§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1—
§ ME. J. H. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
said the object of the Amendment he now proposed to move was to omit the new licence from the scope of the first clause. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. They surely did not intend to create a permanent vested interest in new licences, yet that was what this clause conferred, and the object of [his Amendment was to obviate that undesirable consummation. This Amendment 1332 affected both the question of jurisdiction and compensation. With regard to jurisdiction, it would be better that the local justices should deal with the new licences because they knew what the necessities of the locality were, and it was desirable on another ground also. If these powers were vested in quarter sessions there would be a great temptation to grant licences in new districts in order to add to the compensation fund, which would be unfair to the new districts. With regard to compensation, everybody would agree that it was most desirable that a new monopoly interest should not be allowed to grow up in regard to those new licences, but a monopoly interest could only be destroyed in one of two ways: either there must be free trade in the sale of liquor or licences must be let at competitive value. As to free trade in liquor, that was obviously out of the question, and so far as letting the licences at competitive value was concerned, he pointed out that in letting a licence at competitive value that licence must not be dealt with once and for all, but from time to time as occasion arose, because the value of licences changed from time to time. A relatively short time back the 1333 Metropolitan Board of Works were able to acquire licences at an average value of £1,700 each, but now the average value had risen to £3,100, and therefore it was obvious that licences must be dealt with from time to time in a way in which they could not be if a vested interest was created. There was another important question in regard to this matter. The Bill as it stood prevented the extension in the future of the operations of the trust system, which many people favoured, as was pointed out by Lord Grey in his letter on the subject, in which had hitherto attended the great success which he drew attention the operations of these trusts, and in which he stated that the Bill would operate fatally agains; the extension of the system. If would be obviously quite impossible for trusts to continue their operations in the future the clause as it stood prevented the extension of the trust system in the country on the ground that it was proved to create a vested interest in now licences, and for the other reasons he had mentioned he begged to move.
In page 1, line 5, after the word 'licence, to insert the words 'which was in force on the twenty-fifth day of June nineteen hundred and four, or any licence granted by way of renewal there of from time to time.'"— (Mr. J.H. Lewis.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. DUKE (Plymouth)
said he hoped the Government would be able to regard this Amendment favourably. It raised matters of principle which were not previously raised. With a great many of the details of the speech of the hon. Member who moved it he did not agree, but with the distinction which the hon. Member drew between the licences now in existence with the rights of monopoly which they had, and the licences hereafter to be granted, he entirely sympathised. He hoped the Government would see that there was a vary great distinction between dealing with licences to be granted in the future and those licences which were already in existence 1334 and which had come into existence as part of a system of monopoly. Those who considered this matter on its merits would recognise that where a licence was granted to an individual as part of a system of monopoly, a set of rights was created which could only be dealt, with subject to a due regard to elementary principles of justice and fair play; but under the new order of things there would be granted from time to time to trusts or brewers licences, and he hoped the Government would see that, when granting these licences in future, we should not be for all time under a monopoly system of liquor traffic, or if there must be monopoly, the monopoly should not be for the benefit of trusts and brewers, but for the profit of the public, to whom the profits ought go. But this Amendment could not be dealt with unless some decision was come as to how we were to proceed in the future. The Government were going to formulate a policy with regard to the now licences, but it was not at present very distinctly outlined, and there was the difficulty under Clause 4, that interference with the Government plan might lessen the compensation fund. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment suggested two modes of dealing with the monopoly system: free trade in liquor and letting licences for terms but the hon. gentleman apparently rejected both those alternatives. He (Mr. Duke) did not think the question could be disposed of on this Amendment because it was an Amendment to a scheme for dealing with a monopoly system, the whole of which scheme was bound up with the past history of the monopoly system and the rights, moral or legal, which that system had conferred. The question, to his mind, was whether the House ought not to leave itself free to deal with this matter at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill which would provide that the granting of a licence in the future was grant out of the public should receive, in some form or other, and should look for some part of, the licence. That would at any rate, put upon the public and those who 1335 were to regulate this traffic a responsibility which would be coupled with their interest in it. He hoped the Government would not close this discussion without seriously considering the interests of the public in future licences.
§ COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)
said his reason for following the speeches already made was that it seemed to him to be a great pity that they could not do something in this direction when they were compensating for old licences and doing away with what had been considered in certain quarters to be a gross injustice. This Bill was the result of a feeling of injustice on the part of the present licence-holders; it had nothing to do with the granting of new licences, and the hon. Member for Plymouth had shown very distinctly the great advantage which would result if the Government in this Bill differentiated between the old and the new licences. Nobody wished to have this promise of compensation going on for all time, and it appeared to him that there should be some statesmanlike provision introduced with regard to the new licences. That was absolutely necessary. It was one of those points which, if taken up, would enable the Government to pass this measure in a form satisfactory to everybody in the House and in the country. He made a strong appeal to the Government that these new licences should be treated in quite a different manner from the old licences, and that the view of the hon. Member for Plymouth, with regard to the public receiving a benefit, should be gone into by the Government with a view to inserting some new clause in the Bill to cover the new licences and to reduce to a minimum the compensation paid.
