§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee).
§ [Mr. J. W. Lowther (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:—
Amendment again proposed—
In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'unsuitable, or.'"—(Mr. H. U. Greene.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'unsuitable' stand part of the clause."
§ MR. H. D. GREENE
said he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. It was, however, patent that there was great ambiguity in the words he desired to omit. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs and the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds had disagreed as to their effect. The hon. and learned Member for South Leeds contended that the magistrates would be entitled under the words to refuse the renewal of a licence if the furniture was bad or insufficient or if the house stood at a corner or near a church or was removed from police supervision. If the hon. and learned Member were right, the Committee had wasted a great deal of time in discussing a previous Amendment with reference to remoteness from police supervision. The Government would vote against his Amendment for one reason; the Opposition would vote against it for another reason; and as there would, therefore, be certain to be a majority against it, he would ask leave to withdraw it.
§ MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)
said he thought it would be very desirable if the Amendment were accepted, as it would have the effect of not only improving the houses, but also the character of the business carried on within them. When the structure of a house 100 was improved, the character of the business was also improved. He would appeal to hon. Gentlemen who were interested in the trade. Was not their great object to advance the cause of temperance and to raise the trade to the highest possible level? Therefore, they ought to seek every opportunity to improve the structure of licensed houses. He would appeal to the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment.
I cannot pick and choose between Amendments. I will call on hon. Gentlemen in the order in which the Amendments appear. Mr. Whitley.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said his Amendment was to insert after "unsuitable" the words "or of insufficient value." He moved it in order to ascertain whether the Bill would continue or destroy the existing law with regard to qualification in the form of rateable value. It had been suggested to him that unless these words were inserted, the law with regard to rateable value would cease to operate. All he desired was that existing legislation in this respect should not be cancelled by the Bill. It was very undesirable that houses of low rateable value should be licensed. He would ask the Solicitor-General to give the Committee his views on the matter.
In page 1, line 7, after the word "unsuitable,' to insert the words ' or of insufficient value.'"—(Mr. Whitley)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
The SECRETARY of STATE foe the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Akers Douglas (Kent, St. Augustine's)
thought there was no necessity for the Amendment. Section 44 of the Act of 1872 provided 101 that a licence granted in respect of premises not of the required value was void, and he was satisfied that the Bill did not affect the powers which the hon. Member desired to preserve.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
said that the Committee must, of course, accept the statement of the Home Secretary. Insufficiency of value was a ground for objecting to a renewal; and he agreed that that disqualification was not abolished by the Bill. But what would happen would be that the decision as to qualification would be remitted to quarter sessions, and would no longer remain with the licensing justices.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said that the licence-holder would apply to the brewster sessions, and if the brewster sessions found that the premises were not of the required qualification then the licence would be refused; but the applicant might appeal to quarter sessions. They wanted to make the matter perfectly clear; but if they inserted one disqualification and omitted others it would leave room for argument afterwards. Section 44 of the Act of 1872 would not be interfered with. He would, however, undertake to insert in line 9 after "licence" the words "or on the ground that the renewal would be void."
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS
said he was not sure that the arrangement in regard to quarter sessions was at all wise. Before the Act of 1872 no qualification was necessary; and there was now no reason why the exemptions in the Act of 1872 should be continued. He thought the words suggested by the Solicitor-General would be a lvisable.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BOUSFIELD,
believing that it was of the utmost importance to preserve if they could the present disciplinary powers of the magistrates in their full 102 force, moved the insertion after "unsuitable" of the following words—" or that the licensee refuses or has wilfully neglected to comply with any reasonable requirement of the justices." The magistrates at present had power to ask an applicant for a pledge that any practice which they considered undesirable, such as the negotiating of sailors' advance notes, should be discontinued, and if the request was not acceded to they might, at the next licensing sessions, on consideration of all the facts, refuse the renewal of the licence. It was very desirable that that power should be preserved, and the first part of the Amendment would apply to a refusal to comply with such a demand when the application was first made. The second part would come into force if an applicant promised to comply with the requirement and failed to carry out his undertaking. The object of the Amendment was simply to preserve intact the disciplinary powers of the magistrates. It was impossible to catalogue all the cases in which magistrates in the exercise of their discretion might make some requisition upon applicants for licences; the only way in which the object could be attained was by the insertion of general words such as he proposed. It might possibly be urged that "reasonable requirements" was a vague term, but the word "reasonable" was very familiar to lawyers, and in practice little difficulty arose as to its construction. Magistrates and Judges were reasonable men, and it would be a fairly easy task for them to decide whether or not a particular requirement was reasonable. Personally he would be prepared to trust entirely to their discretion, but, if the Committee were not prepared to go so far as that, the matter might be allowed to go to the High Court on a special case. It had been urged that to bring cases of refusal to comply into the category of licences which might be refused without compensation was too severe a penalty, but that was really where the matter stood at present. The reason the penalty never became operative was simply that the fear of its operation secured the fulfilment of the requirements. It did not at all follow that because the matter was left to the magistrates there would not be compensation. A discretion in such cases might 103 be left to quarter sessions, on appeal, to grant compensation. He begged to move.
