It will be in the recollection of the House that a speech was made last night by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on report of Supply. We were somewhat surprised at that speech being made at the time, and particularly at the circumstances under which it was made. The day before I had moved the reduction of the Vote for Sir Gerald Portal's Mission, the Prime Minister had stated the views of the Government upon the subject, and the Debate came to an end by a Division. Yesterday at about 6 o'clock the Closure was applied, and very properly applied, to the discussion upon the Parish Councils Bill, on the ground that a certain amount of Financial Business had to be gone through, and I understood that that Financial Business would be run through, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester got up and asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to explain the opinion of the Department he represented upon this matter, saying that it would be a great pity if an impression got about that the Government were half-hearted in this matter, because we could not withdraw from Uganda without disgrace. The Under Secretary responded to that appeal in a speech lasting about 20 minutes, and said he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he need have no doubt that, as regarded Uganda, the Government fully recognised the obligation imposed upon them by the urgency of the case. Then he made certain statements which appeared to be quite inconsistent with the views laid down by the Prime Minister, that this was merely a Mission of Inquiry and was not in any sort of way to prejudice the question as to whether they should withdraw from Uganda or not. The Under Secretary said that, apart from any Treaties or spheres of influence, obligations were imposed upon us by the prospects with regard to the future. It was those words they thought they had a right to complain of.

I said obligation to inquire.

Yes, and there the hon. Gentleman went on to explain that the Slave Trade was rampant in Uganda, although Captain Lugard says it does not exist there——

I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me, but I am reported in The Times to have said that it is an undoubted fact that the Slave Trade was rampant in Uganda some years ago.

Yes; some-years ago. I think I interrupted the hon. Gentleman's speech in order to point out that Captain Lugard stated that when he went there there was no slave-raiding. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that as Germany and the Congo State strengthened their administration the Slave Trade would revive, and find an outlet in Uganda. That is obviously inconsistent with any idea of leaving the country, for if it were so it would be our bounden duty to remain there and occupy the country in order to prevent its revival. The hon. Gentleman also said that England requires exports for her goods. That is strictly true, no doubt, but what is the gist of the argument; That Uganda is a country that can produce a considerable amount of crops, that those crops would be interchanged for our goods, and consequently that it is our bounden duty, in the interests of the Empire, permanently to retain Uganda. The hon. Gentleman went on further to say that the French Catholics are awaiting a large importation of arms, whereas the Protestants, in consequence of the action of the representatives of the company, are left without arms. In the Mombasa Debate, the Prime Minister said the French Catholics happened to be a powerful body, and between them and the Protestant missionaries there is rivalry, and the Protestants will welcome our interference hoping it will be backed by force of arms. Surely it is beyond the scope of mere inquiry that we are to go to Uganda to deprive the French Catholics of arms or to furnish the Protestants with arms to fight against them. According to the latest reports of the Missionary Society, there are only 300 baptised Protestants in Uganda; they are consequently a mere fraction of the population. I should like to know what Sir Gerald Portal's instructions are with regard to this question of arming The Under Secretary says that the Protestants will say, "As you have taken away our arms you are bound to see that we do not suffer in consequence," and that they will say so properly when it is announced that whatever the result of the inquiry may be, the Government intend to clear out of the country. I had to get up to defend the Prime Minister against what was really an attack by the Under Secretary. Speaking of the Treaty with Mwanga, the Under Secretary pointing to me, said that it was a mistake to suppose that that Treaty had been obtained by force or violence. I interpolated the remark that the Prime Minister had said that it was. Captain Lugard said he obtained the Treaty with the King by threats and compulsion. The wretched Sovereign made every effort to escape from the Treaty. He ran away. He was pursued. His friends were fired at; 300 men, women, and children were killed either by bullets or by drowning. The King objected to the Imperial rule the company imposed on the country. Captain Lugard, in order to induce him to remain subservient, said to him, "If you do not submit to me, I will put you off the Throne and place a Mahomedan in your place." These are the facts. I do not believe the Prime Minister is in favour of annexation, for he has always declared against annexation. My contention is that, by the necessary logic of events, this Mission of Inquiry will place England in such a position that annexation will be almost certain. That is a matter we have already gone into. My present complaint is that after a Division had been taken on the reduction of the Vote, the Under Secretary upon Report, put a perfectly different complexion upon the matter from that put upon it by the Prime Minister. As a friend of mine said to me, "I have heard of a Prime Minister throwing over an Under Secretary of State, but this is the first time he had heard of an Under Secretary throwing over a Prime Minister." In these circumstances I hope the House will get some word of comfort and assurance from the Prime Minister in regard to this matter.

I am about to take a great liberty with the House, Sir, but I am doing so for the general convenience. What I wished to say now I ought to have said before the Order of the Day was read; but seeing the right hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, present, I was desirous of saying it in his presence. Yesterday we had a discussion as to the order of Business, and my right hon. Friend contended that, according to the impression of the Leader of the Opposition, we were under a pledge not to take Second Readings of important Bills, with the exception of the Employers' Liability Bill, at Morning Sittings. I am not able to make any admission to my right hon. Friend in that respect, and I think it undesirable that there should be so much as an impression on either side of the House that any such pledge, if given, was not strictly fulfilled. Without making any admission whatever or receding at all from what I said yesterday, I will endeavour to meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman, and say that we propose, in lieu of the order of Business for to-morrow and Friday, as explained yesterday, to take to-morrow the Second Reading of the Registration Bill, and on Friday morning to take the continuance and conclusion of the Second Reading of the Employers' Liability Bill. It is well to understand that that is within the scope of the arrangement. My hon. Friend below the Gangway has placed me under a great obligation in undertaking to defend me against a dangerous foe who appears to have attacked me during my absence from the House—I mean the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I thank my hon. Friend, and I should like to go a step further and congratulate him on his change of attitude in defending me on the Uganda question. I am not without hope that he will some day go a little further and undertake the defence of my noble Friend, Lord Rosebery, in his policy with regard to Uganda. My hon. Friend has said, as to the measures we are taking—he does not say that we actually have annexation in mind—and I sincerely thank him for that—but he thinks that what we are doing renders annexation almost certain. I feel it my duty to make one remark upon that prediction, and I think my hon. Friend will admit it is a just one. It is quite obvious, in the uncertainties of the ease, that, after full information has been obtained about the state of facts in Uganda, there may be a division of opinion in this House, and that a portion of the House may be favourable to what is called a forward policy, and another portion opposed to it. My hon. Friend pointed out with great force that there were gentlemen strongly opposed to the annexation of Uganda, who maintained that annexation was logically within the scope of our policy. With regard to my hon. Friend's prophecy, I would say that it is a very common thing for gentlemen to make prophecies and thereby to demonstrate their own great wisdom and foresight, without taking into account the effect that those very prophecies may have on the future stages and development of the questions under consideration. I cannot follow my hon. Friend through all the points of his speech, which was a recital, point by point, of what took place in the Debate yesterday. Part of that Debate, which I, unhappily, did not hear, is understood to have been a declaration by the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs with reference to the discussion on the previous day. I wish, in order to safeguard myself, to say that I do not agree with the allegations of the right hon. Gentleman either as to matters of fact, or in his references, to Parliamentary usages.

It is difficult for me to know to what the right hon. Gentleman takes exception. Perhaps he does not very well understand what I did say.

I take exception to certain allegations which the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have made. But I am not trying to make a case against the right hon. Gentleman. I am only exempting myself from being supposed to participate in his allegations. It has been pointed out by my hon. Friend below the Gangway that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs mentioned, in the speech which he made yesterday, that I had made a statement upon the subject of the original Treaty with Mwanga, which he thought should either be qualified or changed in consequence of the information received since the statement was made. I dare say my hon. Friend, the Under Secretary, may have said something of the kind, but what material bearing has this on the question now before us—the important question of the propriety and justice of the Mission of Sir G. Portal? This first Treaty with Mwanga is a Treaty that has expired, and I do not know how it is related to the present Uganda question. That question, Heaven knows, bristles with points of difficulty, and I am prepared to say, whether the confession be a credit to mo or not, that on not one of those points, so far as my information goes, had we that knowledge at the time which would justify us in entertaining any idea as to the annexation of Uganda. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndam) has stated very briefly and very pithily what he thought might be the alternatives of the case. I thought, he said, we should like to know whether your Policy is to get out of Uganda if you can, or remain in Uganda if you ought. That is a very neat statement, and such statements always assist debates. The only criticism I will make upon it is that it is quite possible the same person may with perfect consistency have in his own mind a large responsibility without being in favour of taking active measures. Those two propositions constitute the subject-matter of the inquiry. I will not detain the House more than a moment longer. Here are 11 points, all of which seem to me to be vital to the question, but on none of which have we adequate information. First, I will take the Treaties with Native Chiefs, on which my hon. Friend the Under Secretary is entitled to his own opinion as to whether they were obtained by violence or not, but I am not bound to shut my mind against later information. The second point is the great quarrel that took place between the missionaries and their followers, and which led to much bloodshed. The third point is that of access to the country, which is an enormous question. As to the practicability and cost of making the railway, which the late Government adopted as the basis of its operation, we have not, so far as our knowledge goes, at present seen any cause to view with favour. The next point is the nature and the relation of all these outlying regions round Uganda —relations which have been more or less constitued. Another point is, whether Uganda might not possibly be made a centre of trade. Again, one more point is, how far Uganda is a territory in which white labour can be employed. Then comes the question of the safety of the country, on which at present I am not prepared to make any positive assertion. The ninth point has reference to the revenue and charges of a territory like Uganda. The 10th point is what are, or ought to be, the relations of Uganda to Zanzibar; and the 11th point is, what are, or ought to be, the relations of Uganda to the coast territory, which are separated by a large interval of space. All these 11 points require a great deal of light thrown upon them. My answer to my hon. Friend with respect to the declaration of the Under Secretary is, that I do not regret that he should have availed himself of the opportunity to make that declaration. On the contrary, I recognise that it was part of his duty, and that he spoke with the ability and energy which have already distinguished him and marked him out for an official career. I think it right that he should inquire into these matters himself, having opportunities which perhaps I do not possess; and if he happens to have observed that my statement as to the first Treaty with Mwanga ought, in the light of further information, to be modified, I do not quarrel with that observation, or refuse to examine the grounds for it, but I do not say that it bus the smallest bearing upon the question now before the House, which is whether it is necessary to have any further discussion now on the Mission of Sir Gerald Portal.