§ SIR EDGAR VINCENT (Exeter),
said he ventured to join in the appeal that had been made by his hon. friends to His Majesty's Government that they would at least accept the principle on which the Amendment was founded. It appeared to him that a very clear distinction should be drawn between the licences already in existence and those that were to be granted in the future. The whole Bill had for its justification the public interest, and the dealing with a difficult position, which all temperance 1336 efforts had failed to accomplish in the past. It appeared to him that the Amendment as framed did not in the least attempt to prejudge the treatment to be accorded to licences to be granted in the future. All that it did was to leave the question open, and in Clause 4, it left it open to quarter sessions to insert whatever stipulations might be considered necessary.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said he hoped in what he said the Committee would not think that he meant to suggest that the question of new licences was not to be looked upon in an entirely different manner to old licences. He stated, when speaking on the Second Reading, that he hoped they might be able to frame something that would put the new licences on a satisfactory basis to the State. They had there to consider no question of vested interests or even of equitable interests, and there could be no divergence of opinion on the two sides of he House as to attempting to set up the best possible system in regard to the granting of new licences. Having said so much, hon. Members opposite would see that the application of the principle-of that statement was not so easy as might be imagined in finding out what was the most satisfactory system. But there were certain broad facts that should guide them in framing their provisions with regard to new licences. In the first place, he thought they ought to lay down the principle that they were determined that no new vested interests should be? set up. They ought to leave the magistrates perfectly free to deal with the granting and renewal of new licences without any possible claim being set up of any kind in relation to them. Whatever interest was created by the grant of a new licence, no claim for compensation or for a share in a monopoly ought to be allowed to arise. If they could say that no new licence should be created in future, that probably would be the most satisfactory manner of dealing with the question. But this would be absolutely impossible, because new districts must arise in which a hotel, a public-house, or a restaurant might be required by the public. The question, then, was, how were they to grant new licences, assuming that they 1337 must be granted? A person could not be expected, as a business transaction, to take up a licence for a year only, if he was to be subject to the conditions imposed by Clause 4, and the present conditions as to structural suitability of premises, and so forth. But there ought to be some conditions of this kind provided for in the fourth clause of the Bill for the granting of the new licences.
The view of the Government was that practically the magistrates ought to be allowed to impose such conditions as they thought to be proper. As a corollary, they thought that probably the best way of granting new licences was that they should be granted for three, five, or seven years, or for a period which as a business transaction would be likely to induce men to sink capital in a business intended solely for the convenience of the public, it was plain that in such a case as that there ought to be no compensation at the end of the three, five, or seven years for which the licence was granted. If the Committee, on the other hand, thought that the annual system ought to be kept up, and if at the same time the terms of the Bill were to be exacted, it was plain that while there should be no compensation as for a share in the monopoly, the question arose of whether they could justify the licensee being compelled to subscribe to the insurance fund under the Bill. The Government would be as careful as the hon. Member to see that no system of compensation should be set up which should recognise any vested interest in the granting of a new licence. There was no intention to allow any system whereby the new licences should be placed in the position of the old licences. The Government were anxious to see the best system that could be devised adopted in relation to these new licences, and that the magistrates should not be fettered in granting them by the fear that a new interest would have to be paid for out of the monopoly that would be created. He suggested that with these assurances the matter might be left until Clause 4 was reached, when the whole question of new licences would be considered.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
said he did not gather that the hon. and learned Member was prepared to accept the Amendment, 1338 though it was the only possible conclusion from his speech. He was glad, however, to learn that no vested interest was to be created in respect of the new licences granted for the first time after the passing of the Bill. It would have been an astonishing thing if the Government had adhered to the provisions actually contained in the Bill, which undoubtedly would have had that effect.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that in every speech he had made on the question he had declared it to be an essential element of the Government policy that no new monopoly licences should be granted.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
said he had the words before him, and was about to quote them when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted him, in which the Prime Minister said that our forefathers had committed a great mistake in allowing any vested interest to be created, and that nothing of the sort ought to be permitted in the future. But under the Bill itself the creation of such a vested interest would beyond all question be permitted, subject to certain conditions, in Clause 4, which might or might not be imposed. It was also satisfactory to hear that no compensation would become payable in the case of new licences. That being the position, he desired to point out the justification for the Amendment and the necessity of insisting upon it. Clause 1 created the principle of the Bill with regard to on-licences, both present and future. Clause 4 allowed quarter sessions to attach certain conditions to the granting of new licences. But the power was entirely optional, and if the quarter sessions thought fit they could permit a new vested interest to grow up. There was not a word in the Bill as to the power to grant licences for three, five, or seven years, as suggested by the Solicitor-General. Personally he believed that if the words of existing Statutes had not been sufficient for the purpose, no form of words which human ingenuity could devise would suffice to prevent the growth of a vested interest. The only remedy was to impose annual taxation equivalent to the annual value of the gift which was to be conferred at the time of the granting of the 1339 new licence. He maintained that in these circumstances the Amendment was necessary. Its acceptance could not possibly prejudge any one of the matters referred to by the Solicitor-General in regard to Clause 4.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
submitted that that difficulty could easily be got over by providing in Clause 4 that the granting or renewing of the licences should be on the same footing as those dealt with in Clause 1. The Committee were now dealing with the great enacting clause of the Bill; the Government had stated that they did not propose to apply the principle of Clause 1 to the new licences; why, then, should not Clause 1 be limited to existing licences, leaving the question of new licences to be dealt with in whatever way the Committee thought fit on Clause 4?
§ COLONEL PILKINGTON
said the Government had declared their intention to treat new licences in a different manner to existing licences. It was necessary, therefore, that existing licences should be described in the Bill, and nothing could be clearer than the description given in the Amendment. The words suggested in the Amendment would make that matter absolutely plain, and new licences could then be dealt with in Clause 4 of the Bill.