In page 1, line 7, after the word 'unsuitable' to insert the words 'or that the licensee refuses or has wilfully neglected to comply with any reasonable requirements of the justices.'"—(Mr. Bousfield.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said this was practically the same point which the Committee had discussed in the afternoon, although the words were different, and he would not repeat his speeches showing that where the circumstances were such that the magistrates ought to retain discretionary power they could do so by virtue of the provision that the premises must be well conducted. If the words now proposed were accepted the magistrates would have the power of getting rid of the obligation to compensate. They might arbitrarily require the licence-holders to close their houses at certain hours or on certain days, and who was to say afterwards that any requirement of theirs was unreasonable? Was the Committee prepared to say that a licensee should be deprived of all benefit from the insurance fund to which he had been contributing simply because the magistrates did not approve, for instance, of the tied-house system, and required a licensee to terminate certain agreements? As to the suggested appeal not only to quarter sessions, but to the High Court, he submitted that it was hardly possible to bring up the matter not on questions of law, but on questions of fact, before the High Court.
§ MR. BOUSFIELD
said he did not suggest it would be necessary; he simply said that might be done as a safeguard.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
thought the bon. Member must have believed there was some necessity for it or he would not have mentioned it. Moreover, there was nothing in the Amendment about a qualified discretion to give compensation on the part of quarter sessions, and he could not see how the hon. and learned Member would propose to set it up, or the extent to which the discretion should be given. He really thought the matter had been discussed at sufficient length, and 104 that it was the same question as had been divided upon earlier in the evening.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
agreed with the Solicitor-General that the subject-matter of the Amendment in one form or another had been for a considerable time before the Committee, but they had not yet come to a definite understanding with regard to what ought to be done. The Solicitor General had stated that it was no part of the intention of the Government to diminish the primary jurisdiction of the justices, but it had been shown that in three different matters it would be diminished, and these words effected this—that local justices might continue to refuse renewal, where there had been a refusal to carry out reasonable requirements. That was not provided by the Bill as it stood. He was unable to follow the Solicitor-General in his view as to "reasonable requirements." The right hon. and learned Member was doubtless aware of cases in which there had been ties or relationship between the employer and the manager of a tied house which were contrary to public policy or interest. All tied houses were not bad, but some were, and in certain cases conditions that were inadvisable existed. In such cases the magistrates were able to say that, unless those conditions were altered, they would refuse the licence on the next application, and in that way they were able to exercise their disciplinary powers to prevent abuses of the relations between the tenant and the owner of a tied house. He thought the Solicitor-General would agree that such a case would not, under the Bill, come within the discretion of the magistrates without compensation.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
said it was within the power of the justices at present, and he had understood from the right hon. Gentleman that all such power was to be retained.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
said that that was not what he understood the Solicitor-General to say before. At any rate, the direct result of the clause would be to 105 withdraw from the magistrates a power which they had hitherto been able to exercise in the interests of public order and utility. Why should that power be withdrawn? It had nothing whatever to do with compensation. The insertion of the words "and lawful" would meet the case suggested by the Solicitor General of acquirement to close a public-house between certain hours.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
said the question was really whether local magistrates should be allowed, without Parliamentary or other sanction, to create a body of local laws for themselves. If justices on public grounds proposed to create what was really a new local law, he submitted that a licensee who refused to agree to the proposition was really in the position of having his licence withdrawn on public grounds, and was therefore entitled to compensation. If, however, the licensee had given an undertaking to comply with certain requirements and had omitted to carry out that undertaking it would be a different matter; it might then be a question of misconduct. That was a distinction the hon. and learned Member had failed to make.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that the mischief created by the Bill was that in future no undertakings would be given by the publican because he would know that he might refuse to give an undertaking and yet receive full compensation. The Solicitor-General had admitted that the magistrates now could ask for compliance with reasonable requirements from the licensee, and that if he refused they could withhold the licence. In future, under the Bill as it stood, they could not do so. All that this Amendment asked was that the power of the magistrate should be preserved. If the Government refused to do that, they would make it clear that not on one point only but on several points they were filing down the power of the magistrates and increasing that of the licensee, thus making the property more valuable. Amendments of the kind now proposed could have been introduced perfectly consistently with the principle of compensation, and he was at a loss to understand the objection to the words now proposed. The Solicitor-General had instanced demands that were perfectly illegal. Public-houses were compelled by 106 Act of Parliament to be open within certain hours.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
submitted that licence-holders were compelled to give refreshment to any wayfarer who might knock at their doors between certain hours, and no bench of magistrates would dream of making a requirement contrary to Act of Parliament.
