moved an Amendment to add the following words—

"Provided that where there is no sitting of a petty sessional court within seven days of the time when the licence is required the consent may be given by any two justices acting for the division and sitting together."

He said, I should like to say that I could not accept the proposal made by way of an Amendment by my lion, friend, but I shall be prepared to send a circular round to the justices when this Bill has passed into law, calling attention to this particular point and impressing upon them the necessity of making arrangements by which the business can be conducted in the manner best calculated to suit the needs of the district.

moved to omit the last two words "sitting together," in the Amendment of the Home Secretary. He was not quite sure whether the point was really met by what the Home Secretary had just said, and ho desired to make it perfectly clear. The Bill provided that no occasional licence should be granted except in Court. When they were in Committee upstairs he pointed out how exceedingly difficult it would be in the country districts to carry out the Act, owing to the fact that magistrates on county benches did not sit at very frequent intervals, so that there would not be time to give notice. In some cases the magistrates only sat once a month, and it was usually the case that county benches sat only once a fortnight. The question would arise in village sports and cricket matches whether it would be possible for a licensed victualler requiring an occasional licence for the purpose to get it in time. The Home Secretary had endeavoured to meet the point by his Amendment, which provided that the occasional licence might be granted by two justices acting for the division arid sitting together. The real difficulty was to be found in the words "sitting together." A licensed victualler requiring an occational licence might have to go to the next village in order to discover one magistrate, and he then would have to arrange with that magistrate to gofurtherin order to find mother. A great difficulty would thus be caused. Ho did not quite apprehend low the Home Secretary intended to meet that difficulty, but for his own part he would prefer to leave out the words "sitting together." If it were possible to get two magistrates together without causing this inconvenience he would not wish to press the point, as he did not want to obstruct the Bill in any way. The Home Secretary had promised to send an instruction round to the various magistrates, but, he wondered, would that instruction be binding upon them. It seemed to him that a great difficulty might arise, and in order that the matter might be fully discussed he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name. Ho could not help thinking that much inconvenience would arise unless some specific plan were to be adopted whereby it might be possible for those occasional licences to be granted by two magistrates without the proposed restriction.

suggested that the difficulty might be met by an Amendment giving power to the justices to take into account the intervals between the sittings of the Court. He desired to move such an Amendment.

pointed out that the hon. Member could not move an Amendment unless Mr. Griffith-Boscawen withdrew that which he had just moved.

said it appeared to him that the difficulty was a real one, and was very much felt in the rural districts, where occasional licences were often required. Of course in urban districts very much less difficulty was experienced in getting magistrates together and the case properly considered. He urged that the machinery of the Bill should not be unworkable, and that words should not be inserted which would bear a construction which was never intended. The Amendments before the House would, he thought meet the difficulty. It was very possible that the Home Secretary might be able to suggest some other way of meeting it, and although he was not particular about the words, he felt there should lie some security that where occasional licences were required, two magistrates should be got together to consider the application for it to be granted. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested a way out of the difficulty, but he (Mr. Gretton) submitted that was no way at all, and that it was merely a pious opinion expressed by the Home Secretary during his term of office, and upon which the magistrate might or might not act. It was quite possible that the magistrates might hold the view that the law was not intended to be construed in the manner suggested by the Home Secretary, and as the matter stood, unless the right hon. Gentleman could suggest another way, he (Mr. Gretton) should support the Amendment.

hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to his decision. A considerable amount of annoyance was caused in Ireland, where occasional licences were granted by one magistrate only. On many occasions whore demonstrations and meetings took place the greatest possible annoyance had been caused by one magistrate being got at and giving an occasional licence, which had the effect of disturbing the peace of the district and causing most unfortunate results. He knew, of course, that this Bill did not extend to Ireland, but he nevertheless trusted that the Home Secretary would adhere to his decision.

This Clause was intended to deal with a very great evil, and, however inconvenient it may be, its insertion was intentional. There ought to be some safeguard more than exists under the present law for securing proper consideration for the granting of these occasional licences, which in the past may have been too freely given, and without proper consideration, and which have proved a source of very considerable evil. The question then arises as to how the convenience of the public is to be met without allowing the evils which now exist. We therefore propose that these occasional licences shall be granted in court, and not, as at present, that a man who wants such a licence can go round to any justice and get it. We say that the police must have proper notice, so that they can communicate with the bench of magistrates, and the licence will then be granted in the ordinary way of business of the court. It is alleged that — and especially in rural districts—magistrates do not always meet once a week, and that, indeed, in some districts they only meet once a month, and that cases might arise in which great inconvenience would be caused by the inability to obtain occasional licences. I promised in Committee that the matter should be thoroughly considered and dealt with, and it is in accordance with that promise that I have proposed this Amendment. The House will see that I adhere to the principle of the Clause in providing that the matter shall be considered by two justices who are sitting together. It is proposed by my hon. friend that the words sitting together" should be omitted, and that any two justices separately may grant the licence. That is, of course, an improvement on the existing law, but only a very small improvement, and there would be but little more difficulty I in getting two justices than in getting one. In fact, the increased safeguards would be very little. What I want is that not only two magistrates shall give the occasional licence, but that they shall have an opportunity of consulting together upon the merits or demerits of the application, and the Amendment if carried would destroy that precaution entirely. I have made it my business to inquire from some of my hon. friends in this House who are acting justices as to the effect of this provision. One among them, a highly respectable Member of this House, tells me that the bench of justices in his district does not meet more than once a month, but there is not the slightest difficulty in getting magistrates together to deal with matters calling for consideration in the interval. If that be the case in his district it would be equally the case in other districts. I propose to send a circular round' calling attention to one or two matters" in which the law will be altered by this Bill, and I will take care to point out "that it will be necessary for them to make an arrangement—either by rota or some other way—for the hearing of these applications. I know the House will rely upon my carrying out this undertaking, and I think the difficulty will be solved in that manner. I will do my best to carry it out, and I can assure the House in this particular case, as in others, I will do my utmost to prevent unnecessary inconvenience being caused by the provision.

I hope that the Home Secretary will stand firm by his decision, as I do not think any hardship would arise from the practice proposed by the Bill. The duties of magistrates in petty sessions have so increased that they can now be found very easily. Further, there are very few places in the country where the sittings are held a long time apart. Where magistrates meet only once a month in rural districts there is a great amount of business to be transacted, and, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, the result of this proposal will be to impose a new class of duty upon two magistrates. That being so, I really do not think that the House should go out of its way to increase the facilities for these occasional licences being granted in what is called a "hole and corner" manner. The present arrangements are bad enough, and what we really want is to bring all these things before the public in court. I know that the magistrates connected with country districts are not at all opposed to the change, and I hope the House will support the proposal of the Home Secretary.

said that the Home Secretary had treated them so fairly in indicating the course he proposed to take in order to meet the difficulty, that he desired to withdraw his Amendment.

moved that "notice of the consent shall be sent for record to the clerk to the Court." The object of this Amendment was that there should be a record kept of these occasional licences. The general opinion, which lie was glad to endorse, was that these licences should only be granted in open Court, and that being so, a record would be preserved.

(in answer to a suggestion that this was merely extending what would be done if the consent had been given in Court): No, that is not so. It does not go on the record at all.

thought that even if that was not the case it would be desirable that a record should be preserved of occasional licences. Such a duty would not involve a serious amount of work, and it would certainly conduce to the public benefit.

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that this Court is a Court of Record. Occasional licences are given out, and that is all; but the person possessing the licence has to produce it in the case of any subsequent proceedings. I think it may be desirable that the police should be informed, and if my hon. friend will withdraw his Amendment I will move to insert the words—"of which consent notice shall be sent to the police."

suggested that the word "forthwith" should be appended.

That goes without saying.

suggested that the Amendment should read that notice should be sent to the superintendent of police.

I have no objection at all to that.

moved as an Amendment to add that—

"It shall not be necessary to give notice to one of the overseers of the parish, township, or place in which the house or shop in respect of which the application to be made is situate."

He contended that notice to the over seers of application for the granting or the transfer of a licence was absolutely useless, and that no advantage would be gained by serving the notice on the overseers.