§ MR. MARTIN (Worcestershire, Droitwich)
said there seemed to him a comparatively easy way out of the difficulty. There was no real reason why any new licence should be granted, at any rate for a great many years to come. If, when a licence was required in a new and populous place, the person obtaining the permission of the magistrates to have a licence should have to go into the market and buy up a licence in a place where it was not needed, many small towns and villages would have some of their superfluous licences removed from them into places where licences were needed. If no restriction were placed on the negotiability 1340 of licences, there would be a permanency in their value, and the necessity of granting any new licences might be got rid of for years to come.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
believed the whole House was of one mind in thinking that they should be careful, in regard to new licences, not to create that monopoly which had been such a burden to them in the past. He was not sure, however, that they ought so to limit the discretion of the magistrates as to make that impossible. He did not commit himself on the point, but he was anxious to give the magistrates discretion to try experiments regarding future licences and the terms on which they should be granted. The plan suggested by the Solicitor-General by which licences should be granted for a number of years would be a fit method in many cases for dealing with new licences, but he would be sorry to restrict magistrates to that one method. They might, for one reason or another, desire that the licences should be under their hand from year to year, and that there should be no bar to their withdrawing a licence if they thought fit to do so. It was evident that the lease system would require no compensation at all. The licence would be granted on terms well understood, and any improvements would be limited by the time the licence had to run. Another system would be to giant licences from year to year on the understanding that, if a licence was withdrawn, the holder would be recouped for any improvements he had made in the licensed premises for the advantage of the public and the proper carrying on of the business. He thought it was impossible, therefore, either in Clause 1 or in Clause 4, that they should do anything to render compensation impossible in the case of future licences. That compensation, of course, would not be for the monopoly value, but would be based on the principle already adopted by Parliament in regard to agricultural tenancies, where compensation was granted for unexhausted improvements. For these and other reasons, he should be reluctant to see the principle of compensation even for future licences absolutely excluded. He hoped that when they came to Clause 4, as much liberty would be left to the magistrates as 1341 possible, with a view to their trying various experiments in various districts as to the best mode of granting such new licences as might be required for the needs of a growing population, experiments that might vary from district to district and county to county. He was ready to admit that, in the judgment of the Government, all licences granted after the passing of this Act should come under the principles of Clause 4, and he was ready to accept the Amendment modified by such words as "existing at th3 commencement of this Act," or words equivalent thereto.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
thought it would be more in accordance with precedent to use some such phrase as "the commencement of this Act,"
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he was not aware of that fact. At any rate, the point was that licences bona-fide granted after the passing of this Bill should come under the new system, and it remained for the Committee to determine in connection with Clause 4 what that new system should be. That being so, the Government had done their best to meet the common view of the Committee by agreeing to accept the Amendment in the amended form which he had suggested.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said the words he suggested were "existing at the date of the passing of this Act," so as to make the compensation set up in Clauses 1 and 2 applicable only to existing licences, leaving open whatever questions it might be desirable to raise with regard to new licences on Clause 4. The question might also be raised as to whether a renewal was not in point of law a new grant.
§ MAJOR JAMESON (Clare, W.)
said the Amendment was a most objectionable one, 1342 and simply raised the question of a time limit in another form. It was a piece of absolute folly to accept such an Amendment, and he hoped it would be rejected.
MR. LAWSON WALTON
pointed out that if conditions were imposed upon a licensee involving costly alteration of premises and the licence were then withdrawn at the close of the year, an equity was undoubtedly created in the licensee who had invested his capital on the faith of his licence and had not had an opportunity of withdrawing the capital invested. It was, therefore, necessary to decide whether there should be a continuance of the present system of annual licences with an equity of renewal on the part of the licensee, or whether there should be a system of licences granted for a certain number of years, upon the definite understanding that no right to renewal or to compensation was vested in the licensee. That system, instead of giving a licence for a year, granted it for a reasonable period, and allowed the magistrates to review it at the end of that period, and gave them power to readjust the number of licensed houses to the wants of the neighbourhood. If that system was to be adopted with regard to new licences the question was whether they could create two systems of concurrent licences under one administration of the law. The Bill as it stood now would constitute two classes of licences—those in existence before 1904 and which had a right to compensation and which were annual, and licences created since 1904 which were for a term of years. There was no such thing in law as renewal, but there was a new licence. The question arose whether the Government should not at once provide for a renewal licence or a new licence instead of having a licence for one year, for a definite term on the understanding that the term should be sufficient to allow the licensee to cover himself by means of insurance, and with no obligation at the end of that time to compensate him.
§ MR. J. H. LEWIS
said he would accept the suggestion which had been made. He asked leave of the Committee to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.1343
In page 1, line 5, after the word 'licence' to insert the words 'existing at the date of the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. J. H. Lewis.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire W.)
said the object of the Amendment he wished to propose was to restrict the operation of the clause to licences granted by way of renewal for more than ten years prior to the passing of the Act. It would create a further distinction in regard to compensation, and introduce the condition that no compensation would be payable under Clause 1 of the Bill if the licence had not been renewed for a period of ten years at least. If the clause was passed as it stood now compensation would have to be paid for all existing licences. One of the grounds put forward for claiming compensation was individual personal hardship, and the Committee would remember how the hon. Member for the Ripon Division of Yorkshire had more than once laid before them the case of certain widows but if they went back as he suggested for a period of ten years that distinction could not arise. There was undoubtedly a great difference between a licence granted forty or fifty years ago and one granted within the last three or four years. There was another and perhaps more important distinction to be drawn between recently granted licences and those which had been renewed for a large number of years. The Committee would remember that it was more than ten years ago, in 1891, that the decision in "Sharpe v. Wakefield" was given, and that judgment made it clear beyond doubt that no legal claim could be made for compensation for the refusal of a licence. Those who had applied for licences, either as speculators or otherwise, since that time and invested their money in licences had had due notice of the exact condition of the law, and they had not the same ground for making a claim for compensation in case their licences were refused as those who invested their money before that time. Again, there was this further distinction — almost all the licences granted during the last ten years had been made not to individuals but to 1344 brewery companies. The Committee would remember some of those startling figures laid before the House by the hon. Member for Spen Valley in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, showing the immense amount of money invested during the last ten years by brewery companies in licensed premises. In his opinion there was a clear difference between the two classes of licences.
