§ (1) If, in the manner hereinafter provided, a requisition demanding a poll under this Act in any area is lodged with the local authority, the local authority shall cause a poll of the electors in such area (hereinafter called "a poll") to be taken in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
§ (2) The questions to be submitted to the electors at a poll shall be the adoption in and for such area of (a) a no-change resolution, or (b) a limiting resolution, or (c) a no-licence resolution.
§ (3) On a poll in any area—
- (a) if three-fifths at least in number of the votes recorded are in favour of a no-licence resolution, and not less than thirty per cent, of the electors for such area on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to be carried; or if
- (b) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a limiting resolution, and not less than thirty per cent, of the electors for such area on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to be carried; or if
- (c) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a no-change resolution, such resolution shall be deemed to be carried; and
§ (4) An elector shall not be entitled to vote for more than one of the resolutions submitted at the poll, but if a no-licence resolution be not carried, the votes recorded in favour of such resolution shall be added to those recorded in favour of the limiting resolution, and shall be deemed to have been recorded in favour thereof.
§ (5) Any such resolution if carried shall remain in force until the resolution is repealed or superseded as hereinafter provided.
§ Mr. BARNESI beg to move, in Subsection (2) after the word "area" ["adoption in and for such area"], to insert the words "of municipalisation under conditions drawn up by the Scottish Local Government Board or, alternatively, if the votes cast in favour of municipalisation are less than a two-third majority of those voting."
253 The effect of these words, if adopted, would be to give the people in the various areas under this Bill an additional option—that is, additional to the options already conferred upon them under the terms of the Bill. There will be no additional poll; the same poll will do, but each man will have two votes. The first vote will be cast in favour of or against municipalisation, and, in the event of that not being carried by the majority stated, the other courses would follow in the terms of the Bill. I will explain why I put it down so early in the Bill. I am told that according to the framework it would not have been competent for me to put it down later, although it is usual to add an Amendment of this sort at a later stage of a Bill. Let mo also explain the two-thirds majority. It will be noted that it is a larger majority than is required for either of the options in the Bill. Even the most drastic one only requires three-fifths, whereas I require here two-thirds. The reason of that is that municipalisation is a drastic proposal, and I do not want it to be taken up lightheartedly, or by way of experiment. I only want it to be taken up when there is a sufficiently large majority to show that the people have made up their minds thereupon, and that they are more or less irrevocably bound up with it. That is the proposal for which I ask the favourable consideration of the House. It will be noted that the distinctive feature about the Amendment is that it separates the element of personal private profit from the traffic in drink. We have been told during the Debates on this Bill that to-day there are in Scotland 10,000 or 12,000 licence holders. If that is the case, every one of these men is trying to sell as much drink as he possibly can. I am not saying that in any disparaging way of them. They are in no way different from the sellers of every other commodity. The man who sells bread sells as many loaves as he can, and for men who are in business it is their endeavour to sell as much of the commodity in which they deal as they can.
The publican is in no way different from other people. He sells as much as he can, and, of course, makes his house as attractive as he can to his customers. I am afraid it is attractive in marked contrast to the squalor and misery around his house, which is frequently caused by his trade. Probably it is a custom to wink at a good many things that go on. I am 254 told that in the poorer districts he sells drink such as encourages a thirst for more. Even if all these things are true, the publican is in exactly the same position as other people; he has to push his business, and he does so. I am afraid that sometimes he is pushing something against the public interest, and against the interest of his customers. The Government have recognised that it is necessary to have inspectors even in the building of battleships. They recognise that the trader is liable to do things which strict honesty would not permit. The only difference beween the ordinary trader and the publican is that whereas around the one there is the clement of keen competition, around the publican there is not that competition; therefore he is more likely to do the things that others are not. Under my proposal the seller of liquor, as the agent of a municipal authority, would not have the same interest in pushing the sale of drink. An hon. Member suggests that there would be profit, but there would not be profit for him. He would be the agent of a public authority. It is probable that his pay would be a fixed pay, and it is possible that the pay might even vary inversely with the sale of liquor, or might be increased with the sale of food, or the income from innocent recreation, or things of that sort. At all events it is conceivable that the public authority, in the public good, might so surround the agent—that is, the publican—with moral circumstances as to make his interest altogether different from the sale of drink or the excessive sale of drink.
