asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the court at Chinteche, Bandawe, which sent Elliott Kamwana, a native of Nyassaland, to prison for six weeks without any charge being made or witnesses called, took any action to suppress or withdraw from circulation the six volumes written by Kamwana in which the views for which he was imprisoned are fully stated; and, if so, will he say what was the nature of that action?

No, Sir, I have no information as to any volumes written by Kamwana, and I would point out to my hon. Friend that he must not asume that I accept the terms of his question as conveying an accurate statement of the case. I am not aware that the man was sent to prison by the court; he was legally detained under the Ordinance pending the Governor's decision.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the action was initiated by the missionaries?

I do not know, Sir; but I believe that the missionaries do not regard this particular individual with favour.

asked whether Elliott Kamwana, a native missionary working in Nyassaland under the auspices of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, was detained as a prisoner at Chinteche from 18th March till 4th May and then deported to Cape Town, at his own expense, by the Governor, Sir A. Sharpe; whether all this was done without any charge having been formulated against Kamwana or any form of trial having taken place; and under what authority the collectors and Governor acted in the matter?

With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I would refer him to the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow. With regard to the latter part of the question, the Governor and Resident were acting under the authority of "The Political Removal and Detention of Natives Ordinance, 1909."

asked what was the nature of the complaints lodged against Elliott Kamwana, a native missionary, who has been deported from Nyassaland, to which he belonged; by whom were they lodged; and by what evidence were they backed?

The Governor caused careful enquiries to be made into the doings of Kamwana, and from sworn evidence given by Europeans and natives ascertained that his teachings were as follows:—That in October, 1914, the second Advent will take place, that Christ will then abolish all the present forms of government, that there will be no more taxation; that all the white population will disappear from Nyasaland, and that the country will be placed entirely in the hands of the natives, who will govern themselves. The head of both the Scotch Mission and of the Dutch Reformed Church Mission have expressed to the Governor their very strong feeling as to the necessity for preventing the entrance into Nyasaland of such doctrines.

May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he has seen a statement in which Kamwana denies holding the views which are attributed to him?

My information is that Kamwana was asked by the Governor if these were his views, and he replied that they were. The Governor said that he could either stop preaching these doctrines for the reasons which I gave the other day, or he could go away. He preferred to go away.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether Kamwana had a great number of followers who adopted his views?

Yes, parts of his doctrines were exceedingly popular, and especially that part in regard to there being no more taxation.

asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he will state under what conditions, if any, Cingalese gentlemen may sit for the police service (probationary) examination for Ceylon under the Colonial Office Circular of April last?

The probationer system is intended only to provide for the European element in the force. Local appointments are provided for in a different manner, by promotion from among the inspectors. I am sending my hon. Friend an extract from the report of the Inspector-General of Police, from which he will see chat there is every disposition on the part of the local Government to reserve for Ceylonese members of the force a due share of promotion to the gazetted ranks.

May I ask whether this limitation to persons of European descent excludes Cingalese gentlemen from offices for which they have hitherto been eligible?

I do not think there is a further extension of the colour bar. There always has been a colour bar in that sense, as my hon. Friend knows.

asked the Under-Secretary of State far the Colonies whether the power of deporting mischievous persons who disturb, or are likely to disturb, the public peace and tranquillity was exercised by our predecessors in power in Nyassaland; and whether, since the discreet exercise of this power by the present Administration is highly appreciated by those who are interested in the good government of the Protectorate, the Secretary of State will consider the advisability of abstaining from any interference on behalf of the missionary, Kamwana?

A power of this kind was given by Section 25 of the British Central Africa Order in Council of the 11th August, 1902, which was passed when the Protectorate was under the administration of the Foreign Office. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, the Secretary of State does not propose to interfere with the action which has been taken by the Governor of Nyassaland in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the condition of Southern Persia as it affects British trade therein and in the Gulf?

There has for some time past been a condition of insecurity on the roads of Southern Persia which has reacted disastrously on British trade in that part of the country. The depleted condition of the Persian Treasury makes it very difficult for the Government to take effective steps to remedy this state of affairs, but the question is engaging the serious attention of His Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the new Egyptian police ordinance relating to the deportation without trial of persons suspected of criminal tendencies is meant to apply to or will be used against persons whose only offence is that of taking part in a constitutional political agitation to -secure reforms for the better government of Egypt?

The reply to the hon. Member's question is in the negative, as he will see by reference to Article I. The ordinance could never have passed the Legislative Council and received, as it has done, the support of native opinion, if there had been any possibility of the kind contemplated in the question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the extremely wide interpretation given by agitators to "Constitutional political agitation"?

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that John Mannion, of Lismihill, Killimore, county Galway, applied for a pension last November, and that his application was accompanied by a certificate or letter from the Rev. John Callanan, P.P., Killimore, stating his belief that the applicant was over 70 years of age; whether the Census shows him to be 76 years of age; and, if so, will he direct that Mannion's pension dates from 1st January last?

No trace can be found of a claim for pension having been made by John Mannion in November last. A claim dated 8th January last was received by the Pension Officer on the following day. It was necessary to refer the case to the Census Office for verification of age. The Census records showed the claimant to be eight years of age in 1841. I will make further inquiry into the case, and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the delay in publishing the scheme of examination and in notifying the limits of age for future competitions for appointments as assistants in the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments is causing inconvenience and hardship to those who wish to become candidates for such appointments; whether the new scheme and the limits of age have now been settled, and can be made public; and whether he can announce when the next examination for these posts may be expected to take place?

The subject referred to by my hon. and learned Friend has been engaging my attention for some time, but I regret that I am not at present in a position to make any announcements relative to it. My hon. and learned Friend will find further information on this subject in an answer which I gave to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Thornbury Division of Gloucestershire, on 16th June last, of which I am sending him a copy.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the amounts spent on the maintenance of paupers in the month of July was greater than in the preceding July or in any July in recent years; and if he can give any reason for the increase, having regard to the sum now being distributed in old age pensions?

I am not aware of the amount actually expended on the maintenance of paupers in July, but there was some slight increase in the number of persons relieved in that month over that for the corresponding period in 1908. The ratio of paupers to population remained, however, substantially the same. The increase occurred largely in certain of the Northern districts of England, where there has been some slackness in employment.

Does the right hon. Gentlemen anticipate that the pensions will have any effect upon the pauperism of the country?

It is rather early to state what the effect of the pensions will be on the normal increase of pauperism, but as soon as it can be ascertained I shall be informed of it.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the normal increase of pauperism?