§ SIR J. STIRLING - MAXWELL (Glasgow, College)
supported the Amendment, which he regarded as one of first-class importance. The speech of the Solicitor - General showed that he had very little faith in his licensing authorities, as he was unwilling to trust them with any discretion whatever. In the discussion on the Scottish Licensing Bill the Committee asked the Secretary for Scotland to put in powers which would enable the licensing authorities to do legally what they had hitherto done illegally—make requirements to which licensees had to agree before they could be assured that their licences would be renewed. That policy had been carried on in Scotland with the best results. The Secretary for Scotland declined to put such powers into his Bill. He and his friends regretted it; but the Committee must remember that the Secretary for Scotland left what was much more important—the discretion of the magistrates to take away licences when they liked without any special reason. If the whip-hand was left to the magistrates there would be no need to give them power to make special rules, but if the whip-hand was taken away from the magistrates, as it was by this Bill, he thought they ought to be given power to make such rules as they thought necessary when they gave licences. The rules would have no sanction at all unless disregard of them involved the loss of the licence without compensation. The mere fact that the licence could be withdrawn with compensation would carry no weight whatever, because the publicans would have only to combine to resist the rules and the compensation fund would not be sufficiently deep to allow the authorities to withdraw all the licences involved. He hoped that the Government would reconsider the question.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said his hon. friend had unwittingly given an erroneous impression of the attitude taken up by the Government on the Scottish measure. His hon. friend appeared to think that the view taken by the Scottish Office at that time was that there should be an unlimited discretion given to magistrates to place such conditions upon the licence-holder as they might happen to think reasonable. That was the Amendment, but it was not the Scottish Bill. The Government had never denied that they regarded the present Bill as a great measure, first for diminishing the number of licences without hardship, and, secondly, as being likely to improve the conduct and character of the public-houses that remained by giving some kind of reasonable security to the licence-holder. Those were the two objects of the Bill, which they had never for a moment disguised from the House. How would the second of those objects be affected by this Amendment, which contradicted the Scottish measure on a fundamental point? Suppose there was a cranky bench of magistrates "Oh" — was that an incredible supposition? [An Hon. MEMBER: We have a cranky Government.] That might be so, but there were remedies against the errors of a cranky Government. That question, however, seemed to him to be somewhat outside the scope of the Amendment they were now discussing. Take the case of a cranky Bench. Such things had been known. It was really unreasonable to say that a man should lose all security in his holding when the magistrates had gone outside the law, except such security as might be got on appeal to a less cranky Court. This Bill left the offences of the licence-holder exactly where they were; it might or might not be for the public good that additional conditions should be added to the many conditions that now bound him, but that was outside this Bill, and was surely not a matter to be left to the unfettered discretion of the magistrates. They did not want in one district of the county one set of conditions and in the neighbouring county another set of conditions, because in that case the licence-holders would hold their licences under an entirely different tenure. He could not believe that such 108 a state of things would be either good sense or good legislation. By all means let such restrictions be placed upon licence-holders as were necessary in the public interest, but they should not allow benches of magistrates in one district I to have an entirely different set of conditions from those which applied to their neighbours probably in the same county.