I should like to point out that in so far as we have experience to enable us to form a judgment, that has taken place. We find in Gothenberg, for instance, where the element of private profit has been removed from the sale of drink, that the places are altogether different in character from the places with which we are accustomed. There the houses are such as to lead to sobriety and order and sociability without excessive drinking, and we find that excessive drinking has very much decreased. I might mention a case also in Scotland, where there are many such, under the public trust where the excessive drinking has been lessened, and these other conditions have arisen. I was down in the constituency of the Lord Advocate a year or two ago, and I found in Armadale, under a public trust, a house where the element of private profit had been removed, and the place was such 255 as anyone could go into and take his family when he liked, and where a certain amount of the profits was devoted to public purposes, such as paying a nurse for the nursing of the poor of the whole district, and not only the members of the particular association; and I think it is conceivable, if this traffic were in the hands of the public authorities, that the profits might go to some extent in that direction if there were profits, but I should say it would not be to the interest of the community, and therefore not the aim of the municipal authority to make a profit at all. There is another thing. I propose this Amendment because I believe is is the most direct and effective method of lessening the number of public-houses. Why is it that we have an excess of public-houses? It seems to me it is because we have a large number of men whose interests lie in that direction and who are tied up to them, whose noses have to be kept to the grindstone to make a living, and you find them at every street corner, whereas if the traffic was under one control, and that a municipal control, there would at once arise a set of circumstances leading directly to the number of public-houses being lessened, not from social or moral considerations at all, but merely from commercial and economic reasons. For instance, if a municipal authority owns the public-houses in any area, surely as business men they would see that there was not a public-house at every street corner, but they would have them only in such numbers as were absolutely necessary to supply the demand.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEMay I ask how it is proposed that they are going to take over the public-houses? Would they pay for them?
§ Mr. BARNESI am not going to commit myself to anything of the sort. I have already stated that is a matter for the Local Government Board. The people can have the conditions in front of them. If they like to buy them, well and good; if the Local Government Board think they should not be bought, also well and good. The people, at all events, would have the final voice. Then I propose this Amendment as an extension, and I submit a legitimate extension, of municipal activity. We already have municipal authorities owning tramcars, gas and water, and electricity, and many of them have even gone beyond that, and are providing washhouses, places of amusement, and 256 even gas stoves, and everyone of those steps has been proved to be for the benefit of the community. I am old enough to remember the opposition to municipal tramcars. All the interests were up against them, but I think it is now generally admitted that tramcars municipally owned have been an immense success. The service has been improved, the conditions of labour have been improved, and the rates, as a result, have been lowered. If municipal activity has been a success so far as these things are concerned, I want to know why it should not be a success in regard to the liquor traffic. Of course, it is said sometimes that all these things are in their nature monopolies and that a municipal authority has only so far interfered with monopoly. That is not altogether true, because, as a matter of fact, there is no monopoly in gas stoves or the supply of milk, which is now undertaken by municipal authorities with great advantage to everyone concerned. But, after all, the drink traffic is a monopoly, and in private hands we have allowed its monopolistic nature to remain, and, I think, to be used very often against measures of progress in which I and many of my Friends have been interested. Then it has been also scheduled as a dangerous trade, and therefore one which, I think, ought to come under direct municipal or public control.
I find that the Secretary for Scotland the other day, in speaking on the principle of monopolisation, said that he was in favour of municipal authorities doing things on behalf of the community, and I think he went on to say doing great things or great service for the community, but he was not in favour of their doing this. I do not know why he should distinguish between this and other services, except that it conveys some sort of a slight upon municipal authorities. The trade may be surrounded by dangers, but, after all, the municipal authorities, in so far as they have extended their activities into these spheres that I have mentioned, have been perfectly honest and have been perfectly efficient. Xo charge has been brought against a municipal authority as such, that I know of, of having done anything underhand or dishonest or against the public interest, and therefore I see no reason to believe that in the event of municipal activity being extended to this traffic anything different would arise from what has arisen in the case of other traffic. I know it is 257 said by many that this traffic is evil in its character and should not be touched by a public authority; that it would be a source of demoralisation in public life if it was municipalised. But I would ask the Secretary for Scotland to remember that the trade is already a source of great evil. Everyone knows how an interest gets entrenched upon by civil authorities, public demands, and so on, and, at all events, under public control it could not be any worse, and I am inclined to think it would be a great deal better. The last reason is the one which probably concerns us more than any other, and that is the labour conditions.