If this Amendment were to he accepted, no good object would be served, because a good many notices of licensing matters have to be served on the overseers, who are in the habit of receiving a large number of notices of all kinds under various Acts. I do not want to upset the principle which exists at present, by making an exception in an isolated case.

looked upon the duties of overseers in regard to applications for new licences somewhat in the light of a survival of an. old worn-out custom. As the Bill provided for the notice to be given in a different way, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept the Amendment. It. should be the intent on of Parliament to facilitate business, and get rid of old-fashioned and irritating, regulations. The giving of this notice would put the applicant to more trouble, and would add to the already considerable burden of the overseeers.

failed to see what purpose would be served by retaining this unusual provision in the Bill, or what right the overseers had to such notice. It was entirely a matter for the police, and he could not see where the overseers came in. Was it any argument to say that because the overseers got notice of other matters they should have notice of this kind of application? He failed to see where the argument applied. The notice to the overseers was an act of supererogation, and surely unless some other argument could be brought forward the Home Secretary ought not to insist upon this notice being given. He was not a licensed victualler, nor was be a Customs officers—but he was a consumer of the article that was vended under a licence, and ho could perfectly well understand the necessity of giving notice of the application to the police. The overseers were doubtless important officers at some previous time in our history; they represented the parish, and were no doubt the organs of general parochial publicity. That, however, was not the case in the present day, and any argument that by giving notice to the overseer they would ensure further publicity surely could not be seriously put forward.

hoped that the Home Secretary would agree to the Amendment, because it seemed quite unnecessary for notice to be given to the overseers, and no useful purpose could possibly be served by such a step being taken. Under the Bill notice had to be sent to the clerk to the justices and to the superintendent of police; it had to be affixed to the church door, and it had to I be advertised in the local paper. No one could contend that by sending another notice to the overseers further publicity would be gained. The only persons who would not know of the application would be those who neither went to church not-read the local newspapers—and surely within that category no one would be found who either cared about the notice or could assist in the due administration of the law. He hoped the Home Secretary would dispense with that which would serve no useful purpose, but would merely add unnecessary labour.

I do

If the Amendment be accepted, it will be a departure from the uniformity of the Bill. I think the House ought not to accept it without very strong reason being shown. In the matter of licences we ought not to diminish any safeguards, and a notice to the overseers is not a very expensive matter.

moved some verbal Amendments to Clause 19. He said the Clause was introduced into the Bill, when it was before the Committee upstairs, by the hon. Member for Leicester. He had taken the opportunity of consulting with that hon. Gentleman, with whose acquiescence he had placed three Amendments on the Paper.

, in agreeing with the Amendments, said: The object of the Clause is perfectly clear. No one will say that persons who were liable for costs should be relieved of such liability at the expense of the country. The object is to ensure that the justices who act in the public interest shall not be personally rendered liable for any costs that may be incurred in appealing against their decisions.

rose to move, as an Amendment, to add to Clause 20, "Except where there are no other suitable premises available." lie understood that some compromise had already been made on this Clause when it was before the Committee. The object of the Clause was to compel a parish or place, where-over possible, to provide a proper courthouse within a certain time, in order that what was very often objectionable might be avoided. It was clear that this could not be carried out unless there was some exception allowed, otherwise a case would happen in which there were no available premises for the purpose. He agreed that, on the whole, it was far better that petty sessions should not be held in licensed premises, and if the Home Secretary would meet him by giving a rather later date for the provision of a proper court-house he would not press his Amendment. It was generally agreed that the date mentioned in the Bill did not provide adequate time in which to enable the various local authorities to provide a proper court-house. Perhaps it would facilitate business if, as he understood was the case, the Home Secretary was willing to accept the year 1910 for 1904 in the Clause, in that event he would alter his Amendment, and make it simply to omit 1904 and insert 1910.

I have an Amendment on the Paper with a similar object to that moved by the last speaker. I quite feel that it is absolutely necessary in special cases to give adequate time for the provision of proper courthouses, and perhaps it is best to err on the side of giving full extension of time for the work. Although 1910 may seem a little long, I prefer to accept that figure and pass the rest of the Clause.

sincerely hoped that the Home Secretary would not accept the alternative. He was absolutely amazed at the length of time proposed to be given. There were very few cases to which the Clause would apply, and surely, as this year was 1902, the limit of 1904 allowed by the Bill was sufficient for the purpose. He trusted the Home Secretary would not go beyond 1905 in any event.

We must not draw the line too tightly. Having regard to the fact that the noble Lord (Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice) at whose instance, I believe, this Clause was moved in Committee assents to this proposition, 1 do not intend to oppose it.

said he had had the pleasure of addressing a Duke in the back room of a public house where the petty sessions had to be held. It would be difficult in many instances to obtain a suitable building for the purpose unless it was erected at the expense of the county.

suggested that five yearn extension would be ample for the purpose.

moved a proviso that a coroner's inquest should not be held on licensed premises where other premises had been provided. He said the Committee struck out the words "coroner's inquest" on the motion of an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency. But in Scotland there were no such inquiries, and he could not help thinking that the Committee was perhaps a little misled Try the experience of Scotland. He wished to ask the House once more to consider the question. It was said that there would be inflicted great hardships in some places owing to the fact that it would be impossible to find any place except in licensed premises, such as a public-house or hotel, suitable for the holding of inquests. He admitted that was so, and the qualified words, though unnecessary in regard to petty sessions, were necessary in the case of coroner's inquests. He had, therefore, tried to meet the views of the hon. Member who struck out the proposal in Committee by adding the words, "where no other premises are available for such inquest." He desired to say in support of this proposal that he had received communications from every part of England, from magistrates, county councillors, chief constables, and other officials, expressing approval of it. Last week he attended a meeting of the executive of the County Council Association, one of the largest meetings he had ever attended, when a unanimous resolution was carried in favour of this proposal, and the secretary was directed to send a copy of it to the Home Secretary. There were some cases, no doubt, where except licensed premises, no available premises could be obtained. Two striking cases of this necessity had been communicated to him by hon. Members sitting on that side of the House. One was a case where a terrible colliery accident had taken place and ten people were killed. There was a great deal of excitement, and it was quite impossible to hold the inquiry except in a public hall or some other large room. In the place where this accident happened there was no large hall, or, in fact, public hall at all, but there was an hotel in the neighbourhood which had a room sufficiently large for the purpose. In another case several dead bodies were washed ashore near a fishing village in Yorkshire, and the only place available was a public house. As a rule, it was not very difficult to find a suitable place, and many counties had already anticipated this legislation. He was really simply asking the House to bring up the backward counties to the level of the forward ones. He had received a communication from the West Riding of Yorkshire, which he understood had been sent to all Yorkshire Members, and from that lie understood that in Yorkshire arrangements had been made by the Standing Joint Committee, with the approval of the chief constable, under which every place in the county drew up a schedule of places where Inquests might be held. Where there were public halls they were scheduled, and where there was none arrangements were made with private individuals to allow their houses to be used. That arrangement had worked well, and he hoped, if the Amendment were carried, the practice would be gradually extended to other counties. He might point out that his Amendment would not prevent, inquests being held in hotels and public-houses in cases of necessity.

contended that the Amendment reduced the Clause to an absurdity. Was it likely, when a local authority had provided proper premises, that inquests would be held on licensed premises? The Amendment was nonsense.

suggested that the latter part of the Amendment should be made to read—

"Where other suitable premises have been provided for the purpose."

thought that there was a good deal in the criticism of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The real difficulty was to make the authorities responsible for an attempt to get other premises if they could. For that purpose the original words of the noble Lord were better, with the addition suggested by the hon. Member for Altrincham.

said the holding of inquests was a very different matter from holding licensing meetings. An inquest might be of sudden occurrence, and no time could be spent in hunting about the neighbourhood in order to find out whether premises wore available.

did not think that the words proposed to be added would do any good. It was simply laying a trap for the unwary, and he hoped the House would reject the insertion of the words.

said he was willing to accept the insertion

said he did not know whether his right hon. friend would accept the Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper, although he had no doubt he agreed with the principle of it. As to whether this Amendment was the best form in which to carry out the principle, he should leave it to the Home Secretary to determine, for he did not wish to press the matter in regard to the actual words to be used.