The Committee should remember what; it was doing. They were saying to the licence-holder that his licence was held not upon conditions laid down by the House of Commons, and not even on conditions considered by this House or by any Department responsible to this House, but upon conditions; laid down by three or four gentlemen who were directly responsible to nobody, and with regard to whose decisions the only check was an appeal to a legal tribunal. One of the reasons ' why they were bringing in this Bill was that the security given by the existing system was inimical both in the interests of temperance and in the interests of justice. That might be an erroneous view, but it was the view of the Government, and it was surely unreasonable to ask them in this connection to run counter to the general principles upon which they had framed the Bill. The House ought either to lay down the actual conditions which constituted ill-conduct, or they ought to leave it. under broad safe-guards, to some Department of the Government to lay down; but to leave t it to individual Benches would, he thought, produce very great hardships. He was perfectly prepared to give the subject his very best consideration, as his hon. and learned friend desired; but no argument had, in his opinion, been advanced which would justify the proposition that they should leave it absolutely to the magistrates to decide what was a reasonable and what was an unreasonable condition, and to make it a penalty of violating that reasonable condition that the man who thus violated it should lose his whole property without compensation. They wanted to remedy such injustice as was attached to that case. He wished particularly to ask the consideration of lion. Members to the fact that they were compelling every licence-holder, whether he liked it or not, to contribute to the insurance fund.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that if the hon. Member would look at the schedule he would see that the licence-holders were compelled to pay the licence duty.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that the licence-holder was compelled to insure his property. It seemed to him that, having regard to the fact that they compelled every licence-holder, whether he liked it or not, to contribute to the insurance fund, the introduction of the words "ill-conducted" gave ample scope to the magistracy to carry out the duties imposed on them, and he did not think they ought, unnecessarily and arbitrarily, to throw uncertainty into the whole procedure by adding words such as those of his hon. and learned friend. He granted that there were arguments to be used on the other side, but he ventured to suggest to the House, looking to the broad principle of the Bill, that the policy of the Government was based upon equitable considerations, and upon this question he was quite unable to alter the opinion which he had expressed to the House.
§ MR. WHITTAKER
submitted that there were cases where it was obviously desirable that the Bench should be able to impose conditions not provided by law, and that they should be enabled to enforce them. There was the case of boarding-houses in seaside resorts to which licences were granted on the understanding that only those persons bona-fide living and boarding in the place should be supplied with drink. If the licence-holders persisted in disregarding that engagement by supplying anybody who liked to go into the place, he submitted that that would be a violation of the condition of the undertaking, and there ought not to be compensation, though under this Bill there would be compensation. There was also the case of hotels where an engagement was entered 110 into that there should be no public bar with a door opening on to the street. Supposing there were frequent transfers and the magistrates found out that the licensed house was a man-trap; the house was doing little business, but it was used to get goodwill out of tenant after tenant. Under the Bill as it now stood if a licence were refused to such a house the owners would be compensated.
§ MR. WHITTAKER
They would go into Court and show how much goodwill had been paid and get their compensation money on that basis. He was told only recently, by the chairman of a licensing bench that at the last brewster sessions they refused a number of licences where there had been frequent transfers, and at the time of the refusal to renew there were three persons who had been tenants of those houses in the workhouse and another had committed suicide. If houses of that kind had their licences refused the owners ought not to receive compensation. There was a case, recently, of a woman who had been so badly treated as the tenant of a licensed house that the magistrates transferred the licence to neighbouring premises in order that she might carry on the business in which she had been disturbed. That was a case in which the original licence-holder would have to be compensated under this Bill. The Solicitor-General now argued as if the magistrates were going to be eager to refuse compensation. At an earlier stage the argument of the Government had been that unless the justices were allowed to give compensation they would not reduce licences. He asked that some confidence should be reposed in the common sense of the magistrates and in their sense of justice. It was not treating them fairly to talk of "cranky Benches." That bore too much resemblance to the language addressed to the brewers when they waited upon the Prime Minister.