I do not think that it will be convenient to engage this afternoon in a prolonged Debate on the subject of Uganda, seeing that, after all, it will only be a reply to yesterday's Debate. With the domestic quarrels between the Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Northampton, and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs there is no disposition to interfere on this side of the House. We can afford to look on and smile at these lovers' quarrels, and leave the lovers to fight it out amongst themselves. I am of opinion that it is not at all desirable to raise again and fight out the question as to the particular conditions under which, and the means by which, the first Treaty was arranged between Captain Lugard and Mwanga, for that question is now ancient history. The real point which it appears to me we may now properly discuss is, What is the end and object of Sir Gerald Portal's Mission to Uganda? The Prime Minister has stated again that it is simply for the purpose of inquiry, and the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned 11 points upon which he requires further information, and upon which he is not able to pronounce a full decision without such information.

I said that they were eleven specimen points.

I cannot help thinking it is a great pity that, in the Instructions to Sir Gerald Portal, some of these specimen points were not specified. As it is, his instructions are of the vaguest and most general character. Had these specimen points been set out in his instructions, Sir Gerald would have had something to guide him, and the House would have known upon what he was to report. I maintain that they are instructions which would be naturally given, not to a man sent to make inquiries, but to one despatched to take over and settle the country, if that view had not been largely shared by Gentlemen on the Opposition side, and by Members on the other side of the House on Monday, the Government would not have had the large majority of over 300 which they did obtain. As to those eleven specimens upon which the Prime Minister requires fresh information, it seems to me that we have upon the majority of them, already full knowledge derived from various sources. We have reports as to the railway, parts of which are published in the Blue Books. There are maps and plans not published, which I have no doubt are in the posses- sion of the Government. As to the nature of the outlying regions, how long is Sir Gerald Portal to stay in Uganda if he is to report upon that?

I said the relations constituted with the outlying regions.

That does not alter my point. In order that Sir Gerald Portal may be in a position to pronounce an opinion on the point, it will be necessary for him to visit those out-lying regions. Captain Lugard during the year and a half he spent in the country was able to visit some of them; but, as the House knows travelling is very difficult in such a country, and it will take a long time before Sir Gerald Portal will be able to report upon the subject. We have already numerous Reports, amongst others Mr. Stanley's Reports, Captain Lugard's Report, the Reports of many missionaries, and those of the Belgian Société Géographique, which are very full upon the districts in question. Then, as to the possibilities of trade, quite independently of Captain Lugard's, Mr. Stanley's, and the missionaries' Reports, we have knowledge from that most admirable and excellent work of Dr. Felkin, who was two years in Uganda, and made most careful inquiry as to the country, and its capacities for trade. Upon every one of "the specimens" which the Prime Minister mentioned we have in the Books and Papers in the Foreign Office, and the War Office, if we care to search for it, full information. There is one question which the Prime Minister has left entirely out of view, and which is left out of view in the Debate on Monday night, although incidentally referred to by the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Jebb), and that was, What are our Obligations to Uganda under the Brussels Act? Let me briefly call attention to that. We were mainly instrumental in summoning the Conference at Brussels which led to the signature of the Brussels Act. It has been suggested in some quarters that the Act is limited to those parts of Africa where there are European Sovereignties and Protectorates. No such interpretation can be placed on the Articles, which seem as plain as a pike-staff. The first Article is to this effect—

"The Powers declare that the most effective means of counteracting the slave trade in the interior of Africa are the following."

If we were limited to our Sovereignties and Protectorates, I maintain that our signature to the Brussels Act is a sham, a farce, a delusion, and a snare. We were mainly instrumental in convoking the Brussels Conference; we take great credit to ourselves for having signed the Brussels Act, and for having been foremost among the Powers in Africa in attempting to suppress the Slave Trade. If, after that, we are going to say that when we signed the Act we only meant that we should try to suppress the Slave Trade in Zanzibar, where we have a Protectorate, we were deceiving the other Powers who signed the Act. The first Paragraph of Article I. applies distinctly to the Coast, and the others distinctly to the Interior. The first Paragraph deals with the Progressive Organisation of the administration of the Territories placed under the Sovereignty or Protectorate of civilized nations. The second Paragraph recommends the gradual establishment in the interior by the responsible Powers in each Territory of strongly fortified stations in such a way as will make their action felt in an effective way in that Territory. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I was anxious to speak in the discussion on Monday night, and in the discussion yesterday, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it his duty on the first occasion to move the Closure, and on the second to put pressure on the House to close the Debate. As it fell to my lot in the last Parliament to take the first steps for getting a grant of money for the survey of the Railway in Uganda, it is not unnatural that I should take a deep interest in the question. In conclusion I say that, apart from all other responsibilities, our responsibility under the Brussels' Act is very heavy, and we are doing nothing to fulfil it. Other nations have spent, and are spending, large large sums of money to establish order—the Germans in their sphere, the Portuguese, the French, and the Congo Free State, in theirs, and we are spending absolutely nothing, except, perhaps, £100 or £200 per annum which we pay to Sir Gerald Portal in his capacity of High Commissioner within the sphere of British influence. That is all we are spending to carry out the obligations laid upon us by the Brussels' Act into which we have entered with the general consent of the whole country.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think I was guilty of any discourtesy to him in moving the Closure on Monday night. The House generally accepted the Closure of the Debate. The hon. Gentleman said that we were bound by great obligations under the Brussels' Treaty which was made several years ago.

It came into force last year.

Well, who was in Office last year when it came into force, and who was guilty of the neglect which the hon. Gentleman says was committed? What position did we find ourselves in when we came into Power? I understood that it has been said that these African Companies were Agents of the English Government. I do not admit it. But the only reference to this Brussels' Treaty in Lord Salisbury's Despatch was to order the Company, on withdrawing, not to leave any Arms behind. I will not now go into the various points which have been raised. I demur altogether from the view of the late Under Secretary as to the object of Sir Gerald Portal's Mission and as to his statements with respect to the points to which the Prime Minister has recently referred. But I will not enter further into these matters. I do not think there would be any advantage in having a third Uganda Debate. There are on the Paper a number of private Member's Bills, and it was never intended that they should be interfered with by a new Debate on this subject. The Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill has been generally taken as a matter of course. If the House takes that view, I hope it will consider that the discussion has gone far enough, and that private Members will be now allowed their unquestionable right to proceed with their Bills.

I only rise to say I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been quite fair to the late Government in saying that they have done nothing in fulfilment of their pledges under the Brussels' Act. They did ask the House to grant money for making certain Lines of Railway, and that was one of the points which the Brussels Conference insisted upon as essential for striking a blow at the Slave Trade. Now, surely that was a very serious step. We know it is one which did not meet with much approval from the right hon. Gentleman.

It was not my statement. It was the statement of the Under Secretary.

It was rather the construction put upon it by the right hon. Gentleman. But do not let us waste time in reproaches. If we have been backward do not you be backward. I, for one, should be glad to see the Government fulfilling the duties we have undertaken and doing what is best for the interests of the country, and for the good of the world generally.

remarked that, after the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not feel it to be his duty to enter into an exhaustive discussion of an aspect of the matter which had been lost sight of in this discussion. So far the Debate had been confined to the prospective annexation of Uganda. This Appropriation Bill, however, proposed to sanction a Vote of £10,000 to the British East Africa Company for its services in Uganda. This, in his opinion, raised the whole question of our policy in that part of Africa. On the previous day the hon. and gallant Member for Galway made certain criticisms on the action of the Company in regard to the civil war in Uganda, and in reply the Under Secretary of State expressed a tolerably decided view of the matter, and also took occasion, as it seemed to him, to whitewash Captain Lugard and the policy of the Company from the very beginning. He gave what was an erroneous and, no doubt unintentionally, misleading account of the Treaty entered into by Mwanga under circumstances of terrorism and fraud, and he seemed to commit the Government to the Treaties of the Company. He would have been prepared to maintain that, even upon their own mangled and mutilated documents, the Company had acted in a totally lawless manner, and had disregarded the conditions of their Charter, which tied them down to take no action in the way of making Treaties without first submitting the terms for the sanction of the Government at home. The Company's policy was of a lawless, treacherous, dangerous, usurping, violent, and sanguinary character. During the perusal of the documents he was reminded of that story "The Daring Adventures of Captain Kidd on the Spanish Main," as well as another treatise, of which many of them, no doubt, had had painful and early experience, in which the author started with the reflection that all Gaul was divided into three parts. That writer did not relinquish his pen until he had shown how, under the assiduous application of unionist principles on the part of the energetic but bald-headed nobleman of Rome, vexed as bald-headed energy never was before by the unreasonable natives, who persisted in perversely maintaining that all Gaul belonged to them and not to Roman strangers, however energetic and bald-headed they might be, and ultimately how Gaul became consolidated into a "sphere of influence" ready to be merged into an all-absorbing empire that was destined to perish under the weight of its own ill-gotten spoil. This was a warning, if they would take it, to succeeding foolish imitators. Into the evidence which would be necessary to establish that position he was quite prepared to enter at the necessary length and breadth, but, after the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not do so on the present occasion.

said he hoped there would be no attempt to suppress further debate. The Government certainly had no right to complain of it being raised that day, for the application of the Closure of Monday prevented many speaking who had wished to do so, and the present Debate was due to the rampant, jingo speech of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the previous night, a speech which the Prime Minister now told them had no bearing on the matter before the House, and which was made at a time when it was known that they could not reply, owing to the appeal which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped the time would soon come when no Government of this country would have the right to make Treaties without the previous consent of the House of Commons. They would rely on the pledge of the Prime Minister to take the opinion of the House later on upon this matter; though how this was going to be done he did not know. He did not believe that the late Government had any idea of taking possession of the country when they proposed the railway survey last year. Certainly nothing was said to that effect, and if it had been in their minds they ought to have told the House. It might be useful for them to go in for Jingoism with a view to catching votes. That was the only explanation that could be given of the course of the late Government. He had understood the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say last night that we were under obligations in regard to this part of Africa, for the reason that somebody had set it out as under our sphere of influence. Well, he (Mr. Morton) entirely objected to anybody setting out a country as under our sphere of influence, and then claiming that it imposed obligations upon us. Then treaty obligations were spoken of, but to his mind Treaties with savage Chiefs were not of much value. They were very often brought about by the aid of Maxim guns, aided not infrequently by the whisky bottle. He hoped the time was coming when no Government of this country would have the right to make Treaties without asking the previous consent of Parliament. He did not wish to detain the House; he should not have troubled it at all had it not been for the jingo speech of a Representative of the Government. With regard to British missionaries, he had as much respect for them as anyone in the country, but he did not believe this was a missionary question at all. All the good missionaries from the time of Jesus Christ downwards had thought it wise to have nothing to do with the Government of a country, especially when that Government was of a bayonet and gunpowder type. In the present instance the missionaries were being backed up by the traders and company promoters with a view to inducing the Government to find money to carry out their wishes. As to slavery, he was as anxious to put it down as anybody in the world; but it was a new thing to find the Tory Party advocating the abolition of slavery as a part of their policy, because up to very recently they had always been in favour of slavery. [Cries of "Never!"] Right hon. Members opposite said "Never!" But the records of the Debates in the House, and the records of the country, would show that the Tory Party were favourable to enslaving not only the people of Africa, but the people of this country also. They always opposed the abolition of slavery in the West Indies, and up to the last moment they had been in favour of establishing a power in the United States whose foundation stone was slavery. It was nonsense for the Tory Party to tell that House that they were opposed to slavery. They were as much in favour of it as ever, though of course they remembered that the people of the country had votes, and that it was necessary to pronounce against slavery. If this had been a question of slavery he should not have begrudged a few thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds; but it had nothing to do with slavery at all, slavery being dragged in merely for the purpose of furthering the objects of the Company. He should not trouble the House further, because he relied upon the Prime Minister's pledge that nothing beyond inquiry should be done without the previous consent of the House.