I entirely agree with the object of my hon. friend in moving this Amendment. A certain amount of additional work will be placed upon the justices' clerks, for which they ought to be remunerated, but it would be contrary to modern legislation to pay them in the way suggested, and it would be very unwise to introduce this new element in this Clause. Recognising as I do that these clerks will have to do more work than they do now, I shall, in a circular which I propose to send round, draw the attention of the local authorities to the fact that additional work has been put upon these clerks, and I shall suggest that they should recommend for the sanction of the Home Secretary some additional payment to meet the additional work which these clerks will in future have to undertake.

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

said he thought that Clause 25 was somewhat ambiguous, and he was confirmed in that opinion by several hon. and learned Members, all of whom had given a different version as to their construction of the Act. This Amendment had for its object the stopping of the sale of liquor to the agent of a member of the club. He thought the House would agree that a member should not be allowed to send his wife or child or any other person to purchase intoxicating liquors for consumption off the premises of the club. The Home Secretary was induced to accept this Clause by a case which came before the courts, in which the learned judges expressed very strongly their opinion that something should be done to meet this evil. The words he was moving to leave out would restrict the sale of intoxicating liquors to members on the premises, and would stop entirely the sale off the premises. He thought hon. Members would agree that a club was not a place where intoxicating liquor should be sold for off consumption. If clubs were to be allowed on any large scale to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises that would be establishing a way of evading the revenue, and would inflict a great injustice upon those who had to take out licences. He was induced to make this Amendment after the discussion which took place in Grand Committee, and he had since made some inquiries by various chief constables as to their opinion in regard to such an Amendment as he had moved. He asked them if they thought such an amendment of the law would assist the administration of the Act, and out of sixty-five chief constables to whom he applied about fifty replied stating that they entirely agreed with the Amendment. He agreed that an injustice might be done to clubs which had no desire to evade the principle laid down in this Bill that clubs should be properly conducted. He admitted that it would be a great hardship to prevent a member of a club from obtaining for his own consumption a flask full of spirits which he would not be able to do if these words were not left in. He fully admitted that there was a good deal to be said both for and against the Amendment, but it ought not to be beyond their ability to draw up some form of words which would deal with the evil which existed. They could not have two laws in this matter. The rich man's club must be placed in the same position with regard to the law as the poor man's club, but nothing should be done which would unnecessarily irritate clubs which were properly conducted. On the other hand, no kind of clubs should be allowed to evade their proper raison d'être on an extensive scale. He thought the House should have an expression of opinion from the Home Secretary in regard to this evil. Would it be possible in sending out the notices relating to the Bill to draw the attention of the police throughout the country to the evil which was known to exist, with the view to their dealing with what he believed to be a great scandal. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that he had no desire to inflict hardship on the clubs which were ready to conform to the extra restrictions placed upon them.

My hon. friend has stated very truly and properly, I think, that the existing state of things is attended with very great inconvenience. As a matter of fact, there are in some places clubs which, although supposed to exist for the members, are little better than unlicensed public houses. Messengers are sent to and from them just in the same way as they might be sent to and from public houses. I think that is a great evil. I do not say that no evil could possibly exist under the Bill with the words which we have inserted, but certainly this great evil in connection with messenger-sending is actually dealt with by the Clause. My hon. friend would like to go further, but he sees the, difficulty, and I see the difficulty. On the whole, I think I have gone as far as it is proper and reasonable to go. I am sure the House will agree with my hon. friend that we must try, if we can, to enlist on our side in connection with this matter the best opinion of the best clubs, including working men's clubs. I know that the great club organisation—the Club Union—which comprises a very large number of clubs, not political, but social working men's clubs, are as anxious as the House can possibly be that the evils we recognise should be suppressed. I am sure that if we were to go as far as we would be going by leaving out the words referred to, we would not carry with us the favourable opinion of these clubs, and that would do a very great deal of harm. It would be practically impossible if the e words were omitted to prevent the sale of liquor to a member of a club for consumption off the premises. In that case I do not know how this provision of the law could be worked. It would never do to cross-examine club members as to their purchases in order to be sure that they would not carry any liquor away from the club, or to have a policeman always at the door to see whether it was carried away or not. Such a provision would be greatly resented by that class of clubs which we desire to enlist on our side. To enact a Clause which would prevent a man from filling his flask at his club would be to carry the law to such an extent as to raise a great storm of opposition to the law. We have gone as far as we can go, and I hope my hon. friend will be content with the Clause as it stands.

said that to allow clubs to be set up to sell liquor for consumption off the premises would be to introduce a very great evil. The clubs might become a sort of unlicensed public houses, open at all hours when the public houses were closed. They would also be open on Sundays. He knew the working classes pretty well, and he did not believe they would feel any grievance if their clubs were subjected to the proposed restriction. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division.

said that he had an Amendment on the Paper similar to that moved by the hon. Member for South West Manchester. He supported the hon. Member's Amendment on the ground that it would help to carry out what the Home Secretary had said was the object of the Bill, namely, to hit the dishonest trader. The right hon. Gentleman had said that one of the objections to supporting it was the difficulty there would be in enforcing the law. He did not take that view. It would be very difficult to have one law for the rich club, and another for the poor club. It was well known to be the custom for a member of a club in London to send to it for a bottle of wine or for the purpose of filling his flask. It might be an inconvenience not to have that right, but on the other hand it would remove a great temptation in connection with another class of club. If it Was a question between the convenience of members of clubs in the West End of London, and the diminution of illicit drinking on the part of Members of the worst class of bogus clubs, he certainly thought that the balance should be thrown on the side of suppressing drinking in connection with bogus clubs There might be cases of sudden illness, for which there might be no means of immediately providing the stimulants required. It would be convenient then to send to a club, supposing it were Sunday and the shops were shut. Perhaps it was a fantastic suggestion, but the bona fide traveller might be admitted within the Clause. Supposing a traveller started hurriedly on a journey, there was no reason why he should not take what he wanted with him. But the fact remained that people as a rule were able to provide themselves with what they required in their own homes. People in a humble class of life could get their supplies from their grocers. He did not want to be too severe and drastic in preventing people getting what they required from their grocers. So long as these opportunities were open to both classes—rich and poor—he saw no reason why they should not strike a hard blow at the worst class of club, which was responsible for some of the most extreme forms of drinking. There were stories which might be verified of clubs which existed purely for the sale of liquor for drinking off the premises—clubs held, for instance, in barns. Such clubs brought odium and ill-fame upon the trade. No one was more concerned in the suppression of these clubs than the trade itself. He could fortify himself with the opinion of a well-known learned judge, who, when adjudicating on a case of that nature, said that if the members could take liquor away, it would, in his opinion, go a long way to show that it was not a bona fide club. It was in order that that kind of club should be suppressed that he supported the Amendment.

said he would be obliged to vote against the Amendment if it went to a division. This was a matter on which there might be difference of opinion. In his constituency a working men's club was in the habit of having an annual picnic, and would it not be hard if the members were not allowed to take the drink for the picnic luncheon out of their own club? It was also the habit of certain West End clubs to supply their members with hampers for the races and other expeditions, and why should not the working men's clubs have the same facilities? He was all in favour of putting down the abuse which they all deplored, but they would be going too far if they prevented members from purchasing liquor for their own consumption off the premises.

said that the Home Secretary had not exaggerated when he said that some of these clubs were not conducted as they ought to be, but those were only an insignificant portion of the whole. If the Amendment were carried, he was quite certain they would be interfering with the legitimate liberty of a great number of clubs against which no charge whatever was made were they to prohibit members taking a reasonable amount of liquor not to be consumed m the premises. They must do what hey could to encourage the proper conduct of the clubs, but it would inflict a great injustice on a great number of well conducted clubs.

said he would appeal to the House to grant leave to withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of "No, no."] He was sure the House would sympathise with him, because, if his Amendment were not withdrawn, he would not please his friends.

said he could assure the hon. Member for South-West Manchester that if he stuck to his amendment his friends would veer round to him again. There was one matter which had not been mentioned in the course of the debate, and that was that the Majority Report distinctly recognised the proposal embodied in the Amendment. The Report said—

