire)||Schwann, Charles E.||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd|
|Moss, Samuel||Shackleton, David James|
|Moulton, John Fletcher||Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)||TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Mr.|
|Murphy, John||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)||J. H. Whitley and Mr. Her-|
|Newnes, Sir George||Sheehy, David||bert Lewis.|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)
said it had already been decided that quarter sessions should have power to divide their administrative areas into districts for the purposes of the Bill, and the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to secure that if such divisions were made the districts should be those at present existing. The advantage of such an arrangement was that in each division there would then be local magistrates who for a long time had been in the habit of considering the requirements of the particular district, and who therefore had practical experience of the wants of the neighbourhood in the matter of public drinking facilities. He begged to move.
In page-3, line 24, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'which districts shall consist of the licensing districts or licensing divisions into which such area is now divided.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
§ Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."1450
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
suggested that, inasmuch as the Committee had decided to leave it in the option of the quarter sessions to divide the county into districts, it would be far better to leave it to them to decide what those districts should be. The reason quarter Sessions were being taken as the administrative power was that the existing districts were too small, and by reason of their smallness would frustrate the object of the nsurance scheme of the Bill.
§ MR. WHITLEY
thought there was much force in the last observation of the learned Solicitor - General. Personally, he was not in favour of too large districts, but, on the other hand, he did not want them too small. He suggested that the Solicitor-General should give some indication to the Committee that the Government would attempt to provide that the districts should be of a reasonable size.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.1451
§ MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)
said the remarks of the Solicitor-General on the last Amendment put in a nutshell the case for the proposal he was about to make. The ostensible object of the Bill was to reduce the number of licences, but it was obvious that if the counties were divided into too small districts the amount of the fund raised would be so small as to render impossible any reduction within a reasonable period. His Amendment provided that in no case should the districts be of less than £10,000 annual value. He was not tied to that particular figure; he simply desired to give some direction to the quarter sessions to prevent the districts being too small. In many districts the full amount of the tax would not be levied, and in such cases the amount of the fund raised would be very small. He hoped the Government might see their way to
§ give the Amendment favourable consideration.
In page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert the words, 'Provided that the annual value of premises to be taken as for the purpose of the publican's licence duty within any such district shall in the aggregate be not less than ten thousand pounds.'"—(Mr. Nussey.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said he could not accept the Amendment. The Bill provided that quarter sessions should decide for themselves what the area was to be and he thought it would be far better to leave all these questions to the discretion of that body.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 234. (Division List No. 225.)1455
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Levy, Maurice|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Fenwick, Charles||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Allen, Charles P.||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Lough, Thomas|
|Asher, Alexander||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lundon, W.|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Beaumont, Went worth C. B.||Goddard, Daniel Ford||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Benn, John Williams||Grant, Corrio||MArthur, William (Cornwall)|
|Black, Alexander William||Griffith, Ellis J.||M'Crae, George|
|Boland, John||Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale)||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Brigg, John||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Mansfield, Horace Rendall|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Harwood, George||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Helme, Norval Watson||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)|
|Caldwell, James||Higham, John Sharpe||Moss, Samuel|
|Cawley, Frederick||Holland, Sir William Henry||Moulton, John Fletcher|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Murphy, John|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Horniman, Frederick John||O'Malley, William|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jacoby, James Alfred||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Partington, Oswald|
|Cremer, William Randal||Joicey, Sir James||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Cullinan, J.||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Price, Robert John|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Joyce, Michael||Priestley, Arthur|
|Delany, William||Kearley, Hudson E.||Rea, Russell|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W.||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Doogan, P. C.||Kitson, Sir James||Reddy, M.|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Langley, Batty||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Edwards, Frank||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Rigg, Richard|
|Ellice, Capt EC (S Andrw'sBghs||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts)||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Russell, T. W.||Soares, Ernest J.||White, Luke (Yorkshire, E.R.)|
|Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Sullivai, Donal||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Schwann, Charles E.||Taylor Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Shackleton, David James||Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)||Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd|
|Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)||Tomkinson, James|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Toulmin, George||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Slack, John Bamford||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)||Nussey and Mr. Guest.|
|Smith, Samuel (Flint)||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Fisher, William Hayes||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S.)|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir H.||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Austin, Sir John||Flower, Sir Ernest||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Forster, Henry William||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S.W.||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Galloway, William Johnson||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Gardner, Ernest||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Balcarres, Lord||Garfit, William||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r)||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin&Nairn)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds||Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'mlets||M'Fadden, Edward|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Goulding, Edward Alfred||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Greene, Sir EW(B'ryS.Edmonds||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H.E.(Wigt'n|
|Bigwood, James||Gretton, John||Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire|
|Bingham, Lord||Groves, James Grimble||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hall, Edward Marshall||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Bond, Edward||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hambro, Charles Eric||Milvain, Thomas|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Butcher, John George||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.)||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Heath, Arthur Howard( Hanley||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A(Worc.||Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.||Mount, William Arthur|
|Chapman, Edward||Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Murray, Rt. Hn. A.Graham(Bute|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H(Somers'tE||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Hogg, Lindsay||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hope, J.F.(Sheflield, Brightside||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry.||Hoult, Joseph||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Houston, Robert Paterson||0'Brien,Kondal(Tipperary, Mid|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Howard, John(Kent, Faversham||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hunt, Rowland||O'Dowd, John|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Tameson, Major J. Eustace||Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Percy, Earl|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.( Salop)||Pilkington, Colonel Richard|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Kerr, John||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Keswick, William||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Knowles, Sir Lees||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Pym, C. Guy|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Randies, John S.|
|Egerton, Hon. A. do Tatton||Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks, N.R||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge||Spear, John Ward||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Ridley, S.Forde (Rethnal Green||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bronbwich)||Wilby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts|
|Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Stanley, Hon. Arthur(O'mskirk||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Robertson, Herbert (Hankney)||Stanley, EdwardJas (Somerset)||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne|
|Robinson, Brooke||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Rolleston Sir John F. L.||Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Stirling-Maxweil, Sir John M.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Round, Rt. Hon. James||Stock, James Henry||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Talbot. Rt. Hn. J. G. f Oxf'd Univ.||Worsloy-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Thorburn, Sir Walter||Wrigntson, Sir Thomas|
|Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Thornton, Percy M.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Tuff, Charles||Young, Samuel|
|Sharpe, William Edward T.||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Tully, Jasper||TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Sir|
|Simeon, Sir Barrington||Valentine, Viscount||Aexander Acland-Hood and|
|Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside)||Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H(Sheffield||Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Smith, James Parker (Lanarks||Wilker, Col. William Hall|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
§ MR. LEVY (Leicestershire, Loughborough)
moved to omit Sub-section 2 of Clause 5, which empowers quarter sessions to delegate their powers to a committee. He objected that the great powers to be vested in the Home Secretary might override quarter sessions. The Bill provided that the Home Secretary might appoint the committee. That committee might have to deal with questions of compensation and the renewal or refusal of licences. It was imperative upon quarter sessions to delegate certain powers to the committee, and he wished to know whether quarter sessions would have power to revise the decisions of the committee. He thought the House should have some information as to the object of handing over great powers to a committee, of the constitution of which they were told nothing. The Government had indicated their opinion that counties should be divided into somewhat smaller areas, and that being so it seemed unnecessary to have any committee set up.
In page 3, line 27, to leave out Subsection (2)."—(Mr. Levy.)
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said he would remind the hon. Member that there were county licensing committees, and it was necessary that power should be delegated to the committees which would be set up under this Bill. Already under Clause 4 certain powers had been transferred to the committees. He thought the hon. Member would quite see that it would be impossible for the quarter sessions properly to supervise all the questions with which the committees would have to deal relating to renewal.
§ And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.