Everybody knows that the men engaged in this trade—I am glad to say in Scotland there are not many women engaged in it, though there are in many places in England—are paid wretchedly low wages and worked wretchedly long hours. I should say that probably they work twelve or fourteen hours per day, six days per week, and that their average pay is not much more, if any more, than £l per week. That does not differ much from what used to obtain in connection with the tramcars system in Scotland. I remember when the tramcars were run by private companies in Glasgow and Dundee, and the men were paid the same wages as are paid to public-house assistants now. What happens now? Under municipal control in Glasgow the men have had a recent reduction of hours to fifty-one per week. Every man on starting has a minimum wage of 25s., and they soon get considerably more than that sum. The same is true of other places which have municipalised these monopolies. In every case municipalisation has been followed by improved conditions of labour, and I see no reason to doubt that if the liquor trade were dealt with in the same way there would be the same result. The workers, I believe, would have shorter hours of labour and higher wages. In conclusion, I want to remind the House that this is no new thing. We are sometimes charged with making new and revolutionary proposals. This is not a new and revolutionary proposal. I find that there was a similar proposal introduced into this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain)—probably some hon. Members on the other side of the House may say in his unregene-rate days—as far back as 1877. On. that occasion it had fifty or fifty-two votes recorded in its favour. It is worthy of note that those who voted included many famous 258 men, amongst the number being John Bright, Joseph Cowen, of Newcastle, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). I believe the right hon. Gentleman last named is the only one now left. He voted in favour of this proposal at that time. I am glad to say that he is still with us, though I cannot hope to get his vote on this occasion. I commend the Amendment to the House for the reasons I have given, and I hope it will have favourable consideration.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI think my hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars Division has rather raised an idea than a scheme. He wants to lay the responsibility of the scheme upon the Local Government Board for Scotland, and as President of that Board I rather wish to refuse the responsibility. A question was put to him by the Noble Lord opposite (Marquess of Tullibardine) as to how he was going to pay the dispossessed licensees, and he did not see fit to reply to that, so that the scheme is somewhat nebulous. I would not suggest that there is anything underhand, dishonest, or unjust about municipalities. I suppose I should be one of the last in the House to suggest that, or to deny that great services have been rendered by municipalities undertaking work for the general benefit. But it is because I have some doubt whether this work would be classed in that category that I object to municipalities undertaking it. I am bound to say that his proposal was brought before me more than a dozen years ago, when I became connected with the city of Glasgow. I have never found any hesitation in taking the view that, much as I approve of great municipalities undertaking public services, I should be sorry to see them undertake the management of the liquor traffic. I find that is the view generally supported by my hon. Friends. The hon. Member referred to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham brought forward this proposal in 1877. He did, but despite his powerful advocacy it got very small support in the House, and I am afraid the support it will now receive in the country is smaller than in those days. I regret I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Question put, and negatived.
259§ Mr. MACKINDERI beg to move to leave out the words "or (c) a no-licence resolution."
This Amendment is the first of a series intended to remove from the Bill the no-licence option. It is to remove the vindictive bite of the Bill. I believe the adoption of this Amendment would make for the cause of temperance in Scotland. I believe that persistence in the no-licence option will have the effect of rendering this Bill, if it becomes an Act, to a very large extent nugatory, more especially in view of the fact that the Government refuse to find or sanction any form of compensation. The whole aspect of the Bill will, of course, with the public, be governed by the extreme positions in it. On the one hand you provide no scheme of compensation, and on the other hand you provide a no-licence option. I believe that in moving this Amendment we are taking action in the interest of temperance. I do not believe that in Britain, and in Scotland especially, when this Bill becomes law, if it does become law, you will find it would be popular, in view of the tyranny which is possible under this option once it is indicated by examples. I use the expression "tyranny" because the areas are small. You are dealing with parishes. It is quite possible that you may deal with many parishes in which there is only a single public-house. Possibly there may be one in other parishes no great distance away. It may happen that you will have a movement of a truly vindictive character in the attempt to suppress a single public-house—in other words, taking away the living of a man known to a district. It may be argued that such a person, who is condemned by the district, should have his licence taken away, but the district is in a very awkward position. Either you will have to deal with the man because of his own character, in which case, of course, many will be his friends whatever his character, or, on the other hand, you are estopped from dealing with him because he is a popular man. The proper authorities for dealing with individuals are the magistrates. The popular vote is not a proper way for dealing with individuals. A vote for the purpose of the option of a decreased number of licences is defensible, and if the Bill only contained that I would support it. But in that case you are giving merely instructions to the magistrates to apply the-Bill to individual cases.