What would ordinarily occur in the absence of pensions.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the Chatham education authority in dismissing Miss M. Handford from the post of schoolmistress of St. John's School, Chatham, in consequence of her refusal to submit to an instruction by that authority to discontinue the training on natural -history to the infants under her charge by getting rid of several pet animals which were kept scrupulously clean; whether he is aware that an appeal made by Miss Handford for an interview with the local education authority to explain the reason for her action was not granted; that previous to the report of the local medical officer, upon whose report the local authority acted and which resulted in the dismissal, His Majesty's inspector of schools saw the pet animals in school and reported on 29th March of this year that the work in the infants' department was progressing vigorously and effectively, all the teachers having improved under Miss Handford's guidance, and the outlook was full of promise; whether he has received a Petition from the parents of the children attending St. John's School, who are deeply interested in Miss Handford's method of training the children; and whether, having regard to the qualifications of Miss Handford, he will have immediate inquiry made, and, until a report of the same be issued, have her reinstated?

I have seen a statement of this case, from which I understand that the teacher's engagement was terminated owing to her refusal to obey a direction given by the local education authority. The direction was one which the local education authority are entitled to give, and which the teacher should, therefore, have complied with. The Board have no power to secure the teacher's reinstatement, and as the matter is entirely between the teacher and the local authority I do not think an Inquiry would serve any useful purpose. I can find no trace of the Petition referred to in the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether this teacher was carrying out the instructions of the training college, and is there not a case for the Department to inquire into so as to see whether the local authority exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing her?

From the information placed at my disposal it is quite clear that this is not a case in which the Board can interfere.

If it can be shown that the teacher was merely carrying out the instructions to teachers as laid down by the training college, will the Department intervene?

If any further information is given to me, of course I will inquire into it.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board is in communication with the London County Council regarding the transference of the headmaster of the Portland Council school to the Barrett-street school; whether the inquiry regarding the organisation of these schools has now been begun, and when is it likely to be finished; and whether the Board of Education is pressing the London County Council to appoint a new properly qualified head for the Portland Council school on the ground that, if this is not done, the understanding arrived at between the Board of Education and the London County Council will be violated, and the Portland Council school will permanently suffer?

The Board have communicated with the London County Council as to the appointment of a properly qualified head teacher to the Portland School, and the council have informed them that no action has been taken in the matter of appointing a permanent headmaster, but that the question of the staffing of the school will be considered by the Education Committee at an early meeting after the recess, and that meanwhile the second master is in charge. The second master is a certificated teacher, and is, therefore, qualified under the Code for recognition as a head teacher. As I have already stated, I consider the action of the council to be inconvenient, but I cannot regard it as a breach of their undertaking that the question of reorganisation shall be left in abeyance pending the inquiry to be held by the Board. I anticipate that the inquiry will take place during the course of next month.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether a price has been agreed upon for the purchase by the local education authority for Birmingham of a site of about 7,500 yards of land in the Rotton Park district at about 10s. per yard; and whether he can now say what is the ascertained area of that site, and what is the actual total amount of the purchase money?

I am informed that the area is 7,020 square yards, and the price is 10s. per yard. The contract has not yet been completed.

asked the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, if he will state the total income derived by charities under the control of the Commissioners from royalties and wayleaves during the year 1908; the maximum charge per ton and per acre levied for wayleaves during the year 1908; and the maximum royalty per ton and per acre levied on coal during the same period?

The Charity Commissioners have not found it practicable with the limited staff at their command to require from the trustees of every charity within their jurisdiction particulars as to the income derived from royalties and wayleaves respectively. They are therefore not in possession of the information asked for by the hon. Member.

asked the hon. Member for the Crewe Division, as Church Estates Commissioner, if he will State the total income derived by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from royalties and wayleaves during the year 1908; the maximum charge per ton and per acre levied for wayleaves on coal; and the maximum royalty per ton and per acre levied on coal during the same period?

The receipts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from mineral royalties and wayleaves in respect of their estates in the year ended 31st March, 1908, amounted to £463,438 11s. 3d. as shown in their sixty-first Report duly laid upon the Tables of the Houses of Parliament and published. For way-leaves on coal the maximum ordinary rate per ton received by the Commissioners is three-halfpence; in one case a rate of 2d. per ton is received. There are no acreage wayleave receipts included in the above-mentioned sum. The average rate of royalty on coal received by the Commissioners is approximately 6d. per ton. In respect to one seam included in a letting the royalty received was at the rate of 1s. 1d. (thirteen pence) per ton. With this exception the maximum rate was 10d. per ton, and this, as well as the rate of thirteen pence per ton, resulted from the operation of a sliding scale of royalty based upon the selling price of coal, which was much above the average. The maximum acreage royalty was at the rate of £30 per foot thick per acre, equivalent to about 5½d. per ton.

Have no returns been presented to this House since 1906, and if so, what is the cause of the delay?

The total receipts are published every year.

Is the way leave on coal in respect of screened coal, or of the gross output?

The gross output.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there are still six Metropolitan railways, as also the whole of the tubes, that are imposing conditions compelling blind passengers to provide guides; and, if so, can he state whether he is prepared to approach such companies with a view to the withdrawal of such conditions, as in the case of the Great Eastern Railway Company?

I have seen a statement in the Press to the effect mentioned, but I have no other information on the subject. If the hon. Member will furnish me with the names of the companies which, according to his information, make the condition referred to, I shall be prepared to communicate with them in the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there are at least 20,000 blind workers in this country who make use of the railways for reaching their work; that the stipulation of the Great Eastern Railway Company, if generally adopted by other railway companies, was that such passengers should not seek any indemnity in the case of accident, it being understood that they travel at their own risk; and, if so, and in view of these circumstances, can he state if he is prepared to take action with a view to these people being carried as a reduced rate?

The Great Eastern Railway Company do not now require any undertaking from blind passengers travelling over their line, but they understand that such passengers travel at their own risk so far as accidents due to their blindness are concerned. As a railway company in such circumstances contracts itself out of no existing liability, there would seem no reason why a reduction should be made in the fare.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can say what number of fatal and non-fatal accidents have occurred to men and boys engaged at the Midland Railway Depot, Poplar, during the year 1908 and the eight months ending 31st August, 1909?

Accidents at railway depots are reported in the first instance to the inspectors of factories, and only those actually occurring in railway working are forwarded on to the Board of Trade. Reports of one fatal accident and five non-fatal accidents during the year 1908, and of one fatal and one non-fatal accident during the first eight months of the present year at the depot in question have been, so forwarded.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fatal accident which occurred on 28th August last to George Brewer, a boy of about 17 years of age, at the Midland Railway Depot, Poplar, and who was until quite recently employed as a van lad; whether the work he was performing at the time of the accident was scotching and breaking wagons; whether the wagons causing the accident were being drawn by a capstan, the driver of which was also an inexperienced person and was not in the service of the company; and whether he proposes to hold an inquiry into the circumstances?

I have received a report of the accident referred to. An inquiry will be held into the matter, and pending this I do not think it desirable for me to make any statement as to the circumstances of the accident.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to engines being turned out of the repairing shops, Darlington, North-Eastern Railway, and placed in the working of trains to the Middlesbrough district without tools and proper equipment on them; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

I have asked for the observations of the railway company upon the hon. Member's question, and will communicate with him on receipt of their reply.

asked whether the missing ship "Waratah" was provided with wireless telegraphic apparatus?