seconded the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill. It would be seen that it was not sought by the Bill to necessitate the taking out of a licence by or ill respect of any person or premises otherwise required by law to be licensed, nor to exempt any person or premises required to be licensed from having to be so licensed. It was impossible to put in a private Member's Bill clauses for the purpose of imposing licences on clubs. They left that matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would, no doubt, avail himself of any reasonable opportunity that presented itself of increasing his revenue. He was a strong advocate of making clubs pay a licensing fee, and he was supported strongly in that view by Mr. Hindle, the magistrates' clerk of Darwen, who, in a letter which he had received that morning, said—

"I understand the Bill for the ' registration' of clubs will be under consideration to-morrow. My own impression is that if an Amendment were moved requiring clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold to be not only registered but licensed exactly like public-houses, at the discretion of the Licensing Magistrates, it would meet with little or no opposition from the ' trade,' and would gain the support of every section of temperance reformers. Unless some legislation of this kind is passed very shortly, we shall have in many of our Lancashire towns more 'clubs' where drink is sold than public-houses; in fact, it is now found they are already beginning to swarm in those districts where the magistrates have done their duty and reduced the number of public-houses within reasonable limits. What, then, is likely to be the result when public-houses in any district have been abolished, and any half-dozen persons can open a club where drink can be sold all night long and all Sunday over after formally registering certain particulars?"

That reminded him (Mr. Caine) of a very important feature of this Bill, namely, that if it were passed into law it would relieve any future Government that would have to deal with licensing generally from a very important portion of their work. He had just been told that the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Crosfield), as a magistrate for the borough of Liverpool, not very long ago fined persons £1,280 in a single week for running bogus clubs in Liverpool. He pointed out to the House the unanimity with which the Bill had been received, both inside and outside of Parliament. It was quite clear the Front Opposition Bench had no objection to raise, for there was not a single Member present on that Bench to raise it. It was always a pleasing spectacle when the temperance lambs could lie down with the licensing victualling lions. On that occasion they were able to do it. Nobody wished to oppose the Bill, except those camp followers of the liquor traffic who made their living by starting bogus clubs in large towns. He wished Lord R. Churchill had been in his place, because he had contributed a good deal of valuable information to this club controversy. In his speech, in introducing the Licensing Law Amendment Bill in 1890, the noble Lord said—

"The second part of the Bill relates to the registration of clubs. The Under Secretary of State for the Home Department has written me a letter in which he refers to the opinion of the Chief Commissioner of Police as to the existence in the Metropolis, and in many other large towns, of bogus clubs, that exist merely for the unlicensed sale of intoxicating liquors; and he expresses his opinion that the formation of those clubs had received a great impetus from the restrictions on the sale of alcoholic liquor. In many rases, the Chief Commissioner observes, these clubs are merely unlicensed taverns, where drinking and gambling is indulged in with impunity. These remarks apply only to the lower order of clubs, though the Chief Commissioner does not recommend legislation which would not apply to all clubs alike. The licensed victuallers complain, and, in my judgment, rightly complain, of the increased drinking in these bogus clubs, which are able to sell liquors at all hours, and which escape altogether the rigid control which applies to public-houses. I will not go deeply, at this hour of the evening, into this question of clubs; but I will merely point out that under the provisions of the Bill a bonâ fide club would be entitled to be registered by the County Council upon payment of a fee which is graduated according to the rating of the premises of the club. In an ordinary working men's club the fee might amount to 30s. a year, while the great West-End clubs of London would have the satisfaction of paying to the County Council sums ranging between £1,000 and £2,000 a year."

He (Mr. Caine) believed the licensing of clubs generally would be a most legitimate form of raising revenue, and, if his recollection served him right, the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, some years ago, introduced a proposal in one of his Budgets to raise revenue by the taxation of clubs of all sorts. There were several other Bills before the House dealing with licensing generally. Licensing was largely in the air. The public conscience had been awakened upon the subject, and it had taken effect in various proposals coming from all sides. Lord R. Churchill was the foremost temperance reformer on the Front Opposition Bench; at any rate, he was the only one who had brought forward a practical, sensible measure for dealing with the difficulty. In a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), and which was on the Order Paper that day, there was a series of clauses dealing with the registration of clubs, and two pages of that Bill would be taken out if the present measure passed. Another Bill had been drafted by licensing reformers in Manchester, in which there were no fewer than six long clauses dealing with the registration of clubs. Another scheme of great importance would be produced by the Bishop of London in the House of Lords, containing almost identical provisions to those of the Bill now before the House on the question of chilis. The present measure had received the unanimous support of every section of the advanced Temperance Party. They had a Conference in London not long ago of all the National Temperance Associations throughout the United Kingdom, where this question was raised, and resolutions—which had been adopted by the United Kingdom Alliance and the National Temperance Federation—were passed. The first of these stated—

"That the serious evils arising from clubs established for drinking purposes demand legislation for their speedy suppression, and this Conference respectfully calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure calculated to effect this object, so that whatever powers may be given to localities to veto the licensed liquor traffic may not be rendered nugatory by clubs tending to the promotion of social intemperance."

The second resolution was—

"That in view of the great importance of having the laws relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors free from evasion by clubs, this Conference is of opinion that all clubs where intoxicants are dispensed, or those portions of clubs which are devoted to the purpose, should be placed under such legal regulations as would ensure that they should be bonâ fide clubs, and this Conference calls upon the Government to introduce legislation necessary to effect the purpose desired."

These resolutions had been passed by the most important meeting of Temperance Reformers that he had known during the 30 years he had been engaged in this agitation. He had very little doubt that if the Bill was referred to a Select Committee it would be strengthened and made thoroughly workable and thoroughly satisfactory. It was a capital ground-work on which a great deal could be built; and if the Government would agree to their request to refer it to a Select Committee, he believed it would come back in a shape that would meet with general approval; and that it would, by settling a very important item of licensing reform, save a great deal of time when they came to consider other aspects of the licensing question.

Will you agree to include Ireland in the Bill?

I would include Ireland, and Scotland too, without the slightest hesitation.

said that as a Temperance man he supported the principle of the Bill, and regretted that Ireland had not been included in the measure. There would be difficulties no doubt if Ireland was included, because the local authorities were different, but if the House passed the measure it would very greatly facilitate the passage of the Bill which they proposed to introduce dealing with Ireland. He was convinced that if bogus club legislation was properly carried out that they should relieve the country of a large amount of intemperance, which at present was attributed to the public house.

In the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been called away from the House, I wish to say a few words as representing the Government in this matter. The Chancellor desired me to state the course the Government intend to take with regard to this Bill. I must first of all thank the hon. and gallant Member opposite for introducing the measure, and for the interesting statement he made with regard to bogus clubs. The Government think that the Bill is one of considerable value, and will support the Second Reading, and will also endeavour, with the assistance of the House, to carry it into law. It is with this view, and not with the object of retarding the progress of the measure that the Government think it desirable that it should go to a Select Committee. They think that by dealing with the Bill in this way it will be greatly improved, and they hope to see it pass into law. For my part, I have taken a very great interest in this subject in consequence of a matter which occurred in my own neighbourhood in Kent. Some two years ago the magistrates, after considerable discussion, agreed not to renew the licence of a public house in the district, and the licence was forfeited, partly on account of the misconduct of the occupier, and partly because there were too many public houses there already. The brewer, however, at once opened the house as a club, putting in the former occupier as manager. In that small country village there are 120 members paying a subscription of 1s. or 1s. 6d. each, and the magistrates are advised that—such was the care with which the rules were drawn under the advice of counsel—there would be very great difficulty indeed in sustaining a prosecution under the Licensing Laws. It is further stated that the brewer is delighted now that his licence was taken away, because he says he sells twice as much beer under the new system than under the old state of things. Besides, the house is entirely free from police supervision. It can be kept open at all hours of the night—it is open on Sundays, and it is free entirely from police restrictions of every kind or sort. It is obvious, then, that if a thing of this kind can be done, it is no use for the magistrates to do away with licences, for the closed public houses may be opened again as clubs in which the sale of drink can go on at all hours without restriction. I am informed that the club to which I have referred has been based upon a decision of the Queen's Bench Division in 1888, in the case of Newell v. Kenny-way. That case arose out of the establishment of a club called the Dumfries Club, at Cardiff. The Cardiff club was started by a company having a nominal capital of £100, divided into 400 shares of 5s. each, of which 1s. only was paid up by 121 members, the working capital of the company, therefore, being only £6 1s. It was admitted that the company depended entirely for its current expenses on the cash taken for liquor and food supplied to the shareholders. The premises in which the club was held consisted of five rooms, and the rent paid for them was £36 per annum. There was no evidence that any entrance fee or any subscription was paid by the shareholders, and a committee was sup- posed to be constantly sitting in an inner room, in order to at once qualify a man as a shareholder on his paying 1s. at the door. The applicant, however, was not admitted to the privileges of the club until his name had been approved by the directors of the company, and there was evidence that some persons had applied for shares and had been refused. It was admitted at the time that there were 300 such clubs in existence in Cardiff. The manager of the club was convicted before the magistrates of keeping an unlicensed house for the sale of intoxicating liquors, but Lord Chief Justice Coleridge quashed the conviction, holding that the club was established for the purpose of supplying reasonable refreshment on the spot, and that, therefore, it was only reasonable that the directors should have power to permit articles of food, including liquor, to be delivered to members. In the case of Croft v. Evans, Mr. Justice Field also held that the handing over of liquors by the manager of a club to the general body of members was not a sale, and did not come within the scope of the Act. I have no doubt that the Judges are correct in their interpretation of the law, but it is obvious, in view of these legal decisions, that the licensing laws can be practically set aside, and that any number of clubs can be established for the sale of liquor to the members without restrictions of any kind or description, either by the police or any one else. It is, therefore, necessary, is the interest of the cause of temperance, that some restrictions should be placed on these bogus clubs, and this Bill has been brought in with this view. Whether it goes far enough is open to doubt, but it may be strengthened by way of giving further securities against the establishing of these clubs, and it is with that object that the Government supported the Second Reading and hope to see the measure pass into law.