"The sale of intoxicating liquors for consumption off the promises should be strictly prohibited";

while the Minority Report said that any such sale should be deemed illicit. When they found the two Reports, which went very fully into the whole matter, agreeing in their recommendations—although he did not pin his faith always to such a convergence of opinion—he thought it was worthy of consideration. He thought the danger had not been exaggerated, and that the possibility of evil which existed might be cured by the Amendment. Surely some safeguard might also be devised whereby a member could still get his hamper for his picnic. The evil that the Amendment sought to cure was very serious and dangerous, and one which occurred frequently. He failed to see why clubs, which were unlicensed premises, and could be kept open for any length of time, should be able to afford facilities for the consumption of drink on or off the premises when all the licensed houses were closed. He knew that in many districts there were constant streams of messengers to clubs, on Sundays and week days, and that, although those messengers would not be served inside the club, the member would make a practice of being served himself, carrying the liquor some little distance away, and giving it to the messenger to take home. This evil would be perpetuated under the Bill, and he thought the Amendment was one which ought to commend itself to the common sense of the House.

said he quite appreciated the difficulty of judging this question, but he looked upon the Amendment as one of the most important character, and the House should deal with it in the broadest spirit possible. Clubs were not established for drinking, but for social purposes. Dr. Johnson described a friend of his as a good fellow because he was a "clubable man." He did not mean by that a man who went to his club to fetch away liquor to drink quietly, but one who rejoiced in the company of his friends. Anyone who represented a Lancashire or Cheshire constituency, which was the home of the working man's club, must know that the difficulty met by the clause in the Bill was increasing. The clause was the very essence of animportant part of the Bill, and, unless they did something to stop the free sale of liquor from unlicensed public houses, they would not be going a step further in the promotion of temperance amongst the working classes. He should certainly support the Amendment.

said the House was very much interested in the sudden conversion of the two hon. Members in regard to the Majority Report of the Royal Commission. Although the Majority and Minority Reports were in favour of stopping the sale of liquor for consumption off the premises, there was a more important factor to be considered, and that was, whether public opinion would put up with it. Although the clubs had gone with the Home Secretary on the Bill, and had allowed every sort of restriction to be placed upon them, they had indicated that they could not stop the serving of a member. It would be a disaster if the working of the Bill were jeopardised because they went a step farther and tried to force on the clubs legislation which they could not tolerate. The bogus club was abolished, so far as it could be, by the Bill, and most clubs would become highly respectable places. He could not see what harm would result if a member was allowed to go himself and fetch liquor from his club for his own consumption at home. It was better that he should do that than go to a public house. They had already stopped the greater evil — the fetching by messengers. He hoped if the Amendment was not withdrawn it would be negatived.

suggested that, instead of leaving out the words referred to, they should arrive at some sort of compromise by inserting "in sealed or stoppered vessels "—[Cries of "No, no"]—or "for the purpose of his own consumption." That would stop the taking away of beer or other liquors in open jugs or cans.

said that the extremely able argument of the hon. Member had very nearly convinced him that he was going to vote against the Amendment. Both the Majority and Minority Reports were agreed on the point dealt with by the clause. As to the question of bogus clubs, he wanted to know if hon. Member sinsinuated that these bogus clubs, which were established for one purpose, were really used for another. He thought that sufficient securities were taken in the Bill against the formation of bogus clubs in the Excise sense. If the Committee had accepted these clubs, as they had done in this part of the Bill, under certain securities, they ought to put a certain amount of trust in them. What they ought to rely upon was the good sense of the members, and the efficacy of the rules governing those clubs. If the rules permitted a club to be carried on for any other than the proper purpose for which it was founded, it would very soon find itself in difficulties. A provision of this kind must apply to all clubs, and he could not conceive members of the Carlton Club going out with a bottle of champagne in each pocket in order to hold a kind of al fresco symposium in the Green Park. The objection that had always been felt to temperance legislation by the people of this country was not because they did not like temperance, but because in temperance legislation they saw a great deal of interference with the liberty of the subject. In

said that the principle to bear in mind was whether the Committee should assist in the establishment of good clubs or not. Men did not go to clubs in order to carry away drink. They went to clubs for social purposes—to see and talk to their friends and acquaintances; and if they wanted something to drink, he certainly did not see why they should not have it. His idea was that leaving these words in would greatly retard the movement of establishing bona fide working men's clubs. Therefore, he should vote for the omission of the words.

said the object of the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name was to deal with clubs established simply for the sale of liquor, and for the purpose of profit to those who supplied the liquor. He begged to move.

pointed out that there was another class of club on which these words would have bearing, viz., the proprietary club. How was the proprietor of such a club going to carry on his business if the words "under the control of the Members" meant that the control of the sale of intoxicating liquors was to be taken out of the hands of the proprietor and put in the hands of a committee?

said the Amendment to this Clause was directed against what were called bogus clubs. The magistrates were not compelled to strike a club off the register, and so far as the proprietary clubs were concerned they would be very easily able to accommodate themselves to the requirements.

desired to move the addition of the following words at the end of line 36—

"(h) that in the case of a club occupying premises in the Principality of Wales, intoxicating liquor is supplied or distributed to members or guests on Sundays."

The Home Secretary would, he thought, recognise that throughout the discussion on this Bill, he had supported the Government, and he ought, perhaps, to explain that he moved this Amendment I now on two main grounds—first, because there was a strong feeling in Wales that some such proviso should be inserted in the Bill; and, secondly, because that feeling was not only entertained by the temperance section in Wales, but was largely held by those who were not connected hi any organised way with that section, and by a large number of influential men holding important public positions in the Principality. The effect of the Amendment, if it were carried, would be that in regard to clubs, registered under this Act in Wales, no intoxicating liquors could be sold on Sundays, He ought, perhaps, very briefly to point out that this Amendment was not moved because—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood you to rule that all Amendments to the Amendment of the Home Secretary were out of order. That being so, I submit that the hon. Member is out of order in moving the present Amendment.

I notice that the Amendment would come in on the same line as that to which the Home Secretary has moved an addition. The hon. Member should have moved it as an Amendment to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.

asked if it would be possible for him to do so now.

No, the Amendment has been carried. The hon. Member should have moved to insert it after the word "Members."

asked if there was any way in which he could move his Amendment. The subject was a matter in which great interest was taken in the Principality, and, if possible, he should be glad to move it.

inquired if it would be possible to move this Amendment, and that of the hon. Member for South West Manchester, as a now Clause.

No; on the Report stage new Clauses are taken before the other proposed Amendments, and that opportunity has now passed.

wished to know if the Amendment could be moved now as a new sub-section.

No.

said he moved the Amendment standing on the Paper in the interest of those who liked to see things done in open court, and not behind people's backs.

I think this Amendment is an unnecessary and undesirable departure from the ordinary practice, and therefore I cannot accept it.

thought the Amendment was desirable as a security against possible abuse in certain districts, and appealed to the Government to reconsider the Amendment.

said that this Amendment dealt with one of the difficulties met with in the country districts, about which the Home Office knew a good deal.

said he was unable to accept the Amendment.

This Bill has been drafted in the first place to amend the law with regard to the examination of previous specifications in the United Kingdom on applications for patents, and, secondly, to amend the law relating to the granting of compulsory licences. With respect to the first of these questions, there is not, I believe, very much difference of opinion. It is generally admitted that the change which we propose, with regard to the first proposal I have mentioned, will be a valuable amendment of the law, but it is otherwise with the second proposal, which deals with compulsory licences. I was aware at the time I introduced the Bill that considerable difference of opinion existed in regard to some of these proposals, and for that reason I allowed a considerable interval to elapse between the First and Second Reading of the Bill, in order to give those interested an opportunity of studying its provisions, and I undertook to consider carefully, and with an open mind, any suggestions that might be made to me. Since the publication of the Bill I have had a good many representations made to me, and I have received an important deputation representing the Chambers of Commerce of the country, and the members of this deputation took exception to some of the provisions of the second Clause. I could not agree with all the representations made to me by this deputation, but at the same time I could not but recognise that there was considerable force in many of those representations, and I have since done my best to meet those objections so far as it was possible for me to do so. I believe that the changes which I am about to introduce are of a kind which will prove satisfactory to the commercial community generally, and will be accepted as a reasonable solution of what is undoubtedly a somewhat difficult problem. I will confine myself to explaining shortly the main respects in which the amended Clause 2, which I shall have to move in Committee, differs from the provisions of the Bill in the form in which it was introduced. The first point deals with the phrase "reasonable requirements of the public." The event on which the Committee recommended that a patentee should be required to grant compulsory licences was—

"When it is made to appear that the reasonable requirements of the public in reference to the invention have not been satisfied by reason of the neglect or refusal of the patentee to work the patent or to grant licences on reasonable terms."