I am informed by the owners of the "Waratah" that she was not fitted with a wireless telegraphic-apparatus.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the time has come to make it obligatory on owners to provide this great safeguard against loss of life on passenger ships?

No; I do not think that the time has come for that yet.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he say the total number of clubs on the register in the petty sessional division and borough of Mansfield in the years 1906 and 1908, respectively; the number of clubs in the same area struck off the register from 1st January, 1907, to 30th June, 1909, for betting, gambling, and drunkenness; the names of the brewery companies given in evidence before the local justices who financed those clubs; and whether any of the premises used by clubs struck off the register have again been opened for the consumption of liquor?

The Licensing Statistics show that the total number of clubs on the register on 1st January, 1906, and 1st January, 1908, was, in the petty sessional division, 13 and 15, and in the borough five and four respectively. I am informed by the justices' clerks that in the period 1st January, 1907, to 30th June, 1909, six clubs were struck off the register in the petty sessional division for betting, gambling, or drunkenness; and one, in the borough, for betting and other causes. In three cases the premises of a club struck off have since been opened as registered clubs, the period of twelve months during which the justices in each case prohibited the use of the premises for clubs having expired. I am not sure what the hon. Member includes in the term "financed," but it was mentioned that the premises of two clubs struck off the register were mortgaged to brewery firms.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman can say the total membership in the year 1908 of the 7,133 registered clubs in England and Wales, and the increase of clubs and membership since the passing of the Licensing Act, 1902, to the end of the year 1908?

As I stated in reply to questions on 27th July and on 18th of last month by the Hon. Member for the Tamworth Division, I am not in possession of figures showing the membership of registers clubs in England and Wales. The increase in the number of these clubs between 1st January, 1904, and 1st January, 1908, is shown in the Licensing Statistics to be 762, and it is estimated that by the end of 1908 there was a further increase of 220. This figure will be verified when the volume for 1909 is prepared.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that if woodlands are taxed under the Death Duties, and, seeing that an oak wood under a rotation of 120 years will have to pay Death Duties at least three times, and other hard woods under a rotation of 80 years will have to pay at least twice, after the initial expenses of tree-planting have been capitalised and rates and taxes paid, there will be no profit left for any estate or municipality that attempts this form of employment; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of exempting woodlands?

My right hon. Friend is considering the question of woodlands in connection with Estate Duties.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman can give an estimate of the amount which he expects to receive from the new proposals with regard to the Increment Duty on minerals in this financial year and in subsequent years?

My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to indicate in detail the proportions in which this tax will be divided between the various forms of property to which it will be applicable under the proposals of the Finance Bill.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any estimate of the yield of the tax under the new form which is suggested?

It is not so much a question of giving an estimate, for which the Government would be held responsible if it were inaccurate, as of giving an approximate estimate. It can only be an approximate estimate.

May we have the approximate estimate in reference to the various classes of property?

The reason it is not given is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not think it advisable to give it.

Can we have some estimate which will enable us to judge of this?

If the hon. Member will refer to the great many answers which have been given he will see the appropriate answer to the question he has just put.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman has received protests from friendly societies concerning the proposed Amendment to Clause 25, which is designed to offer relief to such societies, and if the substance of those protests has been that the proposed relief is illusory, and that in any case the Amendment sets up a differentiation between friendly societies which are restricted by their rules from dividing any part of their funds among their members and other such societies, which, under certain well-defined conditions, may divide their funds?

My right hon. Friend has received protests on this subject, as to which I may refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the Noble Lord the Member for the Thirsk Division of the North Biding of Yorkshire, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire.

asked whether it is intended that tenant purchasers shall, under the Finance Bill, be entitled to deduct the capital value of the annuity due to the Land Commission from the market price of the holding subject to that annuity before assessment for Death Duties?

The Finance Bill does not affect the existing law under which the capital value of the annuity may be deducted from the market price of the holding in cases where the ad valorem Estate Duty is paid.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman will defer putting into operation Sub-section (2) of Clause 30 of the Finance Bill, except on premises of the annual value of £500 and upwards, until the Irish representatives request him to do so?

My right hon. Friend cannot give any such undertaking.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to put a Customs Duty upon foreign cement equal to the amount of the Mineral Duty payable in this country under the Finance Bill on chalk and clay out of which cement is manufactured?

No, Sir.

asked what quantity of spirits was taken out of bond in August of last year in England, Ireland, and Scotland, respectively, and the amount of duty paid thereon; and whether he will grant a similar Return for August of this year?

The quantity of spirits on which duty was paid in England, Ireland, and Scotland, respectively, and the amount of duty received thereon, during the month of August in each of the years 1908 and 1909 were:—

asked what will be the maximum Licence Duties in Dublin under the Finance Bill on hotels valued at £1,000, £800, £750, and £660 annually respectively, and what is the minimum to which they can be reduced under Sub-section (2), Clause 30; and whether this Subsection will apply immediately to hotels under £500 annual?

The maximum duty, on the assumption that the hotel does not come within Clause 31, and without regard to the alternative basis of compensation value provided by Clause 30, Sub-clause (2), is half the annual value. The amount to which the duty can be reduced by adopting the basis of compensation value cannot be given without a special valuation being made for the purpose, but it cannot be brought below the statutory minimum of one-thirtieth of the annual value fixed by Clause 31, Sub-clause (4), as amended. If the hotel is one which comes within Clause 31, Sub-clause (1), it will be possible for it to take advantage of the compensation value basis, whatever its annual value may be.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been directed to the fact that since the increased duty on spirits was imposed inferior qualities of whisky, consisting largely of raw grain and new whisky, are now chiefly sold; and whether, in view of this and of the Report of Lord Peel's Commission adverse to the sale of new whisky, he will take steps in the Finance Bill to graduate the tax according to age?

I have no information on the point referred to by my hon. Friend in the first part of this question. As regards the latter part, I can add nothing to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for North Meath on the 26th ultimo.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that without graduation the proposals of the Bill will fall unequally on the two classes of distillers in Scotland, and will be adverse to the interests of Scotch and Irish farmers?

I am not aware of the fact. What I am aware of is that a Select Committee of this House and a Royal Commission have both reported adversely to the inferior quality of whisky made in a short time by the patent still process.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Royal Commission on whisky reported that the evidence taken before them failed to establish the statement that new spirit was more deleterious than old, and that any specially evil effects observed were to be attributed to the quantity rather than to the quality of the spirits consumed?

That simply confirms the statement I have just made.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember my statement about the monkeys, and the effect of new and old spirit and the evidence given before Lord Peel's Commission?