thought this a very much better and more workable measure than the Bill previously submitted to the House. He was by no means an advocate of State interference in this or any other matter, but when one found a grave condition of affairs, such as undoubtedly existed in reference to these clubs, he thought it was time that there should be some such interference. This, however, was a subject, which had not been discussed in that House, although it had been debated on many occasions in the country. As he had intimated, he thought that this Bill had been very carefully drafted by the Member who had introduced it. He noticed that after the passing of the Bill all clubs would have to be properly registered. This he regarded as a very valuable provision. During the last Parliament he asked a question of the then Home Secretary, and also asked for a Return of the number of bogus clubs in London. The Home Secretary requested him to define what was a bogus club. When this Bill became law such a question would be very easily answered, and it would be easy to differentiate between bona fide and useful clubs and clubs which were mere drinking-shops and gambling-houses. There was in London and elsewhere a vast number of clubs which were carried out on the principle on which they were originally started, and which were very useful and social institutions; but, from evidence which he held in his hand, it was also very clear that there were a vast number of so-called clubs which had changed from the original intention of the founders, and which had become nothing else than drinking houses and gambling shops, where drinking could be carried on all night long and all Sunday, He believed that when this Bill became law many of these institutions would revert to their original use, and to that extent would become useful places. From a Return which had been sent to him, he believed that in many of these clubs considerable quantities of liquor was sold to go off the premises, and in this there was a clear invasion of the Licensing Laws. No doubt in very many of these clubs the provisions as to the formation of a club were entirely evaded, and in these cases, as in many other instances, it would be found that these clubs were used at precisely the times when public-houses were closed, In many cases, in fact, be noticed by a Return of a Special Commissioner who had inquired into the conduct and working of some 50 out of the 200 clubs in the metropolitan area, the moment the public-houses were closed the clubs were open. The facilities, too, for becoming members were easy in the extreme. A porter in many of them was placed at the door, and he received the individual who proposed to become a member. A small fee was charged; the name was submitted to a committee supposed to be sitting in an inner room, and within a very few minutes the individual was elected, and was free to use the place for drinking purposes immediately, and free likewise to take as many of his friends as he liked. Gambling went on at a great number of these clubs. He would quote one instance without giving the name—

"This is essentially a sporting club, the members of which are composed of regular frequenters of race meetings. Boxing matches are regularly held in the hall adjoining. Sunday evening is the occasion when these are witnessed. Gentlemen have complained of being robbed here, and no wonder. The members take home any quantity of liquor they choose."

There was a club in Dean Street, Soho, of which the distinguishing features were "gaming, irregularity, and the assembly of loose characters." Another club in the Tower Hamlets was described as a proprietary club, and it was reported by the police that on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday nights, when the people were turned out, the scenes of riot and disorder were scandalous. The Huddersfield Wesleyan Methodist Council had had the subject of "cots" or bogus clubs brought under their notice, and they had reported that while the public-houses were closed during the hours of Divine worship, the "cot" was most flourishing—

"and drinking and gambling were continuously pursued from Saturday noon until the working hours of Monday morning."

These clubs the Methodist Council also reported—

"destroy all home and social life, they lead to extravagance and squandering of the hardly-earned wages of the working classes, they foster gambling and betting in their worst forms, they encourage habits of drinking without any kind of restriction; they claim an immunity from the legal restrictions attaching to publicans, whose businesses are strictly regulated by law, and afford facilities for the continuance of drinking through the nights."

The Council proceeds—

"It is impossible to believe the practices of these 'cots' can be supported or tolerated by the law of the land."

But, unfortunately, under the existing state of affairs these clubs were tolerated by the law of the land, and the Bill now before them would, if passed, go to a great extent to prevent the present condition of affairs. He quite agreed with what had fallen from hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in this Debate, that this Bill might be amended in Committee. For instance, Clause 16 might be omitted in Committee, as some people thought it was not altogether advisable that every club secretary should be obliged to give to any individual, whether a member of the club or not, the whole particulars with regard to that somewhat private institution. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bradford, would consent to a hybrid Committee, feeling sure that if this question was carefully considered by such Committee the Bill when it came before the House would be received with the attention which it deserved.

supported the Second Reading of this Bill, which had, to his mind, one great recommendation; it contained a provision which was absolutely essential to a Bill of this character, and that was that it proposed to apply precisely the same measure of justice to clubs at the West End of London that it would apply to the East End of London. A palatial club in Pall Mall would be treated precisely the same as a humble club in Bethnal Green or St. George's-in-the East. In that the Bill was democratic, and it was obvious that in any Amendments that had been suggested as likely to be introduced in the passage of the Bill through Committee, that principle of equal treatment must be rigidly maintained. But while the Bill proposed to extend that equal treatment to which he had referred, it properly recognised that registration already existed under the present law, because it was provided by one of the Clauses of the Bill that if a club was already registered under the Friendly Societies Act of 1875, then that club would be altogether exempt from the operation of the Bill. As it happened, with one or two exceptions, all the bonâ fide working men's clubs in the metropolis were already registered, and they would, therefore, be totally exempt from the operation of the Bill. The reason the two or three clubs to which he had referred were not registered was, he thought, creditable to them. The reason was this: the Registrar of Friendly Societies declined to register any club which frankly in its rules included political objects amongst the objects which it sought to promote. With submission he considered that the Registrar of Friendly Societies took rather a strained view of the Act of ' 1875 in declining to register such clubs. He regretted that they had not been registered, because he thought that a club which frankly and honestly engaged in political action was quite as likely to be well conducted and well managed as clubs of a mere social character. There was another point he wished to call attention to in regard to registration. Some working men's clubs wore not registered under the Friendly Societies Act of 1875, but were registered under the Provident and Industrial Societies Act of 1876. Under this Act these clubs had certain advantages, the chief of which was being able to raise funds by the issue of shares, the liability of each member being limited to the uncalled part of the share for which he had applied, and he thought it would be only fair and consistent with the policy of the Bill to exempt clubs registered under this Act from the scope of the Bill, and in Committee he should propose that as an Amendment. Working men's clubs, or so-called working men's clubs, in London were of three classes. In the first place there were the bonâ fide working men's club, in respect of which the premises and funds of the club were the property of the members, who were duly elected, in which all proper precautions were taken, and the management of which was vested in a committee of the members. This was really a development of the co-operative movement, a development which had taken a considerable rise in London, and was, he contended, a great educational instrument, because it taught men to act together, and afforded working men an opportunity of understanding the elements of business and dealing with people. The most salutary effects had come from the co-operative movement in the North of England, and he himself knew working men's clubs in London which were admirably managed and in every way respectable, and he thought the friends of clubs should exert themselves to bring all clubs up to the same standard and level. That was the first class of clubs. Then there was a second class, the proprietary club, where the clubs, and the profits from the liquor and other things sold in them, were the property of a single individual. He had very little sympathy for the proprietary club, whether it be in the West End or the East End of London; he did not think the law—he meant from the point of view of the Excise—ought to look with indulgence upon a proprietary club. Though the point had not been decided by a Court of Law, it seemed to him that the sale of liquor In a proprietary club to a member was a sale within the meaning of the Licensing Act, and therefore, that the proprietor of such a club ought to be required to take out both an Excise and a magistrate's license. But there was a third class of clubs, and he took it they now came to the class of clubs against which this Bill was principally directed, he meant clubs which were only colourable clubs, which were clubs only in name, in which a stranger presenting himself could be made a member on the spot, with or without the payment of a nominal entrance fee. As he understood it, it was against clubs of this description that the Bill was mainly directed. Then arose the question, was this Bill likely to be effective in its object in striking at these clubs. Having read the Bill with great care, he was not sanguine that it would effect its object. He presumed it was hoped it would effect its object in this way, that it would facilitate the proof when a particular club was prosecuted. It was provided by the Bill that each club should issue and publish, upon a slight payment, to any person who might demand it, a list of all its members, and he presumed, therefore, that in the case where a club was prosecuted and it was alleged that A, B, C and D had been served with liquor, the prosecution would produce the list of members, and show that A, B, C and D were not on that list, that they were strangers, consequently the sale to them was illegal under the Licensing Act. But he confessed he was not sanguine that the promoters of the Bill would succeed in the object they had in view. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had scarcely appreciated the real difficulties of the question. He (Mr. Pickersgill) was informed that the late Government attempted legislation with regard to clubs, that they made extensive inquiries, and that they abandoned the project in consequence of the enormous difficulties with which the whole question was surrounded. For his own part he believed the only effectual way of dealing with bogus clubs was energetic action on the part of the police, and he was afraid that in London they had not had on the part of the police such energetic action as they might reasonably have expected. He had been told by a gentleman who had devoted a lifetime to the interests of the co-operative movement, that some years ago he laid a list of bogus clubs before the Metropolitan police, and nothing was done. This, he thought, was an additional reason why the control of the police should be transferred from the Home Office to the representative authority of London. As these questions would receive adequate consideration in the House to which it was proposed to refer the Bill, he had much pleasure in supporting the Second Reading.

did not rise for the purpose of throwing a single note of discord into the unanimity with which the Bill was received, but to say a word or two of the great difficulties with which any attempt to register or control clubs was surrounded. He would point out that, though the Bill was drawn for the registration of clubs, it did not define what a club was, it dealt with the club as if it was a question of club premises. His interpretation of the word "club" was that it was a combination of individuals for a specific purpose, and at this moment there were a large number of clubs that were combinations for the purpose of obtaining drink, and other articles of necessity, and which might really be called co-operative societies rather than ordinary clubs. The last speaker, the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), alluded to the effect of the co-operative movement; but if he (Mr. Bonsor), endeavoured to define what a bogus club was, he should say it was a sort of co-operative society to deal in opposition to the public house. They knew these co-operative societies were originated in the idea that a large number of people could not get the necessaries of life at reasonable prices, or of reasonable quality, and they started these societies in opposition to the tradesmen. He expected these clubs had been started very much on a similar basis, and for similar reasons. The restrictions under which licensed victuallers had to carry on their business had not appealed to a certain class, and that class had combined to get drink in such hours and in such manner as the public-house was not allowed by the law to dispense it. The question of the registration of clubs was one that might be found to interfere with the liberty of the subject, and he was glad the subject was to be discussed before a Select Committee, because there the great difficulties in dealing with it would be shown, and he hoped the Select Committee would be able to do what other Members had failed to accomplish, viz., to prevent people from getting outside the licensing laws and being able to provide drink at all hours and without restriction.