It has been represented to me that the phrase "reasonable requirements" is not sufficiently explicit, and in particular that it does not specifically include the reasonable requirements of the producing portion of the public as opposed to that of the consumers. I think the Committee intended "the, reasonable requirements of the public" to include producers as well as consumers. But if any doubt exists on tills point I think it is important that it should be removed. Accordingly I propose in the amended Clause that the Bill shall clearly indicate the cases in which the reasonable requirements of the public are to be deemed not to be satisfied for the purposes of the Clause. The amended Clause accordingly provides that:

"The reasonable requirements of the public shall not be deemed to have been satisfied if by reason of the default of the patentee to work his patent or to manufacture the patented article in the United Kingdom to an adequate extent, or to grant licences on reasonable terms, any existing industry or the establishment of any new industry is prejudiced, or the demand for the patented article is not reasonably met."

I do not suggest in reference to the new form of the Clause that it goes very much beyond what was contained in the original Clause, but it makes it much clearer. As amended, if any existing industry or the establishment of any new industry is prejudiced by the failure of the patentee to work his patent, or to grant licences, the reasonable requirements of the public are not to be held by the Court to have been satisfied. The next point refers to the revocation of patents in extreme cases. It has been represented to me by this deputation and in the communications, which I have received on this subject, that there are cases in which the grant of compulsory licences will not effectively remedy the evils complained of, and in which the only real remedy will be the revocation of the patent. It is not denied that there are a good many cases in which the grant of compulsory licences will afford a sufficient remedy, and in such cases it would be hard on the patentee, and would by no means be in the interest of the public to inflict the extreme penalty of forfeiting his patent. It is also obvious that the more severe the penalty the more difficult it will be to make out a case for its infliction. I propose, therefore, to retain the provisions of the Clause which enabled persons interested to obtain the grant of compulsory licences. But at the same time there may be, and probably are, cases in which the grant of compulsory licences will be an insufficient remedy, and in which in the interests of the public it would be right to revoke the patent. It is, therefore, proposed by the amended Clause to empower the Court to revoke the patent if they are of opinion that the reasonable requirements of the public will not be satisfied by the grant of licences; but this power is given subject to the proviso that no order of revocation shall be made before the expiration of three years from the grant of the patent, or if the patentee gives satisfactory reasons for his default. This proviso is in accordance with the arrangement which is embodied in the additional Act of the 14th of December, 1900, amending the International Convention of 1883. To this Act this country has given its adherence, and it is expected that it will very shortly come into force throughout the Union. Having so agreed to this I think it would be a breach of faith if this proviso was not inserted in the Bill. The amended Clause will, therefore, only enable the court to revoke patents in extreme cases where the patentee is unable to give satisfactory reasons for his default, and where, in the opinion of the court, the case will not be met by the grant of compulsory licences. I think this is a reasonable compromise between the extreme views. I think this proposal is free from the objections to which most proposals for the compulsory working of patents have been open. It will not injure the poor inventor who cannot afford to manufacture either at home or abroad under his patent. It is aimed at the monopolists who, while manufacturing abroad, take out patents in this country mainly with the object of preventing patented articles from being manufactured here. There is one other point in which I propose to amend the Bill, and it relates to the tribunal for the purposes of the Clause. Under the Clause as originally drafted, in accordance with a recommendation of Sir Edward Fry's Committee, the High Court was substituted for the Board of Trade as the tribunal to determine whether or not a patentee is in default, and on what terms, if any, he may be required to grant compulsory licences. The Committee based their recommendation in this respect on the ground that—

"Proceedings under the Section may affect interests of a very high pecuniary value, and that they ought to be safeguarded in the same manner as proceedings in an ordinary litigation, and not entrusted to any branch of the executive Government."

It is undoubtedly a serious matter to entrust to any branch of the executive Government the decision of a case in which enormous pecuniary interests may be involved, but it has been represented to the Board of Trade that the transfer of this jurisdiction to the High Court is open to the objection that it may lead to protracted litigation, with appeals to the House of Lords. I propose that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, from whom there will be no appeal, and who have for many years dealt with petitions for the extension of patents, should be the tribunal to deal with petitions for compulsory licences and the revocation of patents. In order to prevent unnecessary litigation and expense, the petitions in the first instance will be made to the Board of Trade, who will have the power to dismiss them, or to refer them to the Judicial Committee if they consider it desirable to do so. Having regard to the recommendation of Sir Edward Fry's Committee, the Board will not have power themselves to require the grant of compulsory licences or to refuse patents. The last point upon which I propose to amend Clause 2 deals with a special provision where the patented article is manufactured exclusively or mainly abroad. I propose that if the complainant can show that the patented article is mainly or exclusively manufactured abroad, the burden of proof that the reasonable requirements of the public in respect of the invention are satisfied should be thrown on the patentee. In such cases, where there is a primâ facie reason for suspecting that the patent has been taken out with the object and result of obstructing manufacture in this country, it appears to be only reasonable that the patentee should be placed under this obligation, having regard to the monopoly which has been conceded to him by the State. It is accordingly proposed in the Clause, as amended, to provide that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Judicial Committee that the patented article is manufactured exclusively or mainly outside the United Kingdom, the petitioner shall be entitled to an order for a compulsory licence, or as the case may be, to an order for the revocation of the patent, unless the patentee can show that the reasonable requirements of the public have been satisfied. These constitute the principal changes which I propose to introduce during the Committee stage. I hope that the House will allow this Bill to pass this afternoon, in order that it may be referred to the Grand Committee on Trade. I feel sure that in this form the Bill will give general satisfaction to the commercial community, and will be regarded as an important and valuable amendment of the patent law. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

said the President of the Board of Trade had only referred to Clause 2 of this Bill, and had passed over Clause 1, which proposed to make the most important change of all in regard to the law of patents. This Bill proposed a most extraordinary change, for it required the examiner to go back in regard to every invention and specification for a period of fifty years. He had to go over every specification that was lodged. Subsection 2 of Clause 1 provides—

"If on investigation it appears that the invention has been wholly or in part claimed or described by any such specification, the applicant shall be informed thereof, and the applicant may, within such time as may be prescribed, file an amended specification, and the amended specification shall be investigated in like manner as the original specification."

That was a very heavy responsibility to place upon any official. Subsection 9 provides—

"The investigations and reports required by this section shall not be held in any way to guarantee the validity of any patent, and no liability shall be incurred by the Board of Trade or any officer thereof by reason of, or in connection with, any such investigation or report, or any proceeding consequent thereon."

This was a most extraordinary change in the existing law. After the report was received it might be necessary to amend the specification, and then it would be necessary to go through the whole of the specifications for the previous fifty years to see whether the amended specification was correct or not. There was no limit as to how often the amended specification might be gone into. The Act required that the reports of the examiners were not to be published and were not accessible to the public and could only he produced if the Courts required their production. Then subsection 5 of Clause 1 provided that—

"If the comptroller is satisfied that no objection exists to the specification on the ground that the invention claimed thereby has been wholly or in part claimed by a previous specification as before mentioned, he shall, in the absence of any other lawful ground of objection, accept the specification."

