§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)Having listened with satisfaction to the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the efforts which he has made to shorten the Debates upon the Licensing Bill; and bearing in mind that we are placed in some difficulty by the fact that we are to consider at once some of the Amendments which he has announced, I would ask him, as this particular proposal does not touch the substance of the proposals of the Government, whether he will consider the propriety of giving up the ear- 1659 marking of this money I That proposal has no practical effect, and I believe that the withdrawal of it would not weaken the position of the Government, and would greatly simplify the passage of a large portion of the Ministerial scheme.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI appreciate the spirit which has prompted the question of the right hon. Gentleman, but the Government cannot disregard the fact that this principle has received the approval of the House by a considerable majority. The Government do attach importance to this question. The money is to accumulate, to be at the disposal and under the direction of Parliament on future occasions. I will read the words again for the information of the right hon. Gentleman—
The sum of £50,000 shall be applied for the purpose of such extinction of licences in Scotland as may he hereafter provided by any Act amending the Licensing Acts, and until such Act is passed shall be invested and accumulated as provided by this Act.The money, therefore, will remain at the disposal of Parliament.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)That leaves the Irish Question exactly where it was. Are we to understand that the section applying to Ireland is to remain as it stands?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI certainly propose that the words shall stand.
§ SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN (Glasgow, Bridgeton)Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the object of the great majority of the Scotch Members is to obtain this sum of £50,000 for the advancement of free education, and does the right hon Gentleman propose, by pressing this ear-marking clause, to announce the determination of the Government to disappoint the nearly unanimous wish of Scotchmen?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI need hardly point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is almost impossible to meet the wishes of everybody in this House. We are obliged to adhere to the plan we have indicated.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIs not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to announce nakedly——
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI withdraw that expression. I recognise that I went too far; but I wish to ask, how is it that the 1660 Government are not afraid to assert nakedly that in the case of Ireland this money is to be used for the extinction of licences? Why are not the words in the Scotch and Irish clauses to be the same?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThere is no difference between the proposed application of the money in the case of Scotland and the application of it in the case of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member must have misunderstood my statement.
§ MR. STOREY (Sunderland)Is there any precedent for passing an Act of Parliament for the purpose of creating a fund to be hereafter used in this or a future Parliament?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHIt has been done.
§ MR. C. J. DARLING (Deptford)I would ask whether, if this ear-marking clause is passed, it will in any way prevent Parliament from dealing with the money in another Session, or even in this, precisely as it pleases?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI know of nothing that can prevent Parliament from dealing with the money as it may think fit.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)Does the Chief Secretary intend to persevere with the provisions relating to new licences, seeing that, as drawn, they are wholly inapplicable to the condition of Ireland?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is my intention to persevere with the proposals. If it should be shown to be necessary, the words will be altered to meet the case of Ireland.
§ MR. D. CRAWFORD (Lanark, N. E.)Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to tell the House that if the clause applying the money to the purpose of extinguishing licences is passed, it will be possible for Parliament to deal with the money anew without first repealing the clause?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHCertainly not.
§ MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)I would suggest that, after the announcement of the First Lord of the Treasury, it would be advisable to postpone the further consideration of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Bill and to proceed this evening with other Orders.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI may remind the hon. Member that the Committee have now under consideration the 1st sub-section of the clause, and that it does not involve any reference to the 1661 question of the extinction of licences. Therefore, it would be quite out of the question to adjourn it further.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTBut we shall come almost immediately to the 2nd sub-section, upon which the whole question will arise. I endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend that we should be given time in which to consider the character of the Government's proposals. The matter is very important, for if what the right hon. Gentleman opposite calls the ear-marking provision is inscribed in the Statute Book, supposing that in a future Session or future Parliament the House of Commons does not approve of applying the money to the purpose of the extinction of licences, it could not be applied to any other purpose without the consent of the House of Lords. We are to be committed in this Session to appropriating this money and accumulating it in future years to the purchase of licences, and that policy cannot be altered in the future without the consent of the House of Lords. If that is so, the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to shorten the proceedings on this Bill.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI think it is perhaps undesirable that I should enter into an argument on this question.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYIt is very desirable.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI am not sure whether it is perfectly in order to do so. I will only point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal the Government has made was embodied in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford, and for which he voted last week.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTNot to be devoted to licensing.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHThe effect of the proposal of the Government is substantially the same, only it is of a much more extended character, as the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Central Bradford last week. The proper course, undoubtedly, is to discuss the question when we arrive at the subsection in Committee, and I think I shall then be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. But I must remind him that any Licensing Bill that may pass this House must also be considered by the House of Lords. Therefore, any change in the present system, which we all desire to see changed, must have the 1662 approval and concurrence, as I believe it will have, of the other House.
§ MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sub-section under discussion may be disposed of; but I earnestly appeal to the leader of the House to postpone for one day the 2nd subsection, so as to allow Scotch Members opportunity to consider the hearing of the Government proposals.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHI cannot give any promise to postpone Sub-section 2. When it is reached, the Government will hear the arguments and consider what course they will take.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWhat objection have the Government to withdrawing the clause? Is the First Lord of the Treasury aware that the Irish law on this subject is quite distinct from that of England?
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Attorney General for Ireland has placed on the Paper an Amendment which simply applies the English clause to Ireland, to which it is totally inapplicable.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI cannot venture to offer any opinion as to the value of the objection raised by my hon. Friend opposite to the Amendments of the Government as affecting Ireland; but I believe that, whatever value the objections have, they will apply equally to the Bill of the hon. Member for North Longford. I think the hon. Member will probably see that it will be convenient to deal with Ireland, England, and Scotland in one Bill if it be possible, and I will consider the best method of attaining that object.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to give notice that, as the Irish Members feel that Ireland is vitally interested in the English clause, it will be their duty to put down all their Amendments on the English clause.