§ MR. ROBSON (South Shields)
said the object of this Bill was to give compensation in cases where a publican lost his licence through no fault of his own, or because the house was not needed. It was never intended that there should be any restriction placed upon the power the 111 magistrates at present possessed, or that there should be any loss of the control of magistrates over the business. There had grown up a practice on the part of the benches of magistrates to demand certain conditions upon the granting of licences. A very good illustration of the power they claimed to exercise was what was done in Liverpool. There the magistrates stipulated that there should be no liquor sold to children under a certain age, and in the case of barmaids and in other directions they were able to exercise a valuable disciplinary authority over the owners of licences. Was it intended by the Government to lessen this power on the part of the magistrates? There was no ground for the contention that the Amendment was an endeavour to revolutionisethe law. The intention was only to alter the law in a specific particular. The Government declared that the Bill left the disciplinary powers of the magistrates untouched, yet it really deprived them of the only authority by which they could enforce those powers. That was, indeed, the feature of the Bill. It was no longer a Bill to establish compensation. It was a Bill to limit the powers exercised by magistrates. And the Prime Minister revealed the state of his mind very clearly in his reference to "cranky Benches." This was a Bill not only to protect the publican from the loss of his licence but also to protect him against "cranky magistrates; "that was a very serious extension of the scope of the Bill. What was meant by this phrase "cranky magistrates," except magistrates exercising their discretion in a way which the Prime Minister did not like? The matter was in the discretion of the magistrates, but because the Prime Minister thought it might be "crankily" exercised it was to be destroyed; and the publican was to be put beyond the reach of the magistrates even though they might impose upon him reasonable requirements. He thought the Prime Minister was giving an interpretation of reasonable requirements which was not according to law. The Amendment would only enable the magistrates to put upon the tenant requirements which were reasonable. A suggestion had been made that they should add to the word "reasonable" "and lawful." With the addition of these 112 I words there would be no ground for the fears of the Prime Minister. But in the absence of such an Amendment there was a dangerous extension of the scope of the Bill.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE(Huddersfield)
said that speaking as one who had had a long experience in the administration of the licensing laws he considered that an Amendment of this kind was necessary. He did not agree that the magistrates at the present time possessed the power which these words would give. Magistrates had constantly desired to grant limited licences such as those which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Spen Valley but there was no power under the Licensing Acts to grant limited licences.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
said he was afraid that the Prime Minister did not I realise the effect of this Bill. In many large towns there was frequently a desire among those who kept restaurants and luncheon-rooms that intoxicating liquors should be sold to persons taking food or other refreshments, but the law allowed no limited licence to admit of this. A custom, however, had been followed of granting a licence upon the licensee giving an undertaking not to use it in the ordinary public-house manner. In such circumstances a bench of justices granted a licence, but after four or five years the applicant sold his licence to a brewer, and the new holder turned the premises into a regular public-house. The Bench with which he was connected granted a licence of this character, and the applicant sold it for a large sum of money to the brewers, and although that licence was granted purely for restaurant purposes it was turned into the full public-house licence.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE
said that was not so, because the licensee came up for a renewal of his licence, and the magistrates, holding that there had been a breach of the understanding upon which the licence was originally granted, refused to renew the licence. The then licensee, however, appealed to quarter 113 sessions, and they said, "We have nothing to do with any conditions imposed by the city justices; all we know is that a licence was granted, and, as no misconduct has been proved, and the premises have not been ill-conducted, we shall grant this renewal." That very licence to-day was a full public - house
§ licence. He put it to the Committee that if the words of this Amendment were inserted it would facilitate the granting of these limited licences.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 214. (Division List No. 184).115
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Hayden, John Patrick||Perks, Robert William|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Allen, Charles P.||Helme, Norval Watson||Rea, Russell|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Reddy, M.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Reid, Sir R.Threshie (Dumfries|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Hobhouse.Rt. HnH. (Somers't.E||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Holland, Sir William Henry||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Bell, Richard||Horniman, Frederick John||Roche, John|
|Bonn, John Williams||Hutchinson, Dr Charles Fredk.||Runciman, Walter|
|Black, Alexander Williams||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Russell, T. W.|
|Boland, John||Jacoby, James Alfred||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Brigg, John||Joicey, Sir James||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jones, William( Carnarvonshire||Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(Isleof Wight)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Jordan, Jeremiah||Shackleton, David James|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Joyce, Michael||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Burt, Thomas||Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.||Sheehy, David|
|Caldwell, James||Kilbride, Denis||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Kitson, Sir James||Slack, John Bamford|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lambert, George||Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal.W.)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Spear, John Ward|
|Cremer, William Randal||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Crooks, William||Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Sullivan, Donal|