Therefore there was to be no opportunity of a person exercising his own judgment on the matter, and he was bound to accept the report of the examiner. There was the usual proviso that there was to be an appeal from the decision of the comptroller. It seemed to him that this great change was being introduced without any adequate reason. He could quite understand that the validity of a patent should be determined once for all by using all this machinery; but he did not think that there was any warrant whatever for imposing the duty of inquiring into the validity of a specification on an examiner. Another important change, made by the Bill was that the period for lodging a complete specification was reduced from nine months to six months. In previous legislation the period was extended instead of being reduced. In regard to the question whether an invention had been anticipated by reason of its publication, the Bill charged the examiner with the responsibility of examining specifications extending over a period of fifty years. Upon this it might be necessary for an applicant to amend his specification, and there appeared to be no limit to examination and amendment, while a charge of £3 was to be made for the investigation. But why not leave it to the person interested to make the inquiry for himself? He did not think that the interests of the public were properly safeguarded by the Bill. For instance, in Clause 2 nothing was said about the patent being worked in the United Kingdom. It only stated that if the reasonable requirements of the British public were not met by the patentee by the issue of licences, the patent might be revoked. At the present moment, under the existing law, the tribunal which dealt with the issue of compulsory licences was the Board of Trade; and he was surprised that the tribunal was to be transferred from the Board of Trade, which had got experts to guide them, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He regarded the change as very unfortunate, and one for the worse. He trusted that when the Bill got into Committee it would be very carefully amended.

I had the good fortune to be a member of the Committee on the Patent Laws, and had the honour of introducing the very important deputation to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the second Clause. I may be allowed, therefore, to say a few words on the Second Reading of this important Bill. I do not understand the objection of the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Mid Lanark to this Bill. He seems to object to it root and branch, and to object to any reform of the patent law at all. But I believe that there is a general opinion in the House and in the country that some reform, some improvement, should be made in the patent law. There are some, even, who desire to see very drastic alterations made. As to the first Clause of the Bill, the changes which the hon. Member for Mid Lanark objects to so much were recommended by the Committee after very careful consideration. Many revolutionary changes were brought before the Committee, but what the Committee desired was to make use of all the information in the Patent Office for the benefit of the country. It has been the custom of the Patent Office to tabulate the various specifications so that they may be easily referred to. All that the first Clause of the Bill says is that that information shall be carried further and made available to any one who comes forward and desires to take out a patent. No doubt the examiner under this Clause has certain duties to perform in regard to the patentee, which put him in the position, practically, of an assistant to the patentee. He practically said to the patentee, "We will inform you if there are any specifications, which, in whole or in part, anticipate the patent you wish to take up." That having been done, the patentee has all the information he desires; he may go and examine the specifications for himself, and he can either withdraw his own specification or amend it. There is no responsibility on the examiner; it is the patentee who takes the full responsibility. The hon. Gentleman objected to an appeal, but after the amended specification has been examined, if the examiner still thinks that some previous specifications existed which would stand against the new patent applied for, the amended specification may go forward with certain marks upon it referring to previous specifications. The object of the Clause is to protect the patentee, and assist him, and to protect the public if necessary. The appeal to which the hon. Gentleman objected is also in order that the patentee may be again protected, but it is a proceeding which the patentee can try to avoid if he likes. I think it would be a very great pity if those valuable records in the Patent Office were not made available to the public; and I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman carefully examines this Clause again he will find that it throws a flood of light on the patents in the office, and that a great deal of time and expense will be saved. So much for the first Clause. In regard to the second Clause, I can say from my own knowledge that the public ought to be very grateful indeed to the President of the Board of Trade for the very great trouble which he has taken to try and meet their wishes. This is a very difficult and thorny question; and those whom I represent, holding very strong views, had very drastic proposals to put before my right hon. friend. Anything like compulsory license given by a foreign patentee to manufacturers in this country would not meet the case. The foreign patentee acts as a dog in the manger, sends his patented articles to this country, but does nothing to have the patented articles manufactured here. He commands the situation, and so our industries are, under our own law, starved in the interest of the foreigner, We are quite prepared to compete with the foreigner, but it should be on fair terms. Those who feel most strongly on this question think that there should be nothing but an absolute revocation of the patent, if it is not worked in tin's country within two years, and the Fry Commission was of that opinion also. Sir Edward Fry, the Chairman of the Committee, felt the great difficulty there would be in any court of law in this country deciding what was the meaning of "reasonable terms." My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade said that while he appreciated all the reasons for the course suggested by the Fry Commission, he could not go quite as far The right hon. Gentleman, however, has since gone a considerable distance. He has introduced Amendments in the second Clause, which gives the power of revocation of the patent under certain circumstances. The consequence is that. 'I am in a position to say that those with whom I have been acting, and all those in this country who are personally interested in this question, are well satisfied with the Clause now proposed by my right hon. friend. It does not fulfil their ideal, but it goes a very long way in the direction they wish to go. At any rate it is an immense improvement on the present position, and therefore it is acceptable. As to the change of tribunal referred to by the hon. Member of Mid-Lanark, the Committee felt that the appeal should no longer remain with the Board of Trade. I think that there is an amount of difficulty and delicacy in dealing with questions of this sort, that it would be far better if they were considered after argument on both sides by a tribunal which is accustomed to weigh evidence, than to continue the informal manner in which the Board of Trade has hitherto considered appeals. Everybody, I think, admits that the formal proceeding was not a fair one. The recommendation of the Committee was that there should be an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The objection to this has been made that that would lead to delay, which difficulty would not occur if the appeal is made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There may be questions which are worthy of further investigations in Committee, but I trust that the House will allow the Second Reading to be now taken.

Of course this Bill ought undoubtedly to be read a second time, but I think it will re quire to be carefully dealt with in Committee. The hon. Baronet opposite said that it was desirable that Parliament should furnish information as much as possible to patentees; but I observe that the first Clause goes beyond giving information. It imposes on the examiner the duty of going through specifications for fifty years, in order to see whether he will accept a new specification or an amended specification from a would be patentee; and on all that an appeal lies to the law courts. Now, these requirements may impose a very long and difficult inquiry. I do not want to express a final opinion on this point, but only to say at present that it seems to be a serious thing. As to Clause 2, I entirely agree with what the hon. Baronet said about the necessity of revoking patents granted in this country to foreigners who do not work them here. Nothing can be more absurd or more outrageous than that a foreign patentee can come here and get a patent and use it, not for the purpose of encouraging the industries of this country, but to prevent our people doing what they otherwise would do. To allow our Jaws to be used to give a preference to foreign enterprise is, to my mind, ridiculous. I do not know whether the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman are adequate to meet the case, for we have not yet seen them in print, in regard to the shifting of the appeal from the Board of Trade to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or to the High Courts of Justice, I thoroughly deprecate taking such questions as these to the High Courts of Justice, then to the Appeal Court, and then to the House of Lords. Everyone must admit that that would be a procedure most tedious, costly, uncertain, and unsatisfactory. I congratulate litigants on having the opportunity of getting to the highest tribunal at once, I am certain that if this work is to he discharged by a non-administrative Department, it could not be more competently dealt with than by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 1 am not sure whether it would not be better to have an administrative Department, assisted by the best legal and technical ability, to decide these patent questions; but if the House thinks that the appeal should he to a legal tribunal, the Privy Council is by far and away the ablest and most satisfactory that could be found in this country.

It must be very satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that the Bill has met with a general approval so far. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, who did not join in that approval, did not realise the strength of the Committee on the Patent Laws whose Report is embodied in body of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman spoke disrespectfully of that Committee as a Committee of lawyers. If he looks at the Report he will find that there were on it not only eminent lawyers but strong representatives of Government Departments and of the industrial and commercial enterprises of the country. The first Clause of the Bill carries out almost exactly the recommendations made by that very strong Committee, and in the whole course of the recommendations made to the Board of Trade since the Bill was introduced, no dissent has been made to the proposals of this first Clause. The evil with which this Clause is intended to deal, everyone admits is a most serious one. Of course, at present a patent may be refused on the objection of anyone who has a locus standi; but it is necessary to go further. The first Clause, therefore, makes provision for an inquiry into the specifications for fifty years prior to the lodgment of the specification of a new patent. The results of that inquiry and the materials which the Patent Office possesses will be put at the service of the public. In regard to the second clause, I think that even the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark will be satisfied that it is most valuable. The existing provisions in reference to patents taken out by foreigners, and which arc not worked here, have been found to be absolutely inoperative. A patent is supposed to be granted for the encouragement of manufacturers in this country. But under the existing laws a large number of patents are taken out by foreigners solely for the purpose of preventing the encouragement of manufactures in this country. Something has been said as to whether the appeal under this clause should be to an administrative body like the Board of Trade, or to a judicial body. Nobody has anything but admiration for the Board of Trade as an Administrative Department, but I think that as the matters at issue involve consideration of the rights of property, and that it is desirable that there should also be a unanimous current of decision, so that all concerned would know what has been decided in regard to points raised, it should be a judicial body, and that nothing could be better than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That body already enjoys jurisdiction in regard to patents and the promulgation of patents.