260 I submit that it is anew practice in the administration of our law that we should give to the mass of people the quasi-judicial function of applying an Act of Parliament to an individual case, and that is what would happen under this Bill in many parts of Scotland, where you are dealing with small areas and with one or two public-houses in those areas. You are preparing for an agitation, which will be of a very effective character, opposed to the cause of temperance, because nothing would appeal to the sense of justice of the people more than the fact that in particular districts and affecting particular individual cases, individual men, and individual houses, an agitation has been got up, possibly with unscrupulous methods, certainly with underhand methods, and applied to individual cases. You can imagine how correspondence will take place in the local newspapers and how unpopularity will gradually accumulate against the law in those districts. I know well that the Government will not accept this Amendment. I know that a portion of their supporters will not allow them to accept it. I know that the vote of the extreme temperance party may be of importance where you have a narrow majority. But, just as in the case of the Insurance Bill, you are accumulating opposition to the law. You aim at electoral gains. You aim at winning a small number of extreme teetotalers who are important because they vote on this issue and on this issue only, but you will accumulate against yourselves and. what is far more important, against the law, a mass of moderate men's opposition which is the last thing that those who are friends of the law in the land ought to allow to happen.
I say that this question should be argued afresh on this Amendment. It is perfectly true that we had much discussion of it on the Second Beading, but we are now faced with new facts. We are faced with the fact that there is to be no compensation, and that you are to divide the country, you are to divide a great city, into two areas, in which it is quite possible that you may have a no-reduction option exercised in one area, and in the adjoining area you may have a no-licence option. The effect would be enormously to enrich certain individuals in this trade at the same time that you ruin other individuals. And not only that, but you will be corrupting the community. Take the case where you have an area in which you have a prosperous public-house or public-houses living on the trade of sur- 261 rounding no-licence areas, and concentrating within themselves, as years go by, not merely the drinking, but the drunken residents of the area. There you will have an obvious motive for powerful and rich publicans to corrupt the electorate in their area in order that they may secure their own position. To them that have will be given. You will remove competition from certain districts. You will enrich those who remain. You will enrich those who remain with their own clients, and you will give every motive to those who remain to entrench themselves in those positions by the use of corrupt methods over the small electorate which they can reach. In those circumstances I make no apology for presenting this Amendment to the House, and for pressing it to a Division, not that I have any hope that the Government will accept it, but because I believe it is our duty not in any way to share the responsibility of this which I regard as the worst blot on this measure, and the blot most calculated to thwart the very object which those who support the measure have in view.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGIn the absence of my hon. Friend I had the very pleasing duty of proposing this Amendment in the Committee stage of this Bill. I now rise to second my hon. Friend, and to add, if I may, with the permission of the House, a word or two to what has fallen from him. I made so bold as to say that the no-licence option contained in this Clause is not only philosophically and morally wrong, but is also condemned by experience. This measure is claimed as a temperance measure. There is a true temperance, and a false temperance. True temperance can only be obtained by working on the moral sense of the people. You are not going to alter the moral character of the people and introduce temperance by legislation of a compulsory character. The principle of "no licences" is based upon prohibition. Prohibition to many of the older peoples and many of the freer peoples is in itself a defect. You provoke, by the mere imposition of prohibition, the disposition of people to rebel against it, and you are doing a very ridiculous thing if you attack sale and leave consumption at large. Temperance is not effected by a reduction of public sale, but by a limitation of consumption in public places. Temperance can only be effected, as I said in part, by affecting the moral sense of the people, and in part 262 by attacking the possibilities of consumption as well as the possibilities of public sale. The vice which is aimed at is an obvious vice, and a vice against which the Bill offers no provision, but this: that you are going to withdraw from the public field, from public inspection, from the possibility of public observation and public control and regulation, a thing which the Bill condemns, though the sense of the community as a whole permits it as lawful, and does not brand it as vicious in itself, but merely brands the abuse of it as vicious.
What are you doing? You are not saying, "You are not to drink"; you are not saying, "You are not to drink to excess; you are not to drink secretly"; all you are saying is, "You may get drunk, but you must not get drunk in a particular area. You may go across the line and get drunk if you will elsewhere; you may congregate with other drunkards in a place where three out of five vote are sober people, but where three out of five in a particular area vote to a sufficient extent upon a" particular resolution you must not get, drunk there; you must not drink there unless you are sufficiently well to do to drink in your own house. That you may do." The well-to-do man may drink at home in a no-licensed area, and the man who can afford to give an order overnight for liquor can have it delivered during prohibited hours; but if you are a poor man and depend, as many Scotch workers do, on public-houses, and not merely public-houses but restaurants where they take their meals, then, where there is no licence attached, you will get rid of control. What will then be the result? The drunkard is going to get drunk all the same. The man who can afford to drink at home will drink at home. If this option remains in this Clause you may get three wards in one town—in one a no-licence resolution, in another a limiting resolution, and in the third a no-change resolution.