We cannot have this re-hash of old speeches.

asked the Lord Advocate, with reference to the attack by the population of the island of Barra on the crew of a trawler, in which two of the crew were thrown into the sea and the captain was threatened with his life, would he state the total police force in the island at the time of the riot and the police force at the present moment; and can be now guarantee that the force is sufficient to maintain order and to prevent a recurrence of the outbreak?

My hon. Friend's reference to the lawless action of the Barra fishermen is, so far as. I can judge from the information before me, exaggerated. At the time of the occurrence there was one policeman on the island, and his services had hitherto, proved sufficient. On receiving intelligence of what had happened, the chief constable at once sent extra police to the island, and I understand that the question of permanent increase of strength is now under the sheriff's consideration. I have no reason to anticipate any recurrence of disorder on the island.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman can give any assurance that the work of the Scottish Church Commission, will be completed within the period for which extension has been granted; and if he is aware that the delay due to the repeated extension of time is causing embarrassment and expense to the United Free Church?

I am informed by the Secretary to the Commission that it is expected that the work of the Commission will be completed within the period for which extension was granted. It is obviously in the interests of both parties that all matters outstanding should be settled with as little delay as possible, and I trust the expectation of the Commission will be fulfilled.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, notwithstanding a promise given on 2nd December, 1907, that no existing Post Office servant should be adversely affected by the application of the recommendations of the Hobhouse Report, the lower grade of women supervisors are now compelled to perform eight hours per day instead of seven, and that in the process of devolution into the higher class of supervisors, for relief in sickness and holidays, they have recently been refused a seven-hour day whilst temporarily performing the duties of the higher class; and whether he will consider the claims of the women to the full privileges of the class into which they devolute, seeing that these privileges were formerly allowed them and still apply to the male overseers?

The Parliamentary Committee recommended that the class of female supervisors, lower grade, employed in the Central Telegraph Office, on scale £100–5—£120 should be replaced by female overseers on scale £115–5—£130, who should perform a 48-hour week. All the officers on the old class were given the choice between the new and old conditions, and no compulsion has been resorted to. Inquiry has failed to bring to light any case in which an officer temporarily performing duty in a higher class has been required to give an attendance in excess of that proper to the higher duty.

asked if it is proposed to transfer the functions of the Light Railway Commissioners to the Treasury if the Development Bill should become law?

The answer is in the negative.

Are we to understand that there will be two authorities?

The hon. Member is not to understand any such thing.

Will the Government consider the converse question, whether it is not desirable to transfer the greater part of the powers of the Treasury under the Development Bill to the Light Railway Commissioners?

I think that might be a question worth considering.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government has any information to the effect that the Government of India proposes to take power to limit the employment of adult male labour to a fixed number of hours per day in all factories in India; and whether the Commission which recently reported advised direct restriction upon the hours of male adult labour to an extent which has not yet been enforced by law in Great Britain?

The Bill now before the Governor-General's Legislative Council provides for a reduction in the hours of labour in textile factories, which sometimes extended to 15 hours a day or more, to a day not exceeding 12 hours, deals drastically with serious abuses that existed in connection with the employment of children, and gives power to local governments to apply its provisions to other factories if necessary. Direct restriction on the hours of labour was recommended by the Committee of 1906, and a minority Report of the subsequent Commission. The majority of the Commission proposed to attain the same end by indirect means. The hon. Member will recognise that in the East labour is not organised as it is in Britain, and is not continuous but intermittent and spasmodic.

asked what proportion of their income received from land the landlords or zemindars in India require to pay to the State as revenue or tax; whether there are, in addition, any local rates or cesses payable by them, and what these amount to; and whether the percentage of the harvest yield which the peasants pay as revenue or tax, as recently quoted by him, is based upon the presumptive or actual crop?

asked whether the British Government, in settling the proportion of income demanded by the State from landlords or zemindars, takes into consideration the fact that the revenue so received is collected from the classes and spent upon the masses; and whether, when demanding a comparatively large share of the assets of the landlords as revenue for public purposes, the British Government has concurrently protected the tenants in various parts of India, and conspicuously in Bengal, from the exactions of the landlords by numerous legislative safeguards?

Fifty per cent, is the general standard for the ratio of land revenue to the landlord's income from the land, in the areas where landlords exist; and the actual proportion more often falls below than exceeds this standard. The cesses amount to not more than 4 to 6 per cent, of the landlord's income. In calculating the rates of incidence of the revenue on the gross produce, recently quoted by me, the danger of over-valuation in the matter of crop outturn was guarded against by excluding from the calculation of crop yield the produce of all double or second crops, of all non-food crops, such as sugarcane, cotton, etc., which are usually more valuable than the staple food crops, and of the very valuable garden produce. These safeguards clearly make for a crop valuation under rather than over the actual yield. The principles on which the land revenue is assessed were stated in the Government of India's Resolution presented to this House in 1902, to which I may refer the hon. Member(Mr. Rees). The reply to the latter part of the question is in the affirmative.

May I ask whether Sir Antony Macdonnell's Commission reported that the incidence of the general assessment throughout India was not heavy upon the average crops?

That is the case.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of so enlarging the scope of the Motion on Procedure set down in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Saffron Walden Division, as to enable the Select Committee to include in its deliberations the hours of the sittings and the periods of the year during which the House is usually in Session?

The hon. Member will see from the answer that I gave yesterday to a question of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that it is not proposed to persist in the Motion, for the Select Committee this Session.

May I ask whether it will be set up early next Session?

It is too early, I think, to arrange that.

asked the Prime Minister whether the land at the North Pole is considered to belong to the Dominion of Canada; and, if so, providing it is established that Dr. Cook has reached the North Pole and has planted there the American flag, whether that act would, in any way, give the United States any right of possession over that region. [The HON. MEMBER added, I assume the Prime Minister will understand "land at or adjacent to."]

I did not understand that. In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question I do not understand that there is any land at the North Pole.

Adjacent to.

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down another question. The second part of the question involves too much hypothetical matter for me to give any definite answer.

In the event of it being found to be British territory, will he include it in the tax on undeveloped land?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. James Wallace, of Cangort Park, Shinrone, King's County, is the owner of about 180 acres at Kilcunnihin More, formerly Trench estate, North Tipperary, and about 170 acres at Wingfield, formerly Crosdale or Spunner estate, North Tipperary; is he aware that the above estates were purchased by the said Wallace under the Irish Land Act, 1903; and will be state what was the amount advanced by the Land Commissioners in connection with the sale of these estates?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that no advance appears to have been made or applied for for the purchase of these lands under the Land Purchase Acts.

asked what is the extent of the lands at Clyduff and Ballybrack, Spunner estate, North Tipperary, in the occupation of H. Briscoe Kenny, and what was the amount of purchase money advanced in connection therewith?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that the extent of the lands referred to is 552 acres, and that an advance of £5,000 was made for their purchase, the balance of the purchase money (£4,361) being lodged by Mr. Kenny.