thought that when the question of registration of places, like clubs, where excise-able liquors are consumed, was raised, the point ought also to be considered of the registration of all places where exciseable liquors are manufactured. When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer conferred upon cottagers the right to brew beer absolutely free from any excise tax, some provision ought, in his opinion, to have been made for registering such brewers, as, without some such system, a valve was created through which a considerable leakage of revenue might very easily take place. The question of the registration of places for the manufacture of exciseable liquors ought to be considered as well as that of places for the sale of those articles. He recognised thoroughly the good a Bill of this kind might do. He did not wish to throw cold water on it, and he hoped the Select Committee would consider all sides of the question, which was one that presented many difficulties.

thought the Bill proposed to deal with one thing bypassing clauses dealing with another. The definition clause on which the whole Bill hung was extraordinarily lax in its language, and he confessed that, having read it two or three times, he was unable to understand what a club would be under the definition, or what was intended by those who drew the Bill. Therefore that clause would require the careful consideration of the Select Committee. The immediate object of the Bill was to deal with bogus clubs, but it was really directed against the drunkard, and he believed that, no matter what provisions they made, wise or unwise, for preventing the sale of drink, the drunkard would always find methods of defeating them and of satisfying his deplorable appetite. The First Commissioner had given an illustration of what would occur if the Local Veto Bill were at this moment passed into law. He trusted the present Bill was intended to touch the rich man's clubs, and that there was no intention to deal with the poor man's clubs alone. [An HON. MEMBER: It means all clubs.] Exactly, but what would be the effect? He was informed there was an establishment not far from the House frequented by Radical millionaires and released prisoners, the National Liberal Club, where an enormous quantity of whisky was consumed. There were establishments, like the Carlton and the Reform Clubs, where moderate refreshment of a superior kind could be obtained. What would be the result of this Bill? They would wake one morning and hear that, in consequence of some lapse on the part of the secretaries of these two establishments —they had been raided by the police, and that the whole of the two Front Benches had been taken before a magistrate and fined £20 a head. And they would find those two Front Benches for once united and coming down to propose the abolition of the police, and to put the resulting compensation into a blank schedule. Such a Bill, therefore, required most careful revision, and he trusted that would be the result of its going to a Select Committee.

was glad to hear it was intended to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, because it was obvious the Bill required very considerable amendment before it could be looked upon as a practical measure to deal with an admitted evil. The evil at the present time the Bill proposed to deal with was the existence of a number of bogus clubs, that was to say, of societies which were formed for the purpose of putting money into the pockets of the proprietor, or for enabling people belonging to these societies to get drink at times when the public-houses were shut up. He did not think the Bill as at present framed would deal effectively with those clubs which were conducted practically like the public-houses, and where there were no rules made, except such as the proprietor chose to enforce. He saw no reason why such clubs should not register themselves and the list of their members, but he did not think that registration would have any effect upon them. If the Bill did anything it gave them a sort of sanction and recognition which at present they did not possess. The only way of dealing with these clubs was to put them under the Licensing Laws, and treat them as public-houses, the only difference between such a club and the public-house being that one had a limited number of customers and the other had an unlimited number. With regard to some proprietary clubs, which wore bonâ fide and established for the personal convenience of their members, there would, he thought, be no difficulty in transforming them into ordinary members' clubs, and so relieving them of the obligations of the Licensing Laws. With regard to bonâ fide members' clubs established for social and other purposes of a legitimate character, it would be a very great departure to put such clubs under the licensing laws, or to put them under registration such as was suggested in the Bill. The mere registration of these clubs was not the ultimate object intended. As soon as they were registered other legislation would inevitably follow. The Bill proposed to facilitate the discovery of bogus clubs. There was no difficulty about finding bogus clubs; they were well known to the police, and, therefore, they did not want to come to Parliament for powers to find them out. He was in favour of dealing with these bogus clubs, but he was in favour of dealing with them in a different way to that proposed in the Bill. He thought they ought to be subjected to the Licensing Laws and treated as public-houses. As to the genuine clubs, which were, in fact, private houses and associations which were created for a legitimate purpose and were a great convenience, he thought the people would very strongly resent their being placed under any Registration Laws. He saw no necessity for putting clubs like the Reform, the Carlton, and the National Liberal Club, or other clubs, established for a legitimate purpose, under any restrictions by Licensing Laws. They were, in fact, large private houses, and they might just as well ask for powers to put boarding-houses under the Licensing Laws. There were some very strong provisions in the Bill which would deter members from going on the committees of any clubs. According to the Bill, the rules of every club were to be registered, and every member of the committee was to be responsible for seeing that those registered rules were carried out, and he was, moreover, to be responsible to the extent of being liable to a fine of £20, and something like £5 a day during the time the rules were broken. The position of a committee man of a club was not under ordinary circumstances a very enviable one, and by the Bill they would impose a responsibility upon committeemen which few of them would care to incur. The drastic provisions of this Bill were quite unnecessary in reference to the legitimate members' clubs. When a club was carried on for the benefit and profit of an individual it was in reality an unlicensed public-house and should be subjected to the Licensing Laws in all respects, and treated as a public-house. But wherever a club was carried on by the members, governed by a committee elected by them, managed for their mutual accommodation and benefit, and when all were responsible for what went on in the club, and all were responsible for its debts and engagements, it was virtually a private house, and ought not to be subjected to liabilities that ordinary private houses were not subjected to. The points he had raised might very properly be considered by the Committee, and no doubt they would be able to draw a distinction between a proprietary club and a members' club, and frame an Act which would enable those bogus clubs to be reached and dealt with, and at the same time leave perfect freedom to the ordinary members' clubs, which were a great convenience to a large number of people, and which neither gave annoyance to the Excise authorities nor to the people of London at large.

said the hon. Member who had last spoken had pointed out a great many of the real objections to the Bill, and he would desire in some way to second what that hon. Member had said. He would point out to those enthusiastic Members of the Temperance party who had been led to support this Bill how little it did—if indeed it did anything—for the cause which they were supposed to have at heart. He did not know that he could vote against the Bill if a division were taken, but at the same time he did not know that he could vote in its favour, because it appeared to him to be a Bill which, if passed, would do precisely nothing at all. So long as anyone carrying on a bogus club got it registered he' might carry it on without interference. In his opinion if every club, from the best to the worst, from the Carlton to the Reform, had to take out a licence there would be no harm whatever in it. He did not think that either of those institutions—he had but a slight acquaintance with them—would suffer the slightest degradation from being occasionally visited by someone occupying the responsible position of an inspector of police. But this Bill would do absolutely nothing. They simply registered the club, and they could do what they liked, with the exception that there should be not more than 5 per cent. of honorary Members. It was like buying an indulgence—a sort of leave to eat butter in Lent. What were the exemptions that commended the Bill to the Radical Party opposite? It would not apply at all to the governing body or other authorities of a college, religious, educational, or charitable. All, therefore, that a man had to do was to call himself a college. Dr. Johnson objected to a Scotchman because he set up a school and called it an academy. Well, all a man would have to do under this Bill would be to call himself an academy or college. It would not matter whether it was educational, religious, or charitable. So long as a plausible distinction was given they might drink in such places, and not be subject to this Bill. If there was ever a Bill brought in with suggestions how to evade it, this was the one. He always thought it was the theory of the Party opposite that if there was anything in the world that led to an inordi- nate consumption of liquor and deleteriously rich dishes, it was the Corporation of the City of London. He always gathered that they set a bad example to the temperance cause. But the Corporation of London was exempted, a sub-clause expressly exempting the mayor, aldermen, and commoners of the City of London in common council assembled. He did not know what they did in common council assembled, but he had always understood that those assemblies were not specially devoted to the advocacy or the practice of teetotalism. Why on earth then should there be a particular exemption in their favour? If they did not indulge in the habits that distinguished bogus clubs there was no need to mention them. If, on the other-hand, the assumption was that the Corporation in council assembled did copy the example of bogus clubs the cause of temperance was not promoted by excluding the Corporation from the Bill. The Bill was not one for the promotion of temperance. It was simply a Bill to promote temperance amongst those who had nothing to drink, and to give exemptions to those who had something to drink. Was it worth while to discuss the Bill any longer? He did not wonder that the Treasury Bench accepted it. There were some whom they desired to be friends with who wanted the Bill, and if the Government did not accept it they would not get their votes for Home Rule. He ventured to ask his hon. Friend who had moved this Bill whether he did not think the cause of temperance and common sense would be just as well served if the Bill were withdrawn at once?

said so far as he had heard the Debate there had been a good deal of what he called "talking round" this subject. No one could question the importance of the subject dealt with, and it was all the more important because he thought past history showed them that just in proportion as they increased the stringency of the Licensing Laws these clubs sprang up and evaded the laws. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for a Veto Bill, and he invited him to look at this Bill and see whether it was fit for anything at all. Ireland was excluded from the Bill. It appeared to be excluded from everything of use, and given everything it did not want. If the Bill got into Committee, Ireland would insist on being included in the Bill. The evil of bogus clubs existed in Ireland as well as in England, and there was no reason for its exclusion from the Bill. He concurred with a great deal that the hon. Member for Deptford had said. Why was it that the House did not take the evil by the throat and deal with it? They heard a great deal about one law for the rich and another for the poor. What was the House doing if it passed the Bill? It was refusing to attack this question seriously, because it feared to attack the Fall Mall clubs. Supposing the Bill came into operation, what use would be the mere registration of a bogus club? The police knew all about these clubs at the present moment, but they could not deal with them. There was the whole kernel of the question. They could not deal with them because of the clubs in Pall Mall and other places. They could not deal with bogus clubs so long as they allowed other clubs to have laws for themselves. He asked plainly why should not those clubs be licensed premises? Why should not the Reform Club, and why should not that place whore he was told more drink was consumed than in any other place in London—the National Liberal Club— why should not these common drinking houses be made into licensed houses and treated as such? It was because the House was afraid to touch these clubs— that was, hon. Members were afraid to curtail their own privileges, and they went on pottering and tinkering with a Bill like this which could not do any good. Everybody knew that these places were illicit drinking houses, and such rules as this Bill proposed would be slipped through with the greatest of ease. He would not oppose the Bill going into committee, but inasmuch as they were bringing in restrictive legislation with regard to the drink traffic, he thought the House should face the evil seriously, and make all these clubs which were drinking shops in one phase or another simply be licensed as public houses, subject to the Licensing Law and under the control of the police.