Will the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council take evidence as a Court of First Instance?

Of course there will be evidence taken, and it must be in writing, or oral, according to the circumstances of the case. What we want is uniformity in the settlement of the decisions. I agree with my hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is a better tribunal than the High Court. In the High Court there are judges of the highest eminence, but there are many of them, and it is not certain that they would all take the same view of the same matter in the same way. But by sending these questions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the lines on which decisions are arrived at will be laid down from the first, and everyone concerned in patents will get to know the result that is to be expected in a given case.

I think the House will agree that the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in moving the Second Reading will make this a more satisfactory Bill than it was on its first introduction. But I confess to a feeling of disappointment that we have not got a little farther than the proposals now announced by the President of the Board of Trade. Anyone who is actively engaged in commerce, especially those who arc acquainted with patent laws, cannot help feeling how very much we are behind other countries, especially France, Germany, and America, who are our chief competitors, in the markets of the world, in the matter of patent laws. I had hoped that the Board of Trade, after many years consideration on this question, and the pressure put upon it by the commercial community, would have taken a little more courage in reforming our patent laws. The difficulty of dealing with foreigners, to whom patents had been granted in this country for years past, and who never intended to work their patents here, is certainly great. The proposal to be embodied in the Bill will deal with the worst part of this matter, but I think the right hon. Gentleman need not have been afraid of making the clause considerably more drastic than it is. If foreigners come here and ask protection for their patents why should they not give a quid pro quo in the way of protection for our patents, in their countries? I should have liked to have seen the proposal for the investigation of specifications go further. I think the Bill will be very misleading to the class of working men inventors. If they are assured that investigations have been made for fifty years, they will regard that as a guarantee, although the Bill states that the patent is to be regarded as no more certain than to begin with. I think that this is an instance of very timid legislation indeed. It would be more to the advantage of a patentee if he paid a little more for his patent, and then be quite sure that it was good when he got it. I think that; might be secured by obtaining the best skilled advice on the part of the Board of Trade. I know that that entails the setting up of a Department of the Board which would have not only advisory, but judicial powers, and that that might not be very satisfactory to the lawyers. It is proposed in the Bill to take the jurisdiction away from the Board of Trade on questions as to whether patents shall be revoked, and given to a Court of Law; but for my part I would prefer that it should be kept in the hands of the Board of Trade. These proposals will, no doubt, receive very careful attention from that very efficient Committee, the Grand Committee on Trade, and I have no doubt they will emerge from it improved. I feel, however, it is advisable, when the opportunity arises, to encourage the President of the Board of Trade to look at his Department as being more important than it is generally regarded in this House. We want the President of the Board of Trade to lie raised to the dignity of a Secretary of State, and that his office should be equal in importance to any other office under the Crown; because I am convinced that commercial questions will not receive proper treatment until we have a Minister of Commerce in this House with all the authority of a Secretary of State.

I was a member of a deputation which waited on the President of the Board of Trade to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the importance of compulsory working. An English manufacturer is at present seriously handicapped as compared with a German, a French, or even an American manufacturer. If an Englishman takes out a patent in Germany, he has to comply with all the patent regulations in that country; and if he exports a patented article, he runs the risk of forfeiting his patent in Germany, and has the certainty of having to pay an import duty. On the other hand, a German may take out a patent in Great Britain, manufacture the article in Germany, and export it to this country, without running any risk whatever of losing his patent, and he has not to pay any import duty. That is the gravamen of our complaint with regard to the patent laws. We know that if a system of compulsory working were enacted, it would fall hardly in some cases, but the present principle has operated in this country to the disadvantage of the English manufacturer. The Bill, as originally introduced, merely provided for a legal interpretation of the principle of compulsory licence. The Chambers of Commerce of this country, and leading manufacturers, especially men, like myself, who are at the head of large industrial undertakings, controlling, perhaps, five or six patents, feel that compulsory licences would not be sufficient. We desire the enactment, if possible, of the Belgian patent law, which requires compulsory working after three years. We know that in the case of France and Germany the principle of compulsory working has been carried out somewhat harshly. There is the well-known case of the armoured train maker who had a patent in France. At the end of three years he was notified by the French Government that his patent was likely to be confiscated. He appealed, and in his appeal he said he had offered the opportunity of making these armoured trains to the French Government. They were the only customer who could use his patent. The French War Office had the matter under consideration for eighteen months, and at the end of that time they declined the patent. Consequently, there was no other customer in France who could use his patent, and, notwithstanding that, the Government confiscated it. That was a case in which we considered that the law was harshly and unfairly put into operation against the inventor under the compulsory working principle. The clause as amended by the President of the Board of Trade, while stopping short of the actual acceptance of the principle of compulsory working, still gives us some measure of freedom. It all depends, however, as to how the phrase "reasonable requirements" is interpreted. The qualifications that the President of the Board of Trade proposes to introduce in Clause 2 will give us, in our judgment, some measure of relief. Our habit of piecemeal and makeshift methods of legislation must, however, continue. We feel that the measure, as amended, will not turn out to be an ideal measure; but still, if the Second Reading is passed, and if the material Amendments which the President of the Board of Trade arid the Chambers of Commerce have agreed in are adopted, plus some minor Amendments, we feel that the measure is capable of being made into a very useful instalment of reform in the patent laws. For that reason, I myself, and the Chambers of Commerce—who, en one occasion, did me the honour of asking me to be their spokesman at a deputation—hope the House will pass the Second Reading of the Bill and send it to a Committee. If, at the end of three or five years, we find we are not getting the full measure of relief for which we are asking, we can then come to Parliament with a further demand for the reform of our patent laws. With regard to Clause 1, our complaint is, not that it goes too far, but that it does not go far enough. That part of the administration of our patent laws has been nothing short of a scandal. Patents have been granted for a number of worthless things, bogus patents have been taken out by the score; and those-engaged in large industrial undertakings know, to their cost, how harassed they have been by the presentation to them from time to time of such patents, which have for their object blackmail. The modified form of examination proposed under Clause 1 will lead, in our judgment, to the elimination of a large number of worthless and bogus patents. We would have desired that the Bill had gone farther, and so have brought our patent laws up to the level of those of Germany and America, where the examination extends not merely to the question of anticipation, but also to the questions of novelty and of merit; but, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, we are thankful to the President of the Board of Trade, and to the Committee which considered this question, for having conceded even this small measure of reform and improvement. With regard to Clause 2 we will have occasion — those of us who take an active interest in this question—to bring before the Committee some minor improvements having for their object the liberalising of the words "reasonable requirements," because on the phrase depends a great deal as to how the Clause will be interpreted. With all the imperfections we see in the amended Clause at present, we still gratefully accept it; and I desire to associate myself with the hon. Baronet in the hope he has expressed that this Bill, with the Amendments foreshadowed by the President of the Board of Trade, may be passed unanimously today.