May I ask if this gentleman has not received £l,000 from them?

I cannot interfere in the matter.

Will he consider the advisability of giving public information about a private transaction of a man who is severely boycotted and under police protection?

I know nothing about it, and I have given no information.

May I ask whether this man and his brothers graze enormous tracts of land in more counties on the 11 months' system, and are trying to extract enormous sums from the Estates Commissioners?

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

asked what was the amount of purchase money advanced in the case of a farm of about 170 acres at Ballinahinch. North Tipperary, formerly in the occupation of a tenant named Homan, now deceased?

I am informed by the Land Commission that the amount of the purchase money advanced in the case referred to was £1,000.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether the driver of the "Chronicle" motor car who recently caused a disaster amongst the troops on Salisbury Plain had, a few days previously, run into another body of troops; whether he is going to take further action in the matter; and whether he is aware that cans have been most recklessly driven during this summer in that locality?

As regards the points raised in the first and last sentences of the question, no Reports have reached the War Office. The Director of Public Prosecutions is taking the steps that are necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether Captain Marindin's range-finder has been adopted for the infantry; and, if so, whether any award has been granted to him?

The reply to both, questions is in the affirmative.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether Lord Kitchener will be under the orders of the War Office or the Colonial Office when performing his future duties in East and West Africa?

It would be premature to enter at present on the details of Lord. Kitchener's appointment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War a question, of which I have given private notice, with reference to the circulars issued by the War Office to the Territorial Forces. Whether the Order No. 14 deals with the dress of chaplains, and the form the scarf should take, and whether the second Order says that, as uniform, only the above-mentioned scarf is authorised. In view of the approaching winter, will he give the matter further consideration, so as to avoid unnecessary disturbance to the chaplain?

All that has been done is that the War Office does not give its authority for any other scarf. Amongst the ecclesiastical gentlemen there might be some difficulty, and the War Office does not intend to embroil itself.

The right hon. Gentleman does not understand my question. Is he aware that nothing else but the scarf is authorised to be worn?

I am not myself conversant with the details of these matters, but I presume it is open even to the humblest man to wear clothes.

May I in the first place ask the Prime Minister if he can give us any view of the Government's intention with regard to business in the course of next week? I put the question to-day rather than on Thursday because it is very convenient, especially at this time, to have full notice as soon as possible of the way the Government intend to proceed. Then may I ask another question on a matter of great public importance. As he is aware, the Development Grant Bill has now gone to Grand Committee. I think at the time he was giving us the statement known as the "slaughter of the innocents" he implied if that Bill was controversial—I do not wish to impute any breach of faith, but he certainly used language which by ordinary Parliamentary methods of interpretation would be understood as indication that that was not a Bill that the Government intended to press if it excited much Debate. Whatever its second reading merits may be, I think the Government will admit it is a Bill that ought to be most carefully discussed in Grand Committee, and the appeal I wish to make to him is if he intends—really intends—to proceed with the Bill that he should so arrange the days on which the Grand Committee sit in relation to the days on which the Budget is taken, so as to make it possible for Members interested in both those important measures to take some part in them. I think he will feel that is not an unreasonable request to make at the present time. Those are the two points.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to take at an early date the Resolutions in regard to Mineral Duties that appear every day on the Paper? It would be a great convenience to know if they are going to take them at an early date.

As regards the business for next week, we propose to take on

Monday and Tuesday, Finance Bill (Committee);

Wednesday and Thursday, Irish Land Bill (Report);

Friday, Irish Land Bill (Third Reading).

With regard to the Standing Committee on the Development Fund Bill, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will repeat the question to-morrow. Upon the question of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. L. Hardy), I will consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

In reference to the Bill of which notice appears on to-day's Paper (Places of Worship) (Enfranchisement), may I ask whether its appearance indicates any hope of its being passed? The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Enfranchisement of Places of Worship Bill and the Bishopric of Sheffield Bill were more or less dependent on one another.

I am anxious that both Bills should go through. I am afraid their fortunes are somewhat intertwined, and there must be some arrangement between the promoters of both if either is to go forward.

moved to leave out the words "by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking, or is otherwise under any direct or indirect obligation of any kind."

It appears to me that these words are entirely unnecessary. Either a man is bound or he is not, and to introduce all this surplusage can serve no useful purpose. It has been more than once pointed out that portions of this Bill are a réchauffé of our dear departed friend, the Licensing Bill of last year. If the Committee will compare the words in the two Bills they will see how closely allied they are. In Clause 37 of the Licensing Bill, dealing with clubs, the words were "on the ground that the club is bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking, or is otherwise under an obligation." The words here are the same until you get to "obligation," when they are stiffened up by the insertion of "direct or indirect." I beg the Government to preserve simplicity of style. You cannot have a stronger word than "bound." I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

The hon. Member said that this Clause was a réchauffé of a dear departed friend. A réchauffé is never really agreeable, and I should imagine that nothing could be less agreeable than a réchauffé of a corpse. I should prefer to say that the Clause is a resurrection. I admit that the words are similar to those used in the Licensing Bill of last year in relation to clubs. The hon. Member proposes to leave out the words after "bound" which indicate the way in which a tie is brought about in these houses. If we left the provision at "bound," I am afraid we should be asked over and ever again, "Bound, how? In what circumstances"—and so forth. Therefore the Government cannot accept the Amendment. These words were very carefully considered after the long Debates on the Licensing Bill, and, subject to further argument, I do not think that better words could be found to indicate our meaning.

As far as I am concerned, a good deal will depend, in reference to this Amendment, on what the 'Government intend to do in connection with my proposal to leave out the words "or indirect." That Amendment does not go so far as the present proposal, but I agree with my hon. Friend that these words are quite unnecessary. I do not think that in this particular case you want to rope-in certain arrangements which may be very beneficial to the licence holder, and which are not in the nature of a binding covenant such as you often find in tied-house agreements in England. But I will deal with the case I have in mind when we reach my Amendment.

The words "any covenant, agreement, or undertaking" are very wide words, and would cover every legal obligation I can think of. I cannot imagine what the words "direct or indirect obligation" are intended to cover, or of what use they will be. I suggest that the point could be met by leaving out the extremely vague words referring to direct or indirect obligations. We ought to be precise in a statute of this kind. These words might be twisted to mean something which is not intended; at all events, their meaning is not plain. I hope, therefore, that they will be left out, and that we shall keep to the plain words "covenant, agreement, or undertaking."