What was the object of this Bill? Its alleged object was to facilitate the reduction of licences in England and Wales. That depended upon three things—the amount of the State levy; whether that levy was compulsory or not; and lastly, the extent of the demand made upon the levy. This third point in particular had a direct relation to the Amendment they were discussing. It was clear that the more they could legitimately restrict and reduce the area of compensation the greater and more rapid would be the reduction made. The objection would of course be made that it was not fair to make a difference between a licence granted in 1893 and 1896. If his Amendment "were carried the man who was granted a licence in 1893 would receive compensation, whilst the man who received his licence three or four years later would not. The reply to that objection was obvious. No scheme could be devised which would do absolute justice in every possible case and on every possible point. Furthermore, it was not the licences which had been granted during the last ten years which would in any case be taken under the operation of this Bill upon the ground of non-necessity, so that no injustice could arise. Speaking generally, his Amendment excluded from compensation licences which had been issued during the last ten years, and which had reaped the harvest of modern improvements. Upon those grounds he thought there was a distinct difference between the two classes of licences. He did not think that any hardship would be inflicted upon any individual tenant if his Amendment were carried. It would narrow the area of compensation and facilitate a reduction of licences, and upon those grounds he thought his proposition was worthy of the favourable 1345 consideration of the Committee He begged to move.
In page 1, line 5, after the words 'last inserted,' to insert the words 'which has been granted by way of renewal for more than ten years prior to the passing of this Act.'" (Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said it was impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. This Amendment drew a distinction between the licences granted within the last ten years and those granted before that period, and it would be absolutely impossible to do that in this Bill. It was impossible to make this distinction when all licences were granted under the same law. Of the whole number of licences, those granted in the past ten years were not more than 5 per cent.; many of these were granted on condition that other licences were extinguished; others had been granted under very stringent conditions as to structural arrangements and other matters, and some v ere for new districts. If any distinction could be drawn, the licences the hon. Member would exclude were more entitled to be the subject of compensation.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said there was a good deal more to be said for it than (he Solicitor-General seemed to think. So far from it being an extravagant proposi-
§ tion, he thought his hon. friend might have extended the Amendment to renewals to the same person for the last ten years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon said that those who hid acquired an interest in 1882 had no equitable claim for compensation, because the law was made perfectly clear in the Act of Parliament, What was the difference between the law made clear by Act of Parliament and the law made clear by the declarations of the Judges of the land?
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said there was absolutely no distinction as regarded the principle. If it was property, what did it matter whether it was an off beer licence or an on beer licence? The point laid down was that they were purchasers with notice, and so far as equity was concerned there was a perfectly clear case for the Amendment. There was not a man who did not know everything about the decisions on the subject except the Prime Minister. But if the Government had made up their minds to give the money to the brewers, it did not matter what was put forward from the other side of the House.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 143; Noes, 245. (Division List No. 178.)1349
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Allen, Charles P.||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry||Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark)||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Cremer, William Randal||Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Crombie, John William||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Crooks, William||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Bell, Richard||Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan||Grant, Corrie|
|Benn, John Williams||Delany, William||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Black, Alexander William||Devlin. Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Blake, Edward||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hain, Edward|
|Boland, John||Donelan, Captain A.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Duncan, J. Hastings||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Brigg, John||Ellice, Capt EC (S, Andrw's Bghs||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Burt, Thomas||Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidsto'e||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Caldwell, James||Farrell, James Patrick||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.|
|Cameron, Robert||Fenwick, Charles||Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fred.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Ffrench, Peter||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Cawley, Frederick||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Joicey, Sir James|
|Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea||Murphy, John||Slack, John Bamford|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Newnes, Sir George||Smith, HC(North'mb. Tynes'de|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||Norman, Henry||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Joyce, Michael||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.||Parrott, William||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Kilbride, Denis||Partingdon, Oswald||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Lambert, George||Paulton, James Mellor||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Langley, Batty||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Perks, Robert William||Toulmin, George|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Pirie, Duncan V.||Ure, Alexander|
|Leigh, Sir Joseph||Power, Patrick Joseph||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)|
|Leng, Sir John||Priestley, Arthur||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Levy, Maurice||Rea, Russell||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Reddy, M.||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Lloyd-George, David||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Lough, Thomas||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Lundon, W.||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Robson, William Snowdon||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Roche, John||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|M'Crae, George||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Rose, Charles Day||Woodhouse, Sir JT. Huddersf'd|
|Mansfield, Horace Kendall||Runciman, Walter||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Russell, T. W.|
|Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.||Schwann, Charles E.||Herbert Roberts and Mr|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)||Trevelyan.|
|Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Sheehy, David|
|Moss, Samuel||Shipman, Dr. John C.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cohen, Benjamin Louis.||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS. Edm'nds.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Craig. Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.||Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Crean, Eugene||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Gretton, John|
|Austin, Sir John||Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Groves, James Grimble|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Cullinan, J.||Guthrie, Walter Murray|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hall, Edward Marshall|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Davenport, William Bromley-||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford|
|Balcarres, Lord||Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Harris. Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds||Dickson, Charles Scott.||Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.|
|Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Dimsdaie, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.|
|Bignold, Arthur||Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred Dixon||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Bigwood, James||Doogan, P C.||Helder, Augustus|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry-||Dorington. Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T|
|Bond, Edward||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hoare, Sir Samuel|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Duke, Henry Edward||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Dyke. Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside|
|Bull, William James||Faber. Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Horner, Frederick William|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Fardell, Sir T. George||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry|
|Butcher, John George||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Hoult, Joseph|
|Campbell, J.H.M. (Dublin Univ.||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Howard, John (Kent Faversham|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Fisher, William Hayes||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fison, Frederick William||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Worc.||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Hunt, Rowland|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Flower, Sir Ernest||Jameson, Major J. Eustace|
|Chapman, Edward||Forster, Henry William||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S W.||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.|
|Give, Captain Percy A.||Gardner. Ernest||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin&Nairn)||Keswick, William|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry.||Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir Jonn Eldon||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Knowles, Sir Lees||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute||Shaw Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)|
|Law Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Sheehan, Daniel, Daniel|
|Lawrence, Wm. F, (Liverpool||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Lawson, John Grant (Yorks NR||Myers, William Henry||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Leamy, Edmund||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Stanley. Edward Jas.(Somerset|
|Lee, Arthur H. Hants. Fareham||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.||Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Legge, Col. Han. Heneage||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Llewel'yn, Evan Henry||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Stroyan, John|
|Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||O'Dowd, John||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G (Oxf'd Univ|
|Long. Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S||Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellealey||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Percy, Earl||Thorton, Percy M.|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Pierpoint, Robert||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Tomlinson. Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Lucas, Reginald J. Portsmouth||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon, Alfred||Plummer, Walter R.||Tuff, Charles.|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Tufnell, Lieut, Col. Edward|
|M'Fadden, Edward||Pretyman, Ernest George||Valentia, Viscount|
|M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Pym, C. Guy||Vincent Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|M'lver. Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Rankin, Sir James||Walker, Colonel William Hall|
|M'Kean, John||Rateliff, R. F.||Walrond. Rt. Hn Sir William H.|
|M'Killoy, W. (Sligo, North)||Reid, James (Greenock)||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Malcolm, Ian||Remnant, James Farquharson||Warde Colonel C. E.|
|Renwick, George||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Manners, Lord Cecil||Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green||Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E (Tauton|
|Martin, Richard Biddulph||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Whiteley, H. (Asht'nund. Lyne|
|Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Willough by de Eresby, Lord|
|Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H.E (Wigt"n||Robinson, Brooke||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E R|
|Meysoy-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Wilson. Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.|
|Moles worth, Sir Lewis||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter||Wodehouse, Rt, Hn. E.R. (Batb|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Moore, William||Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Morgan. David J (Walthamstow||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Young, Samuel|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles||TELLERS FOR THE Noes—Sir|
|Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Mount, William Arthur||Scott, Sir S. (Marleybone, W.)||and Mr. Aiiwyn Fellowes.|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Sharps, William Edward T.|
§ MR. MOSS (Denbighshire, E,)
had the following Amendment standing in his name on the Notice Paper:—In page 1, line 5, after the word 'licence,' to insert the words, 'the holder of which is also the owner of the licensed premises, or is the bona-fide tenant thereof, and is not in any way restricted in his right to purchase intoxicating liquors, tobaccos, cigars, or any other commodities ill the open market.'
said if the hon. Member would leave out the last two lines it might be in order, but even then it seemed to him to raise exactly the same point as had been discussed on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Halifax, namely, the tied-house question.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Halifax would not cover the case of a secretary or manager who, as very often happened, was the tenant. The Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for East Denbighshire would cover the case of a secretary or manager.
It depends on the definition of the words "bona-fide tenant." His definition of a bona-fide tenant is a man who "is not in any way restricted in his right to purchase intoxicating liquors, tobaccos, cigars, or any other commodities in the open market."
§ SIR ROBERT REID
said this did not raise the tied-house question, which they 1351 had been discussing. The question raised by his hon. friend's Amendment was whether the holder of the licence was the owner of the licensed premises on the one side, or the bona-fide tenant thereof on the other.
thought the hon. Member might be allowed to proceed with the Amendment if he would promise that the words "tied house" would not occur in his speech.
§ MR. MOSS
said there were two propositions which were now admitted by the House. The first was that a licence was an annual licence and that the licensee or owner of the premises had no legal right to compensation, and that if he was to be compensated it must be as a concession or act of grace. Compensation rested on a moral and not on a legal basis. He was quite sure the House would agree that if any person was entitled to compensation it was the person who had placed his savings in the business and had purchased it. A large number of public-houses were bought up by brewers and large companies, and in 90 per cent, of the cases the person placed in charge of the house was not a bona-fide tenant at all. He was licensed because he happened to be the secretary or the manager of the company, and there might be no agreement at all to entitle him to compensation. The effect of the Amendment would be that in all those cases where there were irresponsible people who did not care for the public and who only cared to sell a certain amount of liquor, there would be put in their place responsible people who were anxious to conduct the business with due regard to the public interest, and who themselves would be amenable to the law.
In page 1, line 5, after the words last inserted, to insert the words 'the holder of which is also the owner of the licensed premises or is the bona-fide tenant thereof.'"—(Mr. Moss.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
congratulated the hon. Member on the skill with which 1352 he had moved the Amendment so as to escape the Chairman's ruling. He recognised in many of the hon. Member's arguments their old friend the tied house. Was a man a bona-fide tenant or less than that because he had made a contract with a large brewer for three or six months? What was to be the test of a bona-fide tenant?