On behalf of a large number of working men inventors, I desire to thank the President of the Board of Trade for the Bill he has brought in, and to acknowledge that some good will be done by it. Although not an inventor myself, I have lost a great deal of money in connection with inventions. I am frequently consulted with regard to them; and at the present moment I have in my pocket two or three inquiries from men who desire to know how they should proceed in order to patent inventions. A system was adopted some years ago of sending to a number of public institutions throughout the country copies of patents which had been taken out, in order to enable persons desirous of obtaining information on the subject to look over them, and to find out facts which might be of service to them in bringing out further inventions. I do not know to what extent the system was availed of; but I do know that in many instances it was very inconveniently carried out. In some cases, accommodation was provided for the books in free libraries and other institutions, but in many cases the arrangement was so bad that it was exceedingly difficult for men—especially working men, to whom we arc often indebted for inventions — to obtain the information they desired. Therefore, I I think that Clause 1 will be very advantageous to working men inventors, who now have to seek a large amount of information for themselves, in enabling them to carry out their patents. The difficulty in the patent laws at present is that they are exceedingly complex. There are, of course, patent agents, who are specialists in their way; but inventors hesitate very much before consulting them. As regards the second Clause, a very gross case has arisen, which no doubt has given rise to the alteration in the law now proposed by the President of the Board of Trade Many years ago an Englishman invented aniline dyes; but in course of time the Germans followed out the same idea, and the consequence has been that at the present moment materials for making these dyes are exported from our gasworks, and the dyes are imported at an enormous cost. I agree with my lion, friend the Member for Halifax that more might have been done; but we will be thankful to take what we will get under this Bill.

While I agree that this is neither a great nor a courageous measure, I do think that it is desirable that it should be passed. The President of the Board of Trade has lost no time in his endeavours to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee he appointed. The objection of my hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark that the Bill will throw a serious amount of work and responsibility on the officials of the Patent Office, is no objection whatever. Our officials never hesitate to do work that they are called upon to do in the interests of the country; and, as a rule, the members of the Civil Service do their work exceedingly well. It does not come within the purview of this Bill, but I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had gone further in respect to patent fees. I do not agree with my hon. friend the Member for Halifax that higher fees should be paid. My complaint is that our inventors arc too highly taxed already. For a number of years past a surplus of £100,000 has been shown, in addition to which, those splendid Patent Office buildings, the erection of which was so commendable, have been built out of the fees. I think our inventors should have as much as possible for the fees they pay. I should be very glad to take this opportunity of bringing under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the desirability, now that we have so much talk of Empire and Imperial regulations, of providing that patents taken out in this country or in any of our Colonies, should run through the Empire and should be recognised throughout the whole of the Empire. The preliminary examination provided in the Bill, although it will not amount to an absolute guarantee of validity, will be of great value to many poor inventors who send in specifications thinking they have hit on something original, which in fact had been frequently anticipated. By this examination they will be informed that they are under a delusion, that what they thought was original has been in existence for a considerable time, and that it is no use wasting money in pursuing it. On the whole I think this Bill will be a real advance on our existing legislation; and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be encouraged by the manner in which it has been received to still further improve it.

I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on this Bill; but I hope when Clause 2 is considered some means will be found of strengthening subsection 1. Under that sub-section it is thrown on any person to prove a negative. That is a very difficult task. He has not only to prove a negative in regard to himself, but a negative in regard to the public also. The greater the industry, the greater the requirements; and he has to show that the reasonable requirements of the public have not been satisfied. I, therefore, hope that when the Clause is considered we may be able to make it incumbent on the foreign owner of a patent to show that the reasonable requirements of the public are being satisfied. This is a matter in which deep interest is taken in Manchester, and I hope we shall be able to persuade the Government to strengthen the Clause in the direction I have indicated.

I desire to say a few words on this Bill, having regard to the interest taken in it in the district I represent, and also because I have had some legal experience in these matters. Of course the difficulty in all patent law is to reconcile on the one side the true rights of inventors, and on the other side not to interfere with general industrial interests. The second section deals with those difficult points in a most satisfactory manner. I am not now referring to any verbal alterations, but I am dealing with the section as it stands as a general declaration of policy. At the present moment, after an inventor has shown enormous skill and ingenuity as regards a new invention, the whole benefit of it, so far as he is concerned, may he upset by the fact that that invention, or some portion of it, appears to be disclosed in some prior specification. The present Bill, however, provides for a considerable prima facie investigation in order to protect the inventor against that risk. I think an inventor ought to be protected, as far as possible, against a risk of that kind, and ought not to be defeated owing to a technical objection like that. Under the Bill, if such a difficulty is disclosed, the inventor is given an opportunity of altering his specification. I, therefore, welcome that provision. I do not believe for one moment that it will throw any undue burden on the officials of the Patent Office; but even if it did that is no reason for not amending the law. On the other hand, it will protect the bona fide inventor from great risk, to which he should not be subjected. As regards section 2, it is unduly harsh that a great industry should be prevented from developing, because of some paper patent with a mere paper validity, under which no work is carried on, but which is able to prevent others undertaking similar work. The idea is to encourage inventors, and not to allow anyone who, for a small sum may take out a speciation at the Patent Office, to put a block on other people in carrying on what may be a most beneficial industry. I quite agree with the hon. Member opposite, for that should apply not only to patents taken out in this country, but to foreign patents also. Nothing could be worse for this country than that foreign patents should be protected in this country, while the industry is carried on abroad. That is the worst form of Protection; and appears exceedingly hard as regards various industries in this country. The case of aniline dyes has been mentioned more than once. I do not desire to say a word against the great firm which carries on that industry; but I maintain that there ought to be a chance of fair competition in this country; and that the industry ought not to be protected by a paper validity. It appears to me, therefore, that the second section of the Bill is a most useful and valuable section. It has been suggested that the foreign idea of compulsory working should be adopted. That is one way of dealing with the problem; and I thought for a long time that it would be a satisfactory way; but there are various objections to it and I think the solution proposed in the Bill is the best possible one in the circumstances. We have a provision by which if a patent is not being properly worked, and if the reasonable requirements of the public are not being served, a compulsory licence may be granted by a properly constituted court. The new sub-section which provides that a licence may be granted if an existing industry is injuriously affected, or the establishment of a now industry is prevented, or if the demand for the patented article is not properly met, is a most important provision. I hope that in future the patent law of this country will serve its proper purpose of encouraging inventors and will not be used for the improper purpose of preventing new industries being established in this country, and of protecting foreigners, who supply this country from abroad with articles, merely because they have paper patents standing in their names.

In my opinion the drawback to inventions in this country has been our system of patent law. There is no encouragement given under that system to inventors. When I was in the habit of taking out patents I had to pay very heavily for them, and they only had a short time to run. I had to contend also with those who claimed priority of invention, and my inventions were liable to be declared invalid. When I look at the American system of patent law, I am face to face with the fact that all workmen, however humble, can lay their patents or their models, as they sometimes do, before the patent officer, and they are not patented unless that officer decides that they are valid inventions. In this country they take your money and will not tell you whether it is a new invention or not, and the consequence is that many of our inventors are stultified in all their operations. The principle on which the patent law should be based should be the lowest figure possible to be charged to the inventor, and the longest time possible given to him. Then there should be what I might call a Patent Search Committee, who should consider all the inventions laid before them before they took the inventor's money. The present system gives no encouragement to inventive working men; the best labour-saving machinery has been invented by working men, but they have never derived any benefit from it. Those who have profited have boon those who have taken the invention up. To my mind this Bill is not a good Bill; it is too wordy and not practical; there should be a simple statement of the charge and the time, and the inventor should be left free to settle his other business arrangements.

expressed the opinion that the Standing Committee on Law was much more fitted to deal with the intricate questions raised by such a Bill as this. He therefore moved that the word "Law" should be substituted for "Trade." He begged to move.

hoped the Amendment would not be carried, but that the Bill would be dealt with by the Trade Committee, upon which commercial opinion found more expression. The feeling of the manufacturers of this country was that the Committee to which this Bill was carried should not have too many lawyers, and too few commercial men. Therefore he hoped it would go to the Standing Committee on Trade.

thought legal training should shape the Bill, and after experience of proceedings on the Meat Marking Bill he had little reliance on the commercial spirit of the Trade Committee.

thought dis- tinctly the Bill was work for the Law Committee, for the reason that to anybody who had not had a legal training the Bill was almost un-understandable.

thought the point was not worth contesting, though he favoured the Government proposal. Members competent to deal with all the points of the Bill would be found on either Committee, or could be added.

said he should have supposed the Bill of sufficient importance to be dealt with by a Committee of the Whole House, hut as between the two Standing Committees the Trade Committee was best suited for the discussion.