9.0 P.M.
You get these three conditions existing side by side, and looked at from that point of view you are not bettering the man who is going to drink just the same; you are not benefiting the community; you are driving the drink into dangerous and hidden channels. You will drive the people who are vicious, or potentially vicious, into another area, and you are not doing one single thing for true temperance in all that you are attempting. I have looked at this from the point of view of the individual and of the community; 263 and what are the points of view from the commercial side. Look at the monstrous injustice that you are making possible. People under the ægis of the law have invested money in this trade; it is a trade which is reckoned lawful. And why is the trade lawful? It is lawful because public opinion is not definitely against it. The effect of the no-licence option will be that the majority, it is true, of those voting, but possibly not even a majority of those registered, may not only impose their will as regards temperance questions in their own immediate locality, but may be the means of destroying the livelihood, the homes, and the future of a large number of people who, though they may not be extreme temperance enthusiasts, are just as respectable and just as worthy citizens. The rights of minorities are entirely overlooked in this measure. The provisions of this Bill do not even ensure that on a no-licence question you shall have a majority in favour of the veto. Taking an area containing, say, about 10,000 voters, 3,000 may enforce their views upon 2,000, and three men out of five may impose their will upon the other two. You get this sort of possibility, that you may on a snatch vote get your proper proportion or percentage as the Bill provides, and yet you may not represent public opinion, while able to shut the best regulated hotel. I would ask the House to turn to the experience of this sort of legislation in New Zealand and America before it departs on such a project in this country. In 1893 New Zealand passed an Act which gave the necessary power to reduce be 25 per cent., and not more than that, the licences in any particular area. That was followed in 1903 by a Local Veto Act. That has been applied in six districts, and it has not worked well, but badly. What has been the result in that country of imposing the will of the majority on the minority? The result has been that since 1903 the consumption of beer in New Zealand has increased, and the number of prosecutions for drunkenness in that country has also increased. The character of hotels has deteriorated; drinking has not been abolished, it has been driven underground; and there have been introduced into New Zealand drinking dens, where drink is supplied under the worst conditions, and the drink, being of the vilest character, tends to deteriorate 264 the constitution of the people. Instead of well-conducted, open premises, open to inspection, you have drink driven out of sight, but it is there all the same; it is there under far worse conditions, incapable of control or of regulation, as would be the case were the trade lawfully conducted in the eyes of the State by the best people procurable for the work, instead of by the mere dregs of society. That is what you are getting by trying to cure vice by driving vice underground.
Nor do you get the sympathy of the people in enforcing the law. In New Zealand the police have found the utmost difficulty in enforcing the local veto law. The reason is that the law does not commend itself to the people as just. The people will not help the police to obtain convictions because the law does not commend itself to them as being founded on justice and experience. In the local veto States of America they have tried it, and it has proved a dismal failure. Nearly everywhere it has been already abandoned. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] Nearly everywhere the tendency is to abandon it, and where you have got prohibition you have virtually got open rebellion against the law, and instead of having your drinking in the front rooms of your saloons you have your drinking, which is not stopped, in the back rooms. It is not drinking you are stopping, but the regulation of the drink, and you are making the character of the vice worse, and carried on under worse conditions, and by worse people and with worse stuff. I would quote, in conclusion, words which I quoted when this Bill was in Committee, as I believe the words are not only perfect in expression, but perfect in wisdom upon this subject of local veto. They are words used by one whose sincerity cannot be questioned. They are words used, in 1907, I think, by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), who speaks, as every Member of the House knows, on whichever side he sits, with great knowledge this question, and who speaks, as every Member of this House knows, with perfect sincerity in every word which he speaks upon this question. He says in these words in a few sentences enough to condemn this no-licence doctrine, and enough to convince any Member of this House that the Amendment of my hon. Friend should carry the House with it:—
I would suggest that licensing proposals must not be directed to the outlawing of the traffic. The traffic in alcoholic liquors may be evil in the estimation of 265 some, but it is a legal traffic, and its legality is based upon the fact that public opinion as a whole refuses to brand the consumption of alcoholic liquors as wrong. If the consumption of alcoholic liquors be not wrong, then the sale of those liquors must he justifiable. To attempt an arbitrary distinction between sale and consumption is as foolish as it is misleading. The point of view which would outlaw the traffic, and therefore drive it into the least worthy hands, is a point of view which, in my judgment, would imperil and not advance the moral progress of the community. It is true that I am here opposing a view widely current in the advanced temperance party, and a view, moreover, that has determined to a large extent the licensing legislation of the United States of America, but a close study of the laws and experience of that great country has convinced me that the attempt to degrade and outlaw the liquor traffic there has aggravated the evils that are associated with the trade, and has not secured the end sincerely aimed at by the promoters of that legislation. So long as drink is sold it should be sold under decent conditions, and the sale should be in the hands of the most worthy rather than the least worthy members of the community.Every word spoken there by the hon. Member for Huddersfield I commend to the House, and with that quotation I beg to second it.