|Cullinan J.||Leng, Sir John||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Ha vies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.||Taylor, Thedore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Delany, William||Levy, Maurice||Tennant, Harold John|
|Denny, Colonel||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Lloyd-George, David||Tomkinson, James|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Lough, Thomas||Toulmin, George|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Lundon, W.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Edwards, Frank||Lyell, Charles Henry||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds,S.)|
|Emmott, Alfred||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Warner, Thomas CourtenayT.|
|Fenwick, Charles||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||M'Kenna, Reginald||Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Markham, Arthur Basil||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Mitchell,Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)||Whitley, J, H. (Halifax)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John||Morpeth, Viscount||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Newnes, Sir George||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Gorst, Rt.Hon. Sir John Eldon||Norman, Henry||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Harcourt,Lewis V. (Rossendale)||Partington, Oswald||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Paulton, James Mellor||Bousfield and Sir James|
|Harwood, George||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Woodhouse.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Bailey, James (Walworth)||Bill, Charles|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bain, Colonel James Robert||Blundell, Colonel Henry|
|Allhusen,AugustusHenry Eden||Balcarres, Lord||Bond, Edward|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Balfour,Rt.Hon. A.J. (Manch'r||Boscawen, Arthur Griffiths|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Balfour,RtHn.GeraldW.(Leeds||Brassey, Albert|
|Arnold-Foster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O.||Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Bull, William James|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Butcher, John George|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Bignold, Arthur||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Heaton, John Henniker||Piatt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire||Helder, Augustus||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Henderson,Sir A. (Stafford,W.)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A.(Worc.||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Pryce-Jones, Lt.- Col. Edward|
|Chapman, Edward||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Pym, C. Guy|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hogg, Lindsay||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Rankin, Sir James|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Howard, In. (Kent, Faversham||Rateliff, R. F.|
|Colomb, Rt.Hon.Sir John C. R.||Hozier,Hon.James Henry Cecil||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Hunt, Rowland||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Robinson, Brooke|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Cream, Eugene||Jeffreys. Rt.Hon. Arthur Fred.||Rollit, Sir Albert Kayo|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W. (Salop.||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Keswick, William||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Davies, SirHoratio D. (Chatham||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lawson,JohnGrant(Yorks. N.R||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Dimsdale, Rt.Hon SirJoseph C.||Lee, ArthurH.( Hants, Fare ham||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles|
|Doogan, P. C.||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Doughty, George||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Long,Col.Charles W. (Evesham||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Mane'r||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Lucas. Reginald J. (Portsmouth)||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas||Maclver, David (Liverpool)||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Stanley, Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Fison, Frederick William||M'Fadden, Edward||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Stock, James Henry|
|Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon||Majendie, James A. H.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Flannery, Sir Forteseue||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Forster, Henry William||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Foster, Philip S.(Warwick,S.W.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Tuff, Charles|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Milner,Rt. Hon.Sir Frederick G.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Gardner, Ernest||Milvain, Thomas||Vincent,Col. Sir C.E.H.(Sheff'ld|
|Garfit, William||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin&Nairn)||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir William.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Morgan,David J. (Walthamstow||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morrell, George Herbert||Welby,Lt.-Col.A.C.E.(Taunton|
|Greene,SirE W.(B'rySEdm'nds||Morrison, James Archibald||Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)||Mount, William Arthur||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Greene,W. Raymond- (Cambs.)||Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Murray,Rt.Hn.A Graham(Bute||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Groves, James Grimble||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Wortley,Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Guthrie, Walter Murray||Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Nicholson, William Graham||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway,N.)||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Young, Samuel|
|Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)||Pease,Herbert Pike( Darlington||TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Sir|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Percy, Earl||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley||Pierpoint, Robert||Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.)||Pilkington, Colonel Richard|
§ And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR,
in moving the adjournment of the House, said he 116 thought it would be courteous to the House that he should say that he had put down to-night on the Paper a Motion which he would propose on Friday for the purpose of hastening the proceedings on the Licensing Bill.
§ Adjourned at twelve minutes after Twelve o'clock.