I do not think that any lawyer will dispute that the words of the Clause as at present drafted—the two expressions, "bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking" and "any direct or indirect obligation of any kind"—are tautology. It really does not matter whether you, in regard to the licence holder, make the provision the one or the other, but I state, without fear of contradiction from the distinguished lawyers on the Front Bench opposite, that the words "any direct or indirect obligation" add nothing to the words "any covenant, agreement, or undertaking," and in the same way the words "any covenant, agreement, or undertaking" can add nothing to the sentence that follows. But what follows if you thus repeat in its duplicated form the expression of the same thing? Anyone familiar with the practice of the Law Courts is aware of what happens. Some lawyer gets up and argues that the Legislature would never have used the further expression if they had not meant to add something to the phrasing and meaning of the first. I hope the Government will destroy the tautology of this phrase, and make up their minds which of the two sentences they mean to adopt as being more calculated to convey their meaning.

I thought, when I first saw this Amendment, that the point was a small and unimportant one. I confess on listening to my hon. and learned Friend that I have reconsidered the matter. He knows what he is talking about in these matters. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston (Mr. Gave) has also told us that so-far as his ingenuity and imagination go, every legal obligation would be covered by the words "any covenant, agreement, or undertaking." Putting, therefore, these two considerations together, the court might be compelled to hold, against its will, that not a legal, but a purely moral obligation of some sort existed. The tenant of a tied house might be under a. moral obligation—gratitude or something of the sort—not expressed in the words "any covenant, agreement, or undertaking" and it might be that a moral obligation of the sort would be held to enable the licence holder to pass some portion of the duty on.

Those who practice in the courts know perfectly well that the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Smith) has mentioned is constantly being raised in the way he has suggested. No doubt outside there is considerable doubt as to what these words mean. I would like to ask the Solicitor-General if he will say whether they apply to a case similar to that stated to me the other day, where the tenant is tied by a loan from a person?

indicated an affirmative reply.

The Solicitor-General says that is included. That will settle that point. I would also like to ask the Solicitor-General another question: Cases occur where the tenant occupies a house, and takes the commodity from the landlord. There is no tie in the ordinary sense of the word, but he might be turned out if he did not take the commodity from that particular trader. Is he included in this Clause? It is not a direct tie, but a most indirect tie. Do the provisions of the Clause apply to Ireland and Scotland? There are a tremendous lot of tied houses in the Cork district.

I think this brief discussion is illustrative of the kind of difficulty which we must get into when we attempt t to deal with these complicated relations of modern industry. The difficulty chiefly centres round the, words of the Clause "or indirect obligation." It is very difficult to understand precisely what the Government themselves mean by "indirect obligation." My hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down mentioned a case in which there was a mortgage where, without any specific obligation on the part of the tenant to buy his beer and spirits from that source, there was an understanding that he should buy his liquor from the firm that lent him the money. My hon. Friend rather went on the hypothesis that there would be a fear that this should be used as an instrument of compulsion to induce the tenant to buy the liquor of a particular manufacturer. A more difficult case than that arises, because there may be no attempt to use this mortgage as an instrument of oppression, but the man who has borrowed the money may be well aware that he is merely a mortgagor like anybody else. There is no reason why those who lend the money should not call up the-mortgage just as they would with the ordinary borrower in the ordinary market, whereas if he is one of their assured customers he might expect more favourable terms than merely the ordinary borrower in the ordinary market. That case must be not an uncommon one. Is that case aimed at by the words "indirect obligation"? Is the mortgagor in these circumstances under an indirect obligation to buy his liquor from a particular manufacturer? There is another case which I think is more difficult, and more difficult because it is more common and universal. I understand that one of the most familiar practices in the relations between wholesale traders of all descriptions and the retail traders of all descriptions—not merely the wholesale and retail liquor traders, but between the wholesale manufacturers and retail dealers in all businesses—is that some wholesale firms will supply their retailers with goods of a particular kind or class, and will, if the trader requires it,, not exact immediate payment. The matter will hang up as a sort of obligation between the two, and no doubt the practice and the result in all cases is that the retail dealer in these circumstances has a strong motive for continuing to use the particular wholesale manufacturer as the person from: whom he buys his goods, whatever those goods may be. That is a common practice, and a practice which, on the whole, is for the advantage of both parties. At all events, it is a practice that this House never would think of interfering with. Is that kind of relation between the wholes sale dealer and the retail dealer, and the resultant motives given to the retail dealer to continue his custom with the wholesale dealer—is that practice to be regarded as in the nature of that indirect obligation with which this Clause is in tended to deal?

I think the Committee will see we are really embarking on a rather difficult and delicate question, and while there are certain cases plain and simple, the case of the free house may be simple and the case of the tied house, in relation to a particular kind of liquor, beer or spirits, or both, may be perfectly clear, there is the great middle position in no sense characteristic of the liquor trade, but common to all retail and all wholesale dealing, and with this kind of transaction I understand the Government do mean to interfere in some way in this Clause. I should like to know exactly how they are going to interfere, and what view they take. I suppose the Prime Minister will answer that he recognises the difficulty, and that, adopting the usual expedient of the Government, he is going to invoke the aid of the Commissioners. That, of course, really means they are going to give some gentleman £1,000 a year to solve the problem. I do not know that that is a satisfactory arrangement, and I hardly think it fair to the Commissioners themselves, unless something is laid down either in this Clause or in the regulations, or by a schedule to the Bill, which will give them some guidance. At all events, I hope I have made the sort of difficulty that suggests itself to me perfectly clear to the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated some difficulties which arise from this middle case. We appreciate these difficulties as much as the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, but I think they will concede that if a provision of this kind is required at all, it ought to meet some cases of that description. Let me put two concrete cases, one mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and another analogous case. Take the case of a loan made to a tenant, in which there is no covenant, no agreement, no legal obligation, but where it is well understood between the parties that something will happen, if I may say so, unless the beer or other liquor is bought from the person who lends the money and who may be the brewer. The other case was the case put in the course of the discussion last year, and it was this: Supposing a brewer supplies intoxicants to a tenant of a house without there being any legal tie or obligation, and he allows a considerable balance owing to him, which is held, so to speak, in terrorem, or is intended as an obligation, whether moral or terrifying, or otherwise, upon the tenant, and if, thereby, an advantage is gained by the person who supplies the beer, is not that a case which every fair-minded man would admit ought to come within this Clause?

Supposing he raises the price of the beer—

4.0 P.M.

One question at a time is sufficient, and I am now dealing with those of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. If such an arrangement or understanding existed—neither of these is a legal term—I think everybody will admit that as to the duty in this case some distinction ought to be made. I may say at once, we intend to accept an Amendment which will only make the Clause operative in the case of the increased amount of duty under this Bill. Some distinction of that kind ought to be made. The right hon. Gentleman said that apparently this is to be decided by the Commissioners. It is to be decided by the Commissioners, as we think it ought; it is not to be decided by lawyers.

Are the Commissioners to decide and to construe words relating to tie? Is not the function of the Commissioners really the determination of the amount?