I am afraid the hon. Member has quite unwittingly misled me on this point. It is perfectly clear that we are on the same discussion. I do not think it can well be avoided.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said he must deal with the realities of the Amendment. He must state what was his conception of the only meaning the Amendment could have. What was to be the test of a bona-fide tenant? He submitted that in reality the Amendment was the same as the preceding one, and that there was no reason for passing it.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
said the Report of the Royal Commission showed that a bogus tenancy might exist in connection with tied houses. These bogus agreements which were put before the magistrates were very different from real contracts. There seemed to have been a considerable number of bogus tenancies in Manchester, and the magistrates had considerable difficulty in dealing with them. In his opinion bogus agreements might exist in connection with tied houses or apart from tied houses. The point was that they wanted some person in real possession and not merely a caretaker who was here to-day and gone to-morrow—a person who was the owner himself, and not a tenant under a sham agreement and a mere illusory tenure. He would certainly vote for the Amendment.
§ MR. CORBETT (Glasgow, Tradeston)
said the managers were a class on 1353 whom the Bill would inflict very great hardship. They held their positions subject to removal at short notice, and there was hardly any form of employment in which such constant changes were taking place. A man entered upon the post of manager with a character, and after an occupation of something like two or two-and-a half years might be absolutely destroyed and characterless and possibly a burden on the community. They might be told that the supervision of the brewers over the managers would do something to protect the public from irregularity in the conduct of these houses. He ventured to say that the supervision of the brewer over the manager consisted in his seeing that the latter sold a sufficient amount of beer; and if they could investigate the relations of these people it would be found very often that the complaint against the manager was not that he conducted the house badly, but that he failed to sell the amount of beer which the brewer thought he ought to sell.
§ MR. McKENNA
said the Solicitor-General had asked what a bona-fide tenant was. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that when his hon. friend the Member for Halifax moved his Amendment the Solicitor-General objected to it on the ground that the manager of a brewing company who owned the premises was not A tenant. It was, therefore, perfectly clear that the argument of the Solicitor-General was dealt with by the present Amendment. Therefore he was not a bona-fide tenant, and why should compensation be given to him? Compensation under the Bill would be given to the brewery company because the licence was to be withdrawn, while the manager would be thrown out into the streets and get nothing at all. The only person to suffer would be the manager, and he it was that should in equity receive compensation, because he would be thrown out of employment, and might not obtain a situation elsewhere.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that the distinction between the two cases was very clear. The question was whether the tenant was to be a bona-fide tenant or merely the agent of the brewery company. He would suggest to his hon. 1354 friend the Member for Denbigh that he should accept an Amendment to his Amendment, by omitting the words "The bona-fide tenant thereof," and substituting for them the following part of the: Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Eifion, "the tenant of the licensed premises as tenant from year to year, determinable only in the usual way on half a year's notice, or as lessee for a fixed term of not less than two years, and not determinable on breach of any covenant or agreement other than a covenant or agreement to pay the rent, or to insure the premises, or to keep or yield up the same in proper repair." That would raise the question whether the person was nominally the tenant, or was merely the servant of the brewery company. Of course, he must be a tenant by the law of the land, because unless he came forward to the licensing magistrates and said that he was the tenant of the premises, he would not get the licence. If he was purely the creature of the brewery company he was not the tenant. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
To leave out the words 'bona-fide tenant thereof,' and to insert the words 'tenant of the licensed premises as tenant from year to year determinable only in the usual way on half a year's notice, or as lessee for a fixed term of not less than two years and not determinable on breach of any covenant or agreement other than a covenant or agreement to pay the rent or to insure the premises or to keep or yield up the same in proper repair.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)
said he thought that the Amendment moved by his hon. friend had brought the matter to a focus. He could not imagine that the Government wished to bring within the scope of this Bill the class of tenant which this definition was framed to exclude. He thought that some Amendment such as this was necessary, and if his hon. friend went to a division he should certainly support him.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)
said he supported the Amendment. He did not think it was 1355 possible to get good tenants under the conditions named, which were so rigid aid stringent that they made the tenant a slave of the brewery company, and not an independent person. That was why the class of tenants had deteriorated so very much. The old class of tenant was a man of importance, generally a churchwarden, and of high respectability. Under the system of the Bill the person put in authority on licensed premises combined in his person the disadvantages of manager and tenant. Inasmuch as he was under control of the brewery company he could be turned out at a moment's notice, and was therefore under the same disadvantages as a mere manager; but he had not the advantage of a manager, in not being liable for bad debts or a bad speculation. These latter fell on the brewery company. This evil was not a new evil. If hon. Members would take the trouble to read a book by Mr. Sidney Webb and his wife, giving an account of the working of the Licensing Acts during the last hundred years, they would find that all the evils experienced now in administering the licensing laws were not new. In 1787, it was desired to restrict the licences in a similar manner to that now proposed, but the only difference was that the Party which was ii favour of restriction of licences without compensation was the Party of the Tory country gentleman.
said that the only question before the Committee was the definition of what a bona-fide tenant was.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS
said he was showing that on previous occasions the same evils existed from which we now suffered, and he thought that the historical analogy was very pertinent. In the century before last the Tory squires were in favour of restricting the licences because they said the public houses were Radical hot-beds. It was the Radical Party in those days which was in favour of free, open, and unrestricted licences. He maintained that unless the Amendment was accepted the evils that had been shown to exist in the past and in the present, would be developed in the future in a very striking degree. It was most important that licensees should be responsible persons. He knew it was said that it would be very unjust to the 1356 brewers if they had not the right to-dismiss a bad tenant until after six months notice, but, if they gave power to the brewers to dismiss a tenant at a minute's notice, that would be a temptation to them to accept a bad tenant. If the brewers or owners of the licensed houses had to give six months' notice, they would take as much trouble to secure a good tenant as any owner of a West End house.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said that the Solicitor-General had asked for a definition of a bona-fide tenant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would find it in a single phrase of another Bill, which had not yet come on for Second Reading, viz., that no licence should be granted unless-the applicant showed that he had a tenancy of his premises for at least the period for which the licence was to be granted. That was his idea of what was a bona-fide tenant. Where it had been adopted it had been an enormous boon to the tenant, and had given him security. He believed if that definition were inserted in this Bill it would be a great benefit to the trade.