§ Mr. UREAs the hon. Member who moved this Amendment anticipated, the Government cannot accept it. To accept it would mean, as he knows very well, to strike at the very root of this measure. We have heard once more advanced very familiar arguments, which ought not to be addressed to this' House, upon a Bill such as this, the object of which I remind the House is not to extinguish licences but to transfer to the voters in certain areas discretionary power which is now confined to the magistrates. That is the sole object of this measure. If the hon. Members who have moved this Amendment would be good enough to address the arguments which were offered to-night to the House to those localities in Scotland where a requisition is presented, and the voters are about to choose which of the resolutions they will support, I am sure those arguments will receive respectful consideration. Meanwhile they have no sort of relation to the question before the House. The only question the House has to consider is whether or not the voters should have the same discretionary power given to them as the magistrates at the present moment enjoy. I desire with all the emphasis at my command to repudiate the idea that there will be any tyranny in any of the local districts in my country when the resolutions are submitted to them. I repudiate with equal emphasis the idea that there will be any unscrupulous or underhand methods adopted either on one side or the other. My fellow countrymen are not only a very sane people, but they are a very just people. Otherwise we should never seek 266 to entrust them with the discretionary powers, which I admit are very wide and very important, and the conferring of which lies at the very root of this measure.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI desire to support this Amendment, although from what the Lord Advocate has said we know that there is not very much use trying to propose any Clause or Amendment here to-night, for the very good reason that hon. Members opposite have got to get their Bill, and the public have got to get it whether they want it or not, and nobody is to be allowed to discuss it. We are simply killing time for the sake of effect. Hon. Members interested in temperance are perfectly safe, because they can count upon the votes of those who are not interested entirely in temperance. You will see prohibition carried for Scotland and passed by the great Liberal party, but where are the Gentlemen on the Liberal side who take such an enormous interest in this question I You will find one-half of them in the Smoke Room and the other half in the Dining Room, and I am quite certain they are not all drinking water. They will all come in and vote prohibition in order to vote Home Rule for the Nationalists. That is what hon. Members call a unanimous vote in favour of prohibition. It is simply a deal by one side of the House with the other. So far as this particular Amendment is concerned the Lord Advocate, I think, said that he could not accept it as it would strike at the very root of the principle. The Lord Advocate has, of course, great faith in his fellow countrymen, though he did not have so much faith in Midlothian. In any case, he believes in his fellow-countrymen. He says he wishes them to choose for themselves. I suppose when we come to the disinterested management Clause he will say they ought to have the choice in that case. If he says that he stultifies himself in every word he said in Committee, and if he does not he stultifies himself in every word he said now. The position is rather a contradiction.
One reason why I do not support this particular prohibitionist Clause is, not that I do not trust the people, but that I think it will militate a great deal against our getting rid of some public-houses under the limitation Clause. There are many people who are a little afraid of the extreme prohibitionists, and they would not support the limitation Clause for fear that they might be playing into the hands of 267 the prohibitionists. Therefore, I think they will probably vote for the status quo. Moreover, I think the proposal is on wrong lines. If hon. Members want prohibition, why do they not boldly suggest a big area? What is the good of simply starting smuggling dens I What is the good of putting people into the position of having to break the law I Hon. Members know perfectly well that the law will be infringed at every corner. If prohibition is a right thing, have it properly in a large area. But hon. Members have not the pluck to do that. They know that the country does not want it, and they hope to get it in by a side wind in small prohibition corners. If it is to do away with an evil, it is absolutely necessary to have a big area. Take, for example, the town of Perth, which is divided into six wards, and has a population of over 10,000 people. Do hon. Members really think that, if this Bill passes, and one ward in Perth, say George Street, is made prohibitionist, the people in George Street who want drink will not walk across the road into John Street and get it] Of course, they will. The whole thing is really humbug. Every prohibitionist knows that this proposal is perfectly useless so far as doing any real good is concerned. I tried to get larger areas, but was defeated. Another result will very likely be that you may have a residential suburban area where the people do not want a public-house. The hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs said that prohibition would be passed, not by the teetotalers, but by the drunkards in order to save themselves. That may happen in Dumfries Burghs, but it is not likely to be general all over Scotland. It is in the poor slum districts, where men have not the conditions in which they ought to live, where the housing is bad and the food poor, and there is general misery, that you have the most drinking. If you want to get prohibition, improve the conditions of the people. You will never get it in small slum areas by this measure. The only result will be to take profits away from a man who is conducting his business properly and doing no harm, while you will double the profits of the man in the place where drink ought not to be sold at all. The Bill will doubtless lead to secret drinking. The prohibitionist thinks that if the drinking is not seen it does not exist. But that is not the case. I know my own countrymen. I do not think the Lord Advocate will guarantee that if there 268 is prohibition in some of the areas that he represents, there will never be any drinking in those areas. If my countrymen want drink, they will get it, in spite of the Lord Advocate and all the teetotalers of Scotland. You will simply drive it into the houses. Who were responsible for the grocers' licences? I think it was the Liberal party. Their next licensing reform is to drive the drink from properly licensed places.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)The hon. Member is wandering rather far from the Amendment.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI was trying to point out that if you have prohibition under this Bill you will simply increase drinking in places where it cannot be controlled by driving it away from places where it would be under control. Therefore it is for a temperance reason that I support the Amendment. It will not be by prohibition that you will stop drinking. You will do it by educating the people as to the folly of drinking, and by improving their conditions of life, and not by any faddist legislation of this sort.