Certainly. They will have to determine the adjustment between the tenant and the landlord, or the brewer or the person who has the tie. No Member of this House, whether lawyer or not, would have any difficulty in saying what would be the fair adjustment of the increased duty in any circumstances. You do not want a lawyer for that at all; any fair-minded man could do it, and that is what we intend the procedure to be under this Clause. As I have already indicated that the Clause in its final shape will only be made to apply to the increased form of the duty, I also desire to indicate we are prepared to accept, instead of our own words, the words proposed by the hon. Member for Kingston, which would come in at the end of the Clause. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston proposes to leave out the words we have put in, "just under the circumstances," in order to insert the words "proportionate to the benefit obtained by such person from the licensee." I think I have already indicated that we want to make it perfectly clear that there should be an adjustment of the increased duties, and it must be conceded that these middle cases, where there cannot be said to be any legal obligation, ought to be dealt with. I submit that the words "direct or indirect obligation" ought to stand to enable the Commissioners to do justice between the parties concerned.

From the case stated by the Solicitor-General, I imagine that he supposes under an obligation of that kind there would probably be a certain price charged, and the tenant would be under the obligation to pay more than the ordinary free trade price. The Amendment I have on the Paper is designed to make it apply only in that case. It will apply, for instance, where a man borrows a few hundred pounds from the brewer or distiller, as is frequently done in Scotland, where he is placed under no tie whatever, and where he gets his beer and spirits at the ordinary price. Of course you cannot have it both ways.

I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his explanation. I omitted to deal with the case of a mortgage. In the case of an ordinary mortgage where no benefit accrues to the mortgagee, there would be no. adjustment at all. It is only intended to make a fair and equitable adjustment such as any reasonable man would make between a person who uses the position he has whether by loan of money or in any other way to obtain for himself an advantage from that position entirely outside the mortgage.

Are you going to accept my Amendment?

Probably, or at any rate something of that kind.

I want to bring this Debate back to the real point. I am glad to hear it is intended to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston. In this case the duty will be an exceedingly important matter, and this is a Clause which proposes that in the case of tied tenants the duty shall be adjusted. It is perfectly clear that the point which this Amendment raises is not of a drafting character, but it raises a principle of the greatest importance not merely as affecting this Bill, but as affecting the very much wider question of legislation. It is a question of defining the class of tied tenants who are to have the benefit of this Clause. The free tenant is not to have the benefit, but the tied man is to have the benefit. How is this class defined? It is defined as those persons who are tied by law, and the opening words of the Clause are enough for that. Every lawyer will agree that that exhausts the class of tied tenants in the eye of the law. This question—which will be the initial and main question—whether a given publican, asking for this relief, comes, or does not some, within this class of tenants, is not going to be determined by the Commissioners but by the court. The court will determine that according to legal principles. This Clause proposes to define the class of tied tenants, and it defines them as those who are legally tied. This is a matter of great importance. Who are the second class? They are persons who, in the eye of the law, are not tied tenants.

Therefore, you are proposing to create a class for legal purposes upon whom you are going to impose legal liabilities who, nevertheless, are not bound in law. What are they bound in? How can a court of law judge in this matter? If they are not bound in law how can the court judge whether they come within this class or not? Is this going to be a matter of right feeling or emotion, and not a matter of law? I know the Solicitor-General sees this great difficulty, and to meet it he keeps putting in words which are getting him into strange regions. If this was intended by both parties as an obligation the words are unnecessary, and we are once more on the safe, familiar ground of legal obligations. But that is not so. Here is to be a class of persons who are to be brought within the Clause, or stand outside it, according as to whether they entertain or do not entertain an apprehension. It need not be a reasonable apprehension. Supposing a publican has borrowed money from his brewer without any tie at all, and he says, "I am not bound to take my beer from this man; he has never spoken to me about it, and he has never threatened to call his money in. I am afraid, however, if I do not take my beer from him he will call his money in." The brewer might be called before the court, and he might say, "I assure you on my honour I have no intention of doing anything of the kind." Has the court to say under those circumstances, "No, we believe this man's fear is well grounded, and we think you would; therefore we shall treat him as a tied tenant, although he is not a tied tenant"? Take another case. A publican might say, "I have no tie or loan of any sort, and the brewer is not my landlord, but I am afraid he might put up the price of my beer, or he might set people against me, and I am afraid if I do not take my beer from him he might set up another public-house in my neighbourhood." There is no fear too fantastic or remote which could not be set up. If this Committee is going outside legal obligations and allow a court of law to take note of all the matters I have sug- gested, then I say we are embarking upon a new and an enormous field.

This Amendment deals with the words "any direct or indirect obligation," and I think it is not desirable that we should have a fresh discussion on this point. We are now merely discussing those words.

Probably the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston is a better Amendment upon which to have this discussion than the one I have moved.

Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?

I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment.

The remarks I wish 'to make apply more to the first than to the second Amendment, therefore I would like to state my point here. The case I raise is such a peculiar one that I think it requires special attention. Take the concrete case of the licensed victualler who ties himself voluntarily to the brewer in order that he may obtain the advantage of selling that particular brewer's goods under that brewer's name. This is an actual case with which I am familiar. The custom is as follows: A free house desires to sell the goods of a particular brewery under the brewer's name. The brewer goes to a particular licensed victualler in a certain street, and says, "I understand you want to take my goods. There is another man wants to sell them a little lower down in your street, but if I supply you my condition is that you take my goods, and no other, and sell them under my name." That is a particular case to which I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister. It is a case with which I am personally familiar, and it has been the practice for the last 60 years. Under this Amendment that brewer is responsible for the Licence Duty.

No.

Yes, because it is a direct obligation, and this particular publican I have alluded to is tied by this agreement as long as the lamp of the brewer is fixed outside his premises, because he can take no other goods, and therefore it is an absolute agreement.

I was not denying that it was an agreement. The hon. and gallant Member said the brewer would be bound to pay the whole of the Licence Duty, and that is why I denied it.

The Clause says, "under any direct or indirect obligation of any kind." I contend that where goods are of a certain value, and are appreciated more than other goods of the same character, the goodwill attaches to the brewer, and not to the publican. It is an extraordinary thing that under this Bill such firms are hit all round, because they have to pay extra Licence Duty upon the goodwill of the article they supply. This shows the extraordinary folly of a Bill of this kind being framed by people who do not know anything about the trade, and they have never taken the trouble to consult the trade. Nobody has asked the brewers' opinion and advice as to how this proposal will affect the trade. The Government go to the professional scribbler, probably a most worthy and estimable individual, but he cannot be familiar with all the technicalities of a vast trade which represents £200,000,000 or £300,000,000, and which is collecting for the State £38,000,000 free of expense. This is a case totally different from those which have been discussed. We are familiar with the case in which the brewer gets the advantage. In this particular case, with which I am personally familiar, it is entirely the other way. I want something definite put in the Bill, and not leave it to the individual opinion of some unknown person called a Commissioner. I think I am entitled, before this Amendment is withdrawn, to press for an answer from some responsible Member of the Government as to what will be the effect on that particular case.