§ MR. WHITTAKER
said that there was very strong reason for declining to give compensation in any case in which the tenant did not pay a bona-fide rent. Under the provisions of this Bill the owner would not, unless the tenant was a bona-fide tenant, paying full rent, contribute anything towards the compensation fund whilst he would receive the whole of the compensation. As the Bill now stood, the tenant who did not pay a rack-rent, and who was not a bona-fide tenant, would pay the whole of the compensation. A more abominable arrangement was never suggested in an Act of Parliament. This Amendment would make it perfectly clear that the owner of a house, where the tenant was not a bona-fide tenant, would get no compensation.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said he found it difficult to understand the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Gentlemen were trying to turn into managers people who were really tenants. They were told that the manager was to get no compensation. Then the tenancy was to be so restricted that a six or nine months tenant was to get nothing, and if there was a special agreement that the tenancy was to be terminated by a three months notice or a year's notice the tenant was to get no compensation, and also in cases where there was anything in the tenancy besides the ordinary covenant that the law supplied. If there was a covenant for a breach of which the tenancy was to end, then the tenant was to get nothing. They were thus to reduce the number of these persons in whom the Opposition at other stages of the debate had been deeply interested. Then if a man had a lease for twenty-one years, say, or any greater period, he was not to get compensation if he had entered into a covenant to keep the place in an orderly manner, or—and this was the real object —if he had entered into a contract to purchase from a brewer. All this was aimed at the owner, otherwise he could not conceive why hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to deprive these various tenants of compensation. But they had already discussed the tied-house question on another Amendment.
MR, ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)
said there was a point in the Amendment altogether a part from the tied-houses, question. The Commissioners evidently had it in mind that there might be tied-houses, houses partly tied, and houses carried on on the managerial system, and it was to the latter system that the Amendment was directed. The Amendment was intended to give what the Prime Minister called security of tenure. They wanted as far as possible to abolish managers in tied houses, and to get tenants who would take a legitimate interest in the business. The object of the Amendment was to get bona-fide tenants; and if that were done they would have much better management and much better public-houses.
§ MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)
said he wished to ask the Solicitor-General a few Questions, because he feared that gentlemen interested in the brewing trade had 1358 deceived the Government. There were a great many licence-holders who had never seen the houses for which they held licensees. That was rather a startling statement; hut it was true. The brewery companies had in their employ, perhaps at a weekly wage, a number of men of respectable character who were able to satisfy the police that they could conduct a licensed house properly. One of these men obtained the transfer of the licence, and then returned to his daily labour without perhaps having ever seen the licensed house. Was such a man a bona-fide tenant? Would he have a claim to compensation? Did the Solicitor-General realise that there might be a licence-holder who had no interest in the house at all? If he were known, would the Bill have been introduced? It seemed to him to be another case of the confidence trick being played against the Government. He thought he should be wanting in his loyalty to the Government if he did not explain the matter to them. Some of the licences were expensive to the brewers; and if they could only surrender them and obtain new licences instead they would be glad. It was said that the brewers were acting in the interests of temperance and morality. He did not believe it—it was not his fault. He knew a licence-holder who wanted to vote. The returning officer asked him where his house was; and he said he did not know, but that it was somewhere in the neighbourhood, and that his name was over the door. Sure enough it was. But was such a man a bona-fide tenant? He thought that it would be an exceedingly good thing if the Government were to take the Bill back, and have a consultation with the brewery and distilling companies with reference to these sham licence-holders. If this were a Bill to compensate the licence-holders, every hon. Gentleman interested in the brewing trade would vote solidly against it. It was marvellous the kind of evidence the brewers were able to produce. He knew of a case in which a licensed house was supposed to be sold for £19,000. He wanted the man who was stated to have sold the house to be produced; and the reply was that he had moved, his address being unknown. He thought the Government ought to accept the Amendment. They were at last getting on the track of the bonâ-fide tenant. If the Law Officers could only see 1359 some of the monstrous leases which were now drawn, he doubted whether they would regard them as legal. They on that side had endeavoured to make it perfectly plain that they did not desire to injure the bona-fide licence-holder, and that they would not allow either the public or the publican to be victimised.