§ Mr. MUNROThis Amendment was fully discussed in Committee and it has been discussed with considerable fulness this evening. After listening to the speeches both in Committee and in the House, I am confirmed in my opinion that the provision in the Bill is a proper provision. There are one or two considerations in connection with this provision that I will venture to put before the House. The first question is: Why should the people of Scotland not have the same right in this matter as the Licensing Courts possess at the present time, and as the landlords of Scotland possess? There can be no doubt at all about it that the Licensing Courts up and down Scotland have a perfect right, if they think fit, to prohibit drinking in any particular area by withholding the licences from that area. Not only have they the power, but they have exercised that power on more than one occasion. Hon. Members will recollect the case of the Island of Lewis; the Licensing Court refused every licence in that island. It is nothing to the point to say that on certain occasions that decision was entirely reversed by the Court of Appeal. My point is that the Licensing Court has the power, and accordingly the people should have the same power as the Licensing Court exercised as their agents on their behalf.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERMay I ask the hon. Member whether it is not a fact that the particular case to which he refers, the Lewis and Stornaway licences, never came before the Court of Appeal at all?
§ Mr. MUNROI quite agree that this question was never decided in the Court of Session. But in many cases the decision was reversed in the Licensing Court of Appeal. That, however, is not my point. My point is that the power resides, so far as the law at the present goes, in the Licensing Courts in the land to withhold licences if they think fit. I do not see why the people should not also exercise this power. Not only so, but admittedly landlords throughout Scotland have exercised this very power. Why, then, should the people who have to live in or near the affected area not have the same right and power as the landlords have and have exercised time and again in Scotland? The next question I should like to put is this: Why should Scotland not have her own desire given effect to in this matter? This provision has been in every measure of this type which has been before this House for years. This particular provision of the Bill has been approved by the people of Scotland, by their representatives in this House, by an overwhelming majority, and by many of the best agencies of a social and ecclesiastical kind in the country. For those who believe in the principles of democracy it does seem to me to be sufficient answer to say that this particular principle, this particular provision, has been approved by the public of Scotland on every occasion that they have had the opportunity of giving effect to their views. The next question I should like to put is: Why should Scotland in these matters be compelled to keep step with England? The suggestion has been made that this is a very novel proceeding. Well, in Scotland we have had for the last sixty years prohibition on one day of the week. I refer to the Forbes-Mackenzie Act, now about sixty years of age, which prevents the sale of any liquor throughout the length and breadth of Scotland on Sunday. That is prohibition on one day in the week, and that Act by universal admission has been a complete success in Scotland. No sane Scotsman would ever think of proposing at this time of the day that that Act should be repealed.