In reference to the remarks made upon the subject of the treatment of all clubs alike, I for my part have always thought that all clubs should be treated alike. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), who is always scolding somebody, assumed that hon. Members who have put their names on the back of this Bill—on that side of the House as well as on this side—have some sinister and evil motive. He seems to entertain that opinion about the whole human race, and it is his practice to denounce everybody, particularly if the Bill under discussion happens to be in the direction of temperance, of which he is the particular apostle. Although the hon. Member scolds with a very loud voice upon most subjects, he scolds in a louder voice when temperance questions are before the House. I only rise to say, in reference to what has been said on the other side of the House, that all clubs ought to be treated alike; I entirely concur. I think there ought to be no distinction whatever made between a club in Pall Mall and a club in Whitechapel. No doubt it is a very difficult question as to how to treat both. You must manage to have some system which shall not be too inquisitorial, but which shall accomplish the objects we have in view. I am prepared to support the Second Reading of the Bill, and then have it sent to a Select Committee ill order that these difficulties may be fully examined. I am perfectly confident that there are many difficulties, and I quite understand that this Bill does not import into it the licensing principle. Well, but no private Member introducing a Bill could not have imported into it a proposal for the payment of licences. For my part, both personally and officially, I should be very glad to see all these clubs licensed, and really I cannot see myself why they should not be. For these reasons I have no doubt the House will be perfectly willing to support the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope the Committee which will then be appointed will examine into the whole question and see if we cannot elaborate some scheme which will really deal with an evil of which I believe everybody is conscious.

said that whatever he might think about the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, he agreed with him on one point—that if this Bill got into Committee, they would certainly claim that it should be extended to Ireland. There was a unanimous feeling amongst Irish Members on this point. The hon. Member for South Tyrone seemed to have thought that this Bill afforded a suitable opportunity for making an attack on the National Liberal Club. He ventured to say that this was not the tone in which the Bill should be discussed. The Bill dealt with a great social evil—an evil which existed both in Ireland and in England, and the only objection he had to it was that it gave hon. Members an opportunity of airing a great deal of cheap virtue. Bogus clubs had no friends, and gentlemen could attack bogus clubs without alienating the publican vote. That probably accounted for the unanimity with which the Bill had been received. He was perfectly sure that when the gentlemen who had the Bill in charge decided to exclude Ireland, they did not do so from any motive to which hon. Members in that part of the House could take exception, and he was sure that when they learned! that there was a general feeling amongst Irish Members that Ireland should be included, they would be willing to extend the Bill to Ireland He thought there was something to be said in favour of the view that this Bill; did not go far enough in the direction they desired. It simply dealt with the question of registration. It would be possible to register under the Bill as it stood at present any number of bogus dabs, and the only difference it would make in the law was that before a bogus club was established it would have to be registered. That was a condition of things which they would endeavour to remedy when the Bill got into Committee. They would endeavour to insert in the Bill provisions which would make it more useful and more stringent and effectual for the purpose of suppressing bogus clubs, and for that reason Members in that part of the House would heartily support the Second Reading. In Dublin, and throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, there existed a class of institutions which had sprung up solely in order to evade the provisions of the Licensing Laws. These clubs had no other object, and he could not for the life of him see what was to be gained, when a Bill of this kind was brought before the House, in talking about Fall Mall clubs in the way the Member for South Tyrone had done.

would undertake on behalf of the promoters of the Rill to include Ireland if there should appear a general wish in that direction. As to the objection that the Bill did not touch the Licensing Law, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had clearly shown that they had no power to introduce that part of the question. There were just two other points to which he would refer. It had been urged that mere registration did nothing to make a, bogus club a good club. Surely hon. Members who said this had not read the Bill, because they would find that under this Bill certain things would have to be done before registration, such as the appointment of a secretary and a committee, and if complaint was made as to the bogus character of the institution it was to these persons named by whom application could be made, and who would have to furnish information. He admitted fully that the Bill did not go very far, but it was in the right way, and it would place the magistrates on a far better footing than they at present stood now for dealing with them. It had been said that many of these clubs could be put down if there was more energetic activity on the part of the police, but in the district in which he acted as a magistrate it was the police who complained that they had not the means of discovering these bogus clubs, and it was to help the police to do that which they were not at present able to do that the Bill was introduced. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Deptford about the Corporation of the City of London, he would point out that there was a provision in the Bill providing that any body incorporated by charter, as that Corporation was, was taken out of the purview of the Bill. The promoters were perfectly well aware of the inconsistencies in the Bill, but they had been gratified at the reception which had been accorded to it, and with the general spirit of assent which it had received. There were one or two Amendments which the supporters of it would be ready to move in Committee, and he had no doubt that the measure would come back to that House in a good workable condition.

said that Scotchmen did not like any good to pass their door, and he therefore trusted that the Bill would be extended to Scotland. He thought that if clubs were compelled to take out hotel licences the Revenue would greatly benefit, while refreshments would be obtainable at any hour of the day or night. The favourable reception of that Bill was a strong indication that the temperance sentiment was rising in that House, and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the sturdiness to persevere in the good efforts which he was making, and carry through his Local Veto Bill. He had heard rumours that the right hon. Gentleman was going to abandon the measure, but he trusted that there was no foundation for them. As to this Bill, it would do something towards coping with a manifest evil and a great social sore.

was pleased to hear the promoters of the Bill were willing to extend it to Ireland. This Bill was the commencement of legislation in regard to clubs; it broke now ground; he was glad it had been introduced, and he hoped the Committee would adopt the suggestion that had been made to include Ireland in the measure. The Bill was then read a second time.

moved that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

said the only chance the Bill had of passing was to send it to the Grand Committee on Law.

said the reason it was proposed to send the Bill to a Select Committee was because it was considered the Grand Committee had quite enough to do.

pointed out that by sending it to the Grand Committee there was a saving of time, as it saved the Bill passing through a stage in that House.

expressed his willingness to leave it to the Government to say what Committee the Bill should go to.

said the Government were in favour of a Select Committee.

supported the proposal to send the Bill to a Select Committee, which would be able to take evidence as to any interests which were affected.

thought the proposal of the hon. Member for North Louth was the best. He could hardly see what kind of interests were affected, and what sort of evidence could be taken. His desire was that a proper measure should be passed, and, as the Bill was not satisfactory in its present shape, he trusted it would be sent to the Grand Committee on Law.

I beg to move to omit the words "Select Committee," in order to insert the words "Standing Committee on Law."

wished to have a definite assurance from the Government as to the line they intended to follow, because they allowed it to be understood the first thing to-day that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Had they not had that assurance, and had they not known that the Bill would be thoroughly sifted, the Debate might have taken a very different course.

said he understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come to an agreement that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It appeared to him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that there were questions in the Bill which would be better threshed out before a Select Committee.

said that the desire in proposing that the Bill should go before the Grand Committee on Law was that the measure should pass into law this Session. It was not that hon. Members objected to a Select Committee, but that they wished the Bill to pass.

said they had voted for the Second Reading of the Bill on the distinct understanding that it would be sent to a Select Committee. Their object was not so much to pass the Bill as to pass it in the best form.

wished to point out to the hon. Member for Northampton that the Grand Committee would have no means of acquiring information which was really very much wanted, with regard, for instance, to working men's clubs. Persons interested in such clubs ought to have an opportunity of stating their opinions. A Grand Committee would deal with matters upon which the Members themselves were sufficiently informed. He could not conceive how a Grand Committee could deal with Bills of this kind, assuming that there was a quantity of external information wanted in order to enable them to make the Bill thoroughly efficient.

I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

rose to move the Second Reading of this Bill. He said he would claim the indulgence of the House on account of the fact that he was a new Member, and also on account of the fact that it was a measure which was of considerable importance, which he was pledged to his constituents to bring forward. He was enabled in this case to follow the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Gentlemen in claiming that the measure was not in any sense a party question. He would he very pleased if the Government took the matter up and passed this or some similar measure into law, or he should be prepared to leave it for some Conservative Government. Perhaps nothing had been more deplored by Members on both sides of the House than the extinction of what was known as the yeoman class. The possession of holdings of land appeared to produce certain qualities of character which were of great value to the State. A yeoman was not sufficiently independent to dispense with the work of his hands and head, and he was sufficiently independent to form a powerful class which on many occasions did, he might say, yeoman service for the benefit of his country in the various conflicting interests of State. The Small Holdings Act of last year, which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin), was described as widening the distribution of land and recreating the yeoman class. The aim of the present Bill was to create, or rather to enlarge, an analogous class of occupying owners in the towns. He regarded one as of as great importance as the other, and he believed that all the qualities that were found in the yeoman class would be found in the class of persons who, by this Bill, would be enabled to become the owners of their houses. It would tend to cultivate in them thrift, self-control, independence, and all the best qualities of a good citizen. The tradition of English politics- had always been not to interfere more than was necessary with the free development of trade and the acquisition of property. There were, however, certain operations which could be done better and more rapidly by the State than by the individual, and if they could only realise the immense gain it would be to the nation to encourage and develop thrift among the largest class of the community, they would readily assimilate the doctrine; he tried to advocate that assisting the working men to become the occupying owners of their own dwellings was a legitimate and most desirable object for the State to undertake. He could appeal to the occupants of the Treasury Bench to assist in the passing of this Bill. One of the traditions of the old Liberal Party was the freeing and cheapening of what were known as the necessaries of life. No doubt clothes and food were the things that were most regarded at that time, but "man docs not live by bread alone," and he thought it could be easily shown that a house was quite as much a necessary of life as food or clothes. It might be urged that building societies could do all that this Bill proposed to do. The objects of building societies might be stated to be twofold. In the first place they enabled a saving man to build houses, and in the second place to provide a recuperative investment for small depositors. Well, if the depositor obtained a large rate of interest, it was quite clear that the borrower must pay this high rate of interest. These twofold objects would, in his opinion, always prevent building societies from being the best means for enabling working men to obtain possession of their own dwellings. This Bill did not propose to aid a man financially except in respect of a dwelling-house he in- tended to occupy himself. One of the objects of building societies would still remain, insomuch as they furnished the means for enabling working men to build more houses than one. In a building society a working man was a depositor until he had a sufficient margin to his credit to obtain a loan for buildings. Unfortunately, building societies were not at present in sufficiently good credit to induce working men to trust them with the care of their savings. He did not wish to allude unnecessarily to matters which were brought before their notice day by day in the newspapers, but certainly they could not shut their eyes to the great importance of greater safeguards being given than was the case at the present time. Many facts had lately been made known which had caused great alarm in the country. In a constituency not many miles from his own it was stated the other day, at a meeting in London, that there were no less than 16 building societies in liquidation at the present moment. That was a condition of things which, in his opinion, should certainly engage the attention of the Government, and he inclined to think that the outcome of it would be that the Government would find it necessary to assume to some extent the guardianship of the savings of the working men. It was obviously important for the working man to borrow at, what was known as the current rate of interest, but at present, although he might have the security to offer, he was obliged to negotiate any loan through intermediate agencies, each of which required a profit, thus adding to the burden of interest he was called upon to pay. This Bill aimed at the substitution for these agents who were interested in getting as much out of the negotiations as possible agents who would not require any profit at all. The agents that he proposed were the State and the Municipalities. The State was now able to borrow at 2¾ per cent., and in the course of a few years would, no doubt, be able to borrow at 2½ per cent. It might, therefore, lend without any loss at 3 per cent. to Municipalities on the security of the rates. The Local Authorities would have the cost of administration to provide for, which by the Bill would be deputed to a special Department. He had been informed on the very best authority that the cost of administration would not, on an average, exceed ½ per cent., so that the working man would not under the Bill pay more than 3½ per cent. for a loan received through the agency of the State and the Municipalities. The saving to the working man was obvious. At present building societies charged from 5 to 6 per cent. for interest, irrespective altogether of the question of redemption, so that under the Bill a clear saving to the working man of 2 per cent. would be effected, an incentive to thrift which, he ventured to think, the Government would not lose sight of. Coming to the security of the two intermediate agencies, the security of the State and the security of the local authority: with regard to the security of the State, the loan would not be made without an inspection by the Local Government Board to satisfy that department that the local authority was justified by local conditions in borrowing. In the second place, the rate of 3 per cent. left a sufficient margin for departmental costs; and, thirdly, the loans were secured upon the local rates, and wore repayable within 50 years. Then as to the security of the local authority. The local authority would, under the Bill, lend on three-fourths of the value of the house and site, and this amount was limited in the Bill to £150. That was to say, a workman could build a house to the value of £200, and be able to borrow three-fourths of the value from the Municipality. This margin in about 15 or 16 years would become increased by repayments to half of the original value, the local authority would have power to insist upon the property being kept in a habitable condition, thus guarding against any fall in the value of the security, and they must not forget what was really one of the greatest elements of securities, the fact that the occupier would put down in hard cash one-fourth of the whole value, thereby becoming interested in acquiring the property to a very substantial extent. It might be objected that the Municipal Debt of this country was already very large. He had taken out of the County Council Diary for 1892 the rateable value and debts of 16 of our large towns, and he found that the total rateable value was £25,400,000; whilst the total debts amounted to £47,896,000. In other words, the debt of these 16 towns was on the average rather more than two years' rental. According to this Bill, he provided that no local authority should advance for the purposes of this Act more than half the assessable value of the district for the last preceding year, and so it would only add half a year's more rental. The next question he-should like to draw the attention of the House to was the great grievance existing among working men who were desirous of buying the houses they lived in, by reason of the legal costs to which they were put. That was no sentimental grievance, for he knew as a fact people had sometimes to pay as much as 15 per cent. on account of legal charge for the conveyance of a few yards of land on which to build. He thought the passing of the present Bill would give an opportunity to Parliament to apply the principle of registration of title in cases of this kind. He thought he had been able to show the many advantages which would follow the passing of the Bill, not only to working men, but to the community of which they formed so large a part. This Bill was not novel in its principle, but resembled Acts which had been recently passed. Building societies would not be displaced, but utilised in the administration of the Act, and the agencies would be guarded against loss. If the House considered he had made out a case he trusted the Bill would be allowed to pass a Second Heading, believing that such a measure would be highly valued by working men, and would make good what was now more of an adage than a fact, that an Englishman's house was his castle.