Mr. SECRETARY AKERS-DOUGLAS
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)
said that a very important question of public policy underlay the Amendment. It would secure that compensation should not be given to
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Grant, Corrie||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)||Mansfield, Horace Rendall|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.||Griffith, Ellis J.||Mitchell, E. (Fermanagh, N.)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Moss, Samuel|
|Bell, Richard||Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossend'le)||Moullon, John Fletcher|
|Benn, John Williams||Harwood, George||Murphy, John|
|Black, Alexander William||Hayden, John Patrick||Newnes, Sir George|
|Boland, John||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Norman, Henry|
|Brigg, John||Helme, Norval Watson||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J,|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Partington, Oswald|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Holland, Sir William Henry||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Caldwell, James||Hope, John Deans(Fife, West)||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Horniman, Frederick John||Perks, Robert William|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Jasoby James Alfred||Price, Robert John|
|Cremer, William Randal||Joicey, Sir James||Priestley, Arthur|
|Crombie, John William||Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire)||Rea, Russell|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||Reddy, M.|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Joyce, Michael||Reid, S.R. Threshie [Dumfries|
|Cullinan, J.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan W)||Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Kilbride, Denis||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan||Kitson, Sir James||Roche, John|
|Delany, William||Labouchere, Henry||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lambert, George||Runciman, Walter|
|Doogan, P. C.||Langley, Batty||Russell, T. W.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Clevel'nd)|
|Edwards, Frank||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw's Bghs||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington||Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (I. of Wight)|
|Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Slafiord)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Leng, Sir John||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Levy, Maurice||Sheehy, David|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Lewis, John Herbert||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Ffrench, Peter||Lloyd-George, David||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Lough, Thomas||Slack, John Bamford|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lundon, W.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Lyell, Charles Henry||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R (Northants|
|Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||M'Crae, George||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
§ the owners of licences unless they took proper care to ensure that their houses were properly and respectably conducted; and the only way that could be accomplished was to give a real tenure, not a precarious tenure He would urge the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment, and not to regard the question from the narrow standpoint of legal dialectics.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived
§ Words inserted.
§ Question put, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayed, 153; Noes, 262. (Division List, No. 179.)1363
|Stevenson, Francis S.||Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)||Willams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Sullivan, Donal||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Wilson, H. J.(York, W. R.)|
|Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)||Wason, E. (Clackmannan)||Wood house, Sir J. T. (Hudf'd)|
|Tennant, Harold John||Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||White, George (Norfolk)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)||Mr. Herbert Gladstone|
|Tomkinson, James||Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)||and Mr. Wm. M'Arthur.|
|Toulmin, George||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Trevelyan, Charles Phillips||Whit taker, Thomas Palmer|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Doxford Sir William Theodore||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Duke, Henry Edward||Lawson, J, Grant(Yorks. N.R)|
|Allhusen, August Henry Eden||Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart||Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn Hugh O.||Fardell, Sir T. George||Llewellyn, Evan Henry|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.|
|Austen, Sir John||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Long, Cl. Charles W. (Evesham)|
|Bailey. James (Walworth)||Fisher, William Hayes||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol S)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Fison, Frederick William||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Baird, John George Alexander||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Lowe, Francis William|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fitzroy. Hon. Edward Algernon||Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)||Forster, Henry William||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Foster, Philip S.(Warwick S.W||Lucas, Col. Francis (Low'stoft)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds)||Gardner, Ernest||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsm'th)|
|Balfour, Kenneth R.(Chrstch)||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.||Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gordon. Hn. J. E. (Elgin& Nairn||Maclver, David (Liverpool)|
|Hartley, Sir George C. T.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael H.||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Greene, Sir EW (Bury SE dm'nds||M'Fadden, Edward|
|Bignold, Arthur||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||M' Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh) W.|
|Bigwood, James||Greene. W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Greenfell, William Henry||Malcolm, Ian|
|Bond. Edward||Gretton, John||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Groves, James Grimble||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H.E. (W'gtn.|
|Brassey, Albert||Hall, Edward Marshall||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.|
|Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Bull, William James||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Harris, F Leveston (Tynemouth||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Butcher, John George||Harris, Dr. F. R. (Dulwich)||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Campbell, J. H M. (Dublin Unv)||Hay, Hon. Clande George||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)||Moore, William|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Heath, James (Staff. N. W.)||Morgan, David J.(W'ltmstow)|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)||Heaton, John Henniker||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Helder, Augustus||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Henderson, Sir A. (Staff. W.)||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Wore)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Mount, William Arthur|
|Chapman, Edward||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hogg, Lindsay||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Bright.)||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Horner, Frederick William||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Hoult, Joseph||Myers, William Henry|
|Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S||Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)||Newdegate, Francis A. N.|
|Creane, Eugene||Howard, J. (Midd, To ttenham||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil||Notan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)|
|Cast, Henry John C.||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hunt, Rowland||0'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary M.)|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur F.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Jessel, Captain Herbert M.||O'Dowd, John|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denb.||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C||Keswick, William||Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.||Knowles, Sir Lees||Percy, Earl|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Pierpont, Robert|
|Pillington, Colonel Richard||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exefar)|
|Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Plummer, Walter R.||Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Seaton-Karr, Sir Henry||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward||Sheeham, Daniel Daniel||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Pym, C. Guy||Simeon, Sir Barrington||Welby. Lt. -Col. ACE (Taunton)|
|Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Welby. Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)|
|Rankin, Sir James||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)||Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne|
|Rat cliff, R. F.||Smith, HC.(North'mb, Tyneid||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Reid, James (Greenock)||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Remnant, James Farquharson||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Renwick, George||Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk||Wilson. A. Stanley (York. E.R)|
|Richards, Henry Charles||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Som'set)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lanes.)||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. ER.(Bath)|
|Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Robinson, Brooke||Stroyan, John||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Round, Rt. Hon. James||Thornton, Percy M.||Young, Samuel|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Tollemache, Henry James||Younger, William|
|Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Tritton, Charles Ernest||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Tuff, Charles||Sir Alexander Acland|
|Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Valentia, Viscount||Hood and Mr. Ailwyn|
|Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Miles||Vincent. Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield||Fellowes.|
§ And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.