The case put by my hon. Friend certainly deserves an answer. It is not met by the Bill as it stands, whatever may be the effect of the Amendments the Government intend to accept. I would like, before the Government answer, to ask another question in regard to those words which deal with the case of direct obligation. I shall not speak at this moment about the indirect obligation. Is it, or is it not, the intention of the Government, where there is a direct obligation, as there constantly is on the owner of a licensed house, to take his mineral waters from a particular firm, that the mineral-water firm should pay a portion of the new Licence Duty?

The words are "intoxicating liquors."

Those are the words, but I want to know whether they really express the meaning of the Government. If so, on what possible ground do you make the distinction? You make this charge upon the brewer who has a tie over the house on the ground that he derives a benefit from the licence. He secures a place and a market for the sale of his goods which, but for the licence and the tie he would not have, and accordingly you say, deriving that benefit from the licence through the tie, he is at any rate to be charged with a part of the new Licence Duty. What possible distinction is there between his position and that of the mineral water manufacturer who has a similar tie? Do you mean to tell me that the right to sell mineral waters in a fully licensed public-house is of no value, or at any rate that it is of no more value than the right to sell in any house in the same street where there is no licence? Do you mean to tell me there is no value given to the right to sell mineral waters in a particular house by the fact that that house is licensed at the same time to sell spirits? It would be the greatest nonsense to pretend any thing of the kind. The advantage to the mineral-water manufacturer in the case I have named is exactly on a par, whatever its worth, with the advantage to the brewer who has a tie in beer, or to the distiller who has a tie in spirits. Having, thanks to the courtesy of the Solicitor-General, got it that the words of the Bill do express the intention of the Government, I now invite them to justify that intention, and to explain to the House the distinction between the two cases which renders it just that you should tax the brewer for the advantage which the licence confers upon him, and should allow the mineral water manufacturer, who receives a similar advantage, to go free.

I wish to ask a few questions. This is the first of the Licensing Clauses with which I entertain any sympathy, strange as it may appear, because, as a rule, I represent the tenant class in this controversy. I should, therefore, be glad if I could see any effective clause which would enable the burden to be thrown upon another class. I make that avowal frankly. There will be two innocent persons, and I have to consider which of them should suffer. Naturally, I prefer that the poorer man should escape, and that the richer man should have thrown upon him a burden which prob- ably his shoulders would be more able to bear. I have, therefore, brought to this Clause the most benevolent intentions on my part. At least, I will say I will not cast an evil eye upon it. I am, however, convinced it will do no harm to the hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. I am convinced it is futile as it now stands, and it will not be of the smallest advantage to the tied tenant. The first words are "bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking." It must be a legal covenant, a legal agreement, and a legal undertaking. It must be something that the law will recognise and act upon. I think the next words, "under any direct or indirect obligation," are mere moonshine. The courts treat adjectives and adverbs with very scant courtesy. Unless you have a legal obligation, you may take it for granted that men learned in the law will pay very small attention to any embroidery that precedes it in the way of adjectives. You must, therefore, have a legal obligation. Then what is the good of putting in mere poetry? The point is, there must be a legal, enforceable obligation. It is perfectly idle to contend that these words have any force.

That is on the legal aspect. Let me put it on the human aspect. Take the case of a monthly tenant. Unless you are going to give that man fixity of tenure, what is the good of providing for a fair rent? If he can be ejected at the end of his month, and if the annual tenant can be evicted from his premises at the end of twelve months, what is the good of making this provision? The Clause, as I understand, only applies to existing agreements. It would be perfectly futile to apply it to future agreements, because the man who is tieing the house would then know what fatal number he had drawn in his register, like the French conscript who had drawn his fatal number in the recruiting field, and he would know the exact amount of his liability, and he would say to his tenant, "Do not blame me, I am only a poor brewer. My rent is only £60, but the British Government want £150 more. Your rent, therefore, will be the total of the two amounts." Mr. Gladstone saw this point when dealing with the landlord and tenant case. Why does not the present Government see it? Unless you give the tenant absolute freedom, these words are not of the smallest importance. Supposing a man is tied to one house for beer and to another house for whisky, who is going to pay? I have known that class of case. Sometimes a man is free to take his whisky where he pleases and is tied only for beer. I want to know against whom he is going to bring his action? I take it this matter has to be decided by an action before a jury. The Commissioner, if there is no agreement, would certify that a particular amount was due, and then the man would bring his action in the High Court. The Court would say, "The Commissioner was not a lawyer. He told you you would be entitled to recover £100, but this is a court of law, and we very much regret you have had your action for your pains." Would it not be a fairer way to deal with it if it was sufficient for the Commissioner to certify that John Smith had to be repaid £50, and not drive the man into the law court in order to ascertain whether the amount is repayable or not?

I come to the next point. How is it, when dealing with the criminal law, you are always so generous in your language and do not leave a single loophole? Take the case of conspiracy. It is not "obligation," but "compel or induce." The most effective tie is enforced in Ireland by a system of inducement that is as absolutely ^coercive as the alleged obligation under this Bill. A publican in the poorer parts of Dublin dare not have the dray of any other brewer outside his door unless it is Gtuinness's. I remember once a brewer told me about his business. He said, "I can only deliver my beer at night, because the population who do custom in this public-house, if they saw beer of a class not suitable to their palate, would not go to that house." Guinness's label is most potent and coercive. A man puts it in his window, and it means no other goods in the world are sold in that house. You cannot say there is an indirect obligation, but, if you ask any person acquainted with these matters, he would tell you that, so far as the tie is concerned, it is a sort of wireless telegram that reaches everybody through the palate. The public will not "have anything else. While Guinness's reap their profits as usual, the whole of these tenants—and there are whole streets of them—will still be compelled to pay the higher duty. I suggest this Clause is not strong enough. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway want to weaken the Clause, but I want to buck up the Government to strengthen it. That is the test of their bona fides. Now let me put this case to my hon. and learned Friend. It is the very common case of one man starting another in business in Ireland. He starts him in a grocery business. You do not use the word "publican" at all in Ireland. When one publican speaks of another he calls him a grocer, and the trade is called, the "grocery trade," because they also sell commodities which are not intoxicating liquors. Nothing could be easier in the world than for an arrangement to be made whereby this Clause would be absolutely defeated, and I want to know why is the man who is tied to a public-house to get an advantage which the free man does; not get? That is the astonishing point. The tied man is a bird of passage—

This really should come on later on a new clause.

Very well, I thoroughly accept your ruling, and I will confine myself to asking the questions which I put sympathetically to the Government. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to cut down this Clause by accepting any Amendment so as to weaken it in anyway, because it is true there is a trembling class of tied tenants seeking relief and hoping to get it under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, instead of weakening, should strengthen and extend the Clause and give it a far wider application than is at present contemplated.