said this Bill, if passed, would be in reality a great measure of Temperance Reform. He was one of those who believed that the true way to promote-temperance was to improve the domestic arrangements of a man's household. It was also very desirable, because it was calculated to promote thrift among the working classes. It offered a safe investment which would prove very acceptable to working men, as many of them had lately lost in building societies all that they had saved. In the third place he would support the Bill, because he believed it would be a most Conservative measure—and he meant Conservative not in a party sense, but in the best sense of the word. He believed that the man who owned the house he lived in was likely to be a better father, a better husband, and a better citizen than the man who did not.

said he sympathised heartily with the objects the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees had in view. In populous districts working men were often driven into houses which were "run up," so to speak, in a hurry by people who were called jerry builders. They had to go into bad houses for which high rents were charged, and which were very often deficient in sanitary arrangements. The principle of the Bill had been already admitted by the House in regard to allotments and small holdings. It was admitted that the money of the State might be used for these purposes, and surely it was more necessary for a man to be comfortably and well housed than to have land to cultivate. He agreed that they could not make a better step in Temperance Reform than to improve the comfort of the working classes in their houses. In looking through the Bill, he had been struck with some of the difficulties of the position laid down by the Mover of the Second Reading. He did not say those difficulties could not be overcome. He thought they could be overcome if the Bill were well looked after in Committee. One of the difficulties was the defining a "working class" population. Another, was as to whether the Bill ought not to apply to those persons retiring from the working classes—those who had saved sufficient to enable them to retire, and who ought to be assisted to build their own houses, which they could leave to future generations. Then, the working classes gathered together in places where there was an abundance of employment, but where, after a time, the work ceased, or was shifted to other districts. What would be done in the case of houses built in localities of that description, houses that after a time became valueless? There would be a great responsibility thrown upon the local authorities and the Local Government Board who were brought into play under this Bill. Furthermore there was nothing in the measure to cheapen the conveyancing of the small plots of land which would be required for the purposes of the Bill. He had known cases where houses which cost £200 or £250 were built on plots of land which cost £20, £30, and £40, where the cost of conveyancing was £4 or £5. This meant a charge of 4s. or 5s. a year on the working man in the shape of interest for the mere conveyancing of the land. He was sorry his hon. Friend had not dealt with that question in his Bill, for he thought it a most important matter. But though there were many difficulties to face, he trusted that the House would give the Bill a Second Heading, leaving the details to be threshed out at a later stage.

thought the House would be doing a good work if it made an effort to pass this Bill during the present Session. As had been pointed out, the three main requirements for working men were food and clothing and houses. During the past 50 years the cost of food and clothing had greatly diminished, but there had been no corresponding falling off in house rents. The present time was particularly opportune for the passing of such a measure as this, having regard to the ruin which had been caused to so many working people through the failure of building societies. If the House made an effort to pass it, it would show that the Legislature was really taking some sort of interest in the working classes, and doing something to help them as well as talking about it. He hoped there would not be any difficulty in the way of reading the Bill a second time.

I cordially sympathise with the motives which have actuated the promoters of this Bill in bringing it forward. The object of the measure is to enable artizans, clerks, and small shopkeepers, whose incomes amount to less than £150 a year, to borrow money from the local authorities with which to acquire the ownership of the houses in which they live. I think that object is a sound one, and that the lending of public money for such a purpose is as legitimate as the lending of money to enable men to acquire small holdings. I shall therefore be glad to see the House of Commons endorse the principle of the Bill by reading it a second time. I think this is one of the directions in which legislation is tending. It is, however, a novel principle, or a novel development of a principle. Whilst we do not object to the Second Reading, when we come to the details we must reserve a very wide discretion. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite upon many points. I do not agree with him as to the rate of interest at which the Government can borrow, nor as to the margin which it is necessary to preserve in order to prevent the State incurring loss. That is a question upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt have a word to say. Nor can I admit the accuracy of his contention as to the limit of borrowing powers conferred upon local authorities. Information will be afforded in a Paper shortly to be laid before Parliament respecting the enormous indebtedness of our local authorities. Anything like a limit of one-half in the value represented by the local authority for purposes of loans is a limit to which certainly the Local Government Board could not for one moment assent. I quite agree with what has been said as to the very heavy tax which is imposed upon purchasers in this country by conveyances of small properties, but I do not think the Bill would alter that in the least. The local authority would have to be satisfied with the title to the property before advancing the money, and I am afraid it would be impossible to avoid expense in making good the title. There are several other points with which I need not now trouble the House. I would remark, however, that house property is of a depreciating character, so that the case dealt with in this Bill is somewhat different to the case of laud dealt with under the Small Holdings Act. I am not throwing this out as an objection to the Bill, but simply as a matter which will require consideration in Committee. Before the Government can assent to the Bill passing through another stage, they will have to insist upon very serious modifications of its provisions in the way more of security than of anything else, and in the direction of facilitating ease of working. Subject to this reservation, I shall be quite content to accept the principle involved as a sound one, and to give the Bill a Second Reading.

said he was very glad the Government had been able to see their way to accept the principle of the Bill, and he was sure its promoters would gladly welcome the Government's assistance in dealing with the Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman had put his finger on the difficulty which had to be faced in carrying out a measure of this kind, viz., the expense of the acquisition of sites. It was very difficult to find sites. They generally had to be acquired at a very high cost, whilst the investigation and proof of title were generally of a very expensive character. Efforts made in that House to cheapen the acquisition of land had generally resulted in making it dearer still, and the cost of acquiring sites was now one of the great obstacles to working men becoming possessors of their own houses. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Fowler) would consider whether a scheme could be devised whereby local authorities might be empowered to acquire sites for working class dwellings. If there was a demand by workmen in a particular town for freehold dwellings, why should not the local authorities be empowered to acquire sites for the purpose, and to sell them to those who desired to buy them.

They have power now.

said he know there was power to acquire sites for building artizans' dwellings, but his suggestion was that there should also be power to sell small plots of land to working men in order that they might build houses for themselves. The adoption of such a scheme as this would, in his opinion, much lessen the cost of acquiring the sites.

thought the Bill a step in the right direction. He felt there was no better way of promoting thrift, and adding to the well-being of the people, than by enabling them to become possessed of their own homes on freehold terms. Although, for practical purposes, freeholds were not much better than leaseholds, there was no doubt a sentimental feeling, especially amongst working men, against leaseholds. Some of the points of the Bill would no doubt have to be carefully dealt with in Committee, but he should give the Second Reading of the Bill his strong support.

, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said his task was rendered easy by the fact that two important topics which were dealt with in the Bill had lately been under discussion in the House. The Local Veto Clause of the Bill did not differ in any important points from the proposal made in the measure recently introduced by the Government, except that he adopted five years instead of the three years proposed by the Government. The present measure proposed, in the first instance to constitute a licensing authority. He had no quarrel with the present authority, of which he himself had been a member for a number of years, but at the same time he felt that popular election did give confidence in any authority. The licensing board which was to be set up under the Bill would consist of not less than seven, or more than twelve members, and the exact number would be settled by the town council in a municipality, or by the local authority outside a municipality. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present,

went on to say that one-third of the licensing board would be nominated by the licensing justices, and the remainder would be elected by a popular vote. The powers now possessed by the licensing justices would be delegated to the board. It was proposed that public-houses might be closed in any district by the board at 10 o'clock, and that the board might decree that on one day in the week, not being Sunday, the houses might be closed at 8 o'clock. If there were no provision existing in a district with regard to Sunday closing, the local authority would have power to decree absolute or partial Sunday closing. He might say that he intended to support the Second Reading of the Government Bill, although he was not certain that what was hoped for under that Bill would be achieved,—indeed, he believed that in very many cases expectations would be altogether disappointed. There was no other certainty whatever, that if, reliance were placed simply on the local veto there would be such a reduction of the number of licensed houses as all Members of the House more or less desired. Under the present Bill it was proposed that there should be immediately after it had passed an enforced reduction of the number of licensed houses, in accordance with a certain scale, which was open to revision, one for every thousand of population in towns, and one for 500 of population in rural districts. The method of diminution would be left to the licensing board. It was proposed to give some recompense to those whose livelihood was interfered with under this provision. Before the local veto came into operation the owners of such houses as the licensing authority thought ought to be suppressed were to receive a recompense at the hands of the fortunate survivors. A percentage of the value of the liquor sold in the district, whether in public-houses, hotels, clubs, or elsewhere, was to be handed over to the occupiers of the suppressed houses, and this payment would take the form of an annuity extending over 10 years. Of course, he knew that the very word compensation was objected to, and he himself had voted against the compensation scheme of the late Government. It must be borne in mind, however, that in that case the compensation was to have come from the pockets of the ratepayers, whilst under the present Bill the money would come from the license holders who remained in the district. Such a proposal appeared to him not to be irrational or unbusiness-like. It was proposed that all the licensed premises within a mile of the suppressed houses should contribute to the annuities. In conclusion he had only to say that he hoped the Bill would be regarded by the House as an honest attempt to solve a most difficult and at the same time most pressing problem, and he trusted that the Government would not set their faces against it.

said he had waited for a Member of the Government to rise, but as no one had done so, he wished to offer a few remarks. He noticed that in one important particular the Bill differed materially from that recently introduced by the Government, inasmuch as it introduced the principle of pecuniary compensation to those who would be deprived under the operation of the measure of their means of livelihood. The hon. Member said that he had voted against the Compensation Clause of the Local Government Bill of 1888, because it provided that compensation should come out of the rates. He must remind the right hon. Member, however, that the compensation was to come out of a tax which was levied upon liquor for the purpose. Many Members thought that that tax ought to have been long ago repealed, inasmuch as its proceeds had not been devoted to the specific object with which it was originally levied. Under the present Bill the area dealt with was that of the Parliamentary Divisions. Enormous incon- venience would result from the adoption of such a proposal where the Parliamentary Divisions were comparatively small, and close together as in London. In the case of his own constituency, the Division for nearly two miles adjoins that of North Camberwell, which was represented in Parliament by an hon. Member who, as he was a supporter of the Government, would probably support the Government Liquor Bill. If this Bill passed, North Camberwell would probably put its provisions into operation, if he might judge from its political views as expressed at the General Election. Brixton, however, to judge from the verdict given at the General Election, would not put the Bill in force, and the result would be that numbers of people would be continually crossing the boundary from North Camberwell to Brixton, simply because the public-houses were shut in their own locality. One result, therefore, of passing such a Bill would be to produce chaos and confusion in different districts, and another result would be to multiply bogus clubs. He could not believe that such a measure would do anything for the cause of temperance reform. Under these circumstances, he felt compelled to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.

formally seconded the Amendment.

Whilst the noble Marquess was waiting a short time ago to see what view was taken by the Government of the Bill, I was waiting to see what was the view taken by the consistent opponents of all temperance legislation, of whom the noble Marquess will allow me to reckon him one of the chief. The Bill is one which, if carried, would do a great deal for the temperance cause, and there cannot be any doubt as to our attitude with regard to it. The Bill proposes to establish licensing boards. The establishment of such boards is a matter which the Government have always desired. These licensing boards are to have the power not only to abolish, but to reduce licenses.

The duty, not the power.

Yes, the duty. That is a duty which we should like to see imposed upon some authority. Then comes the question of local veto, and, of course, the Government have entire sympathy with the principle of local veto. I will not, however, waste time by going into the details of the Bill. The hon. Member who introduced the measure called attention to the clause relating to compensation. I need not go into particulars on that subject, but I observe that compensation is only to be given at the first annual general licensing after the commencement of the operation of the Act, and not on any subsequent occasion. That being so, there is of course a very limited amount of compensation in the measure, and all I can say is, that as far as the Government are concerned, they will certainly support the Second Reading.

failed to understand exactly, in view of the course which the Government had previously taken, what practical course they intended to take with regard to this Bill. Did they intend to support the Second Reading or did they not?

We will support it.

said, then it seemed to him strange that this should be so, because this Bill was a most capacious, greedy and portentous one, and one which swallowed up the Local Veto Bill of the Government, the Welsh Veto Bill, and also the Club Registration Bill, which they had that day read a second time, and, to a great extent, the Ballot Act itself, for it laid down the most minute regulations as to the way elections should be conducted under it. The first thing which the Bill did was to establish a licensing board in substitution of the present licensing magistrates, and he could understand, now that the Government had entered upon a course of making magistrates from political motives, that there would not be so much confidence in them as there had been in the past. Then this Bill provided, as every honest Bill should do, for compensation, but that compensation was to be levied upon the houses that were allowed to remain licensed. He did not think the brewers and publicans would very much object to that, because if they had 10 houses in future where there were now 20, it was probable that the 10 would do as much trade as the 20 did, and consequently could afford to pay something for the removal of their competitors in the trade. But the provision of the Bill which appalled him was that the licensing board was to have power to take offices and appoint a clerk and armies of inspectors, and the whole cost of this was to be also borne by the houses which remained licensed. So that not only were the remaining houses to be taxed for the suppression of the superfluous number, but they were also to be taxed for their own inspection, and for the whole machinery of tyranny that was to be imposed upon them. He thought this campaign against beer was a mistake. The regard of the people for the British Constitution, and their desire for reform, might be strong, but their determination not to have their beer interfered with was stronger, and, therefore, as a friendly critic, he advised the Government to give up with what grace they could this campaign against beer, and address themselves to the more important business of the country.

I wish to recommend this Bill to the House as an honest attempt to deal with a very difficult question, a question which has disturbed Governments in the past, and may disturb Governments for years to come. The Bill is not conceived in any party spirit, and it appears to be drawn in a workmanlike manner. I am glad the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer has decided to support the Second Reading, which I hope will be carried before the sitting closes, and the Bill referred to a Select Committee. The Bill is not promoted in rivalry to the measure of the Government, In one important part it coincides with that measure. It contains the principle of local option, but fixes the limit before which the local option shall become operative at five years instead of three, as in the Government Bill; but the question of time is not essential, and may be left to the consideration of the Committee. We all know that, in spite of the alarm raised by different persons in the House and in the country, local option will be of restricted application, but there is a very general feeling that, although the liquor traffic could not be suppressed, the facilities for obtaining liquor are far too numerous. This Bill proposes that the number of public-houses shall be reduced so that there shall be only one to 1,000 of the population in towns, and one to 500 of the population in rural districts. This imperative duty is cast upon the Licensing; Board. The Board will be constituted to the extent of two- thirds of elected members, while one-third will be nominated by the Justices, thus giving the Board the experience of the present authority and the strength derived from popular election. Such a body will be capable of dealing with the extremely difficult task of selecting and determining what public-houses shall be suppressed, and what public-houses shall be allowed to exist. The Bill contains a further provision which ought to commend itself to both temperance reformers and representatives of the liquor trade. It is proposed that holders of licences suppressed at the first licensing session, in order to bring the public-houses within the requisite number, shall be compensated by an annuity for 10 years levied upon the public-houses that remain open within a mile of the houses suppressed. Naturally, the consumers at the houses remaining will provide these funds, and that will last for 10 years, unless, in the interval, local option, pure and simple, shall be carried, when the annuities will cease, so that the creation of these annuities will in no way be an obstacle to local option. I regard the influence of such a Bill as this as being likely to be most fruitful in the reduction of public-houses. The Licensing Board shall have the important function of determining whether Sunday closing shall be operative in its district, and further, a matter which is novel, viz., whether on one day in the week all houses shall be closed at an hour not earlier than eight o'clock in the evening. It is possible that in some districts Saturday may be fixed as the early-closing day, and temperance friends will realise the immense significance involved in such a reform. This Bill, as I have said, is not laid on party lines. It deals with a difficult question which has wrecked Governments in the past, and which is troubling the Government now. It deals with a subject that probably will never be settled by any Government, and will have to be approached independently of party considerations. Its principle is such that the House may accept it on the Second Heading, and the promoters are willing that its details shall be most carefully examined and sifted by a Select Committee.

also asked for further information as to the position of the Government in regard to the Bill. He was going to vote for its Second Reading, and-it surprised him to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was also going to vote for it. He approved of the Bill because it differed so largely from the Bill of the Government. It contained three important provisions that were omitted from the Government measure. It would reduce the number of licences without abolishing them, which was a most important thing; then it dealt with the question of clubs; in the third place, it provided a system of compensation. He gladly recognised that hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial side of the House wore really trying to deal in a constitutional way with this difficult question, and he should vote for the Second Reading of the Bill in the hope that it would be sent to a Select Committee, together with the Government measure, in order that the Government might consider whether it would not be possible to amalgamate its provisions with those of their own Bill.

supported the Bill. He had always favoured compensation, and was determined not to recede from that position. He was satisfied that the House would not consent to do away with a number of public-houses without a farthing of compensation, considering the millions of money and the tens of thousands of people engaged in the business. It was absolutely ridiculous to suppose that the House of Commons should turn all these people adrift merely to satisfy the crotchets of the Temperance Party. The Bill, in some faint way, carried out his views on compensation, and if it could be strengthened in that respect in Committee he would be pleased. He supposed they had heard the last of the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, otherwise the right hon. Gentle-man would not have been so eager to catch at this Bill as at a straw like a drowning man. If the areas for the election of the Licensing Boards were made large enough, he had no fear of any tyranny. But the Government Bill did no such thing; it gave power to prohibit drink being sold in any parish or ward, whereas this Bill gave an option to limit the number of public-houses only. Neither the English nor the Scots people, he was convinced, would submit to public-houses being absolutely abolished, and it was certainly as well that they should have public-houses here and there as the people should consume the drink in their own houses.

said he did not think one hour was enough for the discussion of a Bill of 50 clauses, and moved the adjournment of the Debate.

hoped the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not object to the Motion. He would, no doubt, realise that a Bill of this importance ought not to be rushed through after no more than an hour's discussion.

I beg to move that the Question be now put.

I cannot regard that request, and for this reason. The Bill is one of very large scope, and involves novel principles; it has only been discussed a short time, and in the interests of the minority, whose interest I have to regard under the Standing Order, I do not think they have had a sufficient opportunity for discussion.

I desire to give notice that at an early date I will move a Resolution with regard to the appointment of Justices, and I shall ask the Government to give mo a day to bring it forward.