Again, in Scotland, we have the sale of liquor prohibited after ten o'clock at night. Some hon. Members think we are behind England. Most of us think that 270 we are in the van in these matters in Scotland. I do not quite see why English Members should seek to impose their views of what is right and proper on this side of the border on Scotland, where the view is entirely different. The last question I would like to put is this: Why should the electors of Scotland not have liberty of choice in this matter? Members on the other side of the House are very fond of paying lip-service to the principle of liberty. By giving effect to this Amendment you concede to Scotland the right to vote upon two particular options and entirely deny her the right to vote upon a third. It seems to me that that is entirely inconsistent with the plea that has been put forward that the electors of Scotland should have a perfect right to exercise their discretion in this matter. Why should they not have the logical complement to the options they have at the present time, to which no objection is made—namely, to reduce licences or to pass a "no-change" resolution? One would think, in view of the speeches made, that this was a Bill imposing prohibition upon Scotland. It is nothing of the sort. It merely gives the electors of the country, with the landlords and the Licensing Courts, the right freely, fairly, and with discrimination to exercise their discretion in this particular matter. It would be a lop-sided discretion if you allowed them to reduce the number of licences and withheld from them the necessary corollary that if they think fit, and having regard to the circumstances of the case, they should also be entitled to say that they are in favour of the principle of "no licences" in any particular area. For these reasons I have pleasure in supporting the Bill as it stands, and I shall also have pleasure in voting against this Amendment if pressed to a Division.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSONI appreciate the fairness with which my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken has put his points, but he does not appreciate this fact, that what this proposes to do is to say that if a certain portion—I will concede to those on the other side that it may be a majority—of the inhabitants of a particular district do not want to drink and the minority do want to drink, and want to drink reasonably, that that concession should be allowed by the other side. It is quite a different thing to say that the majority shall be entitled to say, "I do not want to drink, and therefore you 271 shall not." I have never been able to see why it should be put in the power of those concerned to say that. If it were a question of the drunkard I would agree. Both sides of the House, I think, agree that no man should be allowed to drink too much. But the position of the extreme teetotaler is that any man who wants to drink moderately shall not be allowed to drink at all because there are a certain number—who may be in a majority—who think that as they do not want to drink that therefore nobody shall. It is put in Scotland in this way: "To permit me to prevent you from having anything to drink." I have never heard an answer to that way of putting it. I do not think the answer is given by the arguments which have been put by the other side.
It is all very well to refer to the Stornoway and Lewis case, and to say that it will not be applied, but you are applying the thing in a way that I think will only result, in my opinion, if it is carried out, in aggravating the evils of drink. The arguments advanced upstairs by the Government in support of the Bill were that you need not trouble about the "no-licence" resolution, as it will never come into operation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh said, I think, that it would be ten or twenty years before it came into operation, but they would not give us more than five when we were discussing the Amendment a little while ago. It is really the extreme temperance party who are riding their fads to death. They will kill their Bill so far as the practical operation is concerned. If you get the Bill through this House—and you may get it through the other—but if you get it through both, you will never get it into practical operation. The result of it is that the keenest friends of temperance are doing the worst they can to prevent, temperance reform coming into operation. We on this side are told we are not temperance reformers. I have challenged in this House and on the platform outside even the keenest temperance advocates in this House to find any greater measure of temperance reform than our 1903 Act. That was a measure which our party passed and carried through, they being able to show some moderation and common sense in temperance matters. That Temperance Act of ours was the biggest thing of the kind Scotland saw for forty years, yet now 272 we find your extreme temperance men doing a great deal more to prevent temperance reform, in this measure than any, if there be any who are actually opposed to real temperance legislation. That is what these extremists are doing in this case. They are proposing to pass this Resolution, which supporters of this Bill have said over and over again upstairs, when the Bill was in Grand Committee, would have no effect. They said: "Do-not trouble about the no-licensing resolution, because it will never come into operation." But if it does come into operation it will lead to very serious evils. We have proved our devotion to temperance by our legislation, while the extreme temperance reformers to-day are going to prevent real reform, and it is because of that I will support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. HOGGEAs the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made reference to me in regard to this question of "No licence," I should like to make my position clear. It may be that I have said on occasions that the question of veto all over Scotland would not be successful inside a long period of time.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSONI think the hon. Gentleman said that, speaking for the constituency he represented, it would be a long time before it came into operation in that constituency.
§ Mr. HOGGEQuite true, but I think this position ought to be made clear, and it is the position of most of us willing to accept this no-licensing resolution as part of the programme of temperance. We hold very strongly that in some parts of the country, especially in the sparsely populated parts, the veto would be operative and would be useful as one of the instruments in securing valuable temperance reform, but we have also held, and hold strongly, that in many districts where veto is most required—that is, in these districts over a very large number of areas—there is no hope of veto being operative, and therefore this scheme of the Government in this Bill is too narrow and too restricted. In that sense I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. What the Government want is to widen this Bill and make it a thorough Liberal measure, instead of the Conservative measure it is at this moment. They ought to make it wide enough to appeal to all classes of the community in Scotland, so 273 that we should not always require on the floor of the House of Commons to be asking for some measure to deal with this great problem of intemperance, and if the Government could do something like that and unite the people who are strong advocates of temperance as they are themselves, this measure might go through this House and the other House. If something like that was done, I do not think the opposition on the other side would be quite so strong as it is. It is because no concession is made here to opinion in Scotland, which might be made if the Government were genuinely out for temperance reform, that these difficulties arise.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWe have heard three speeches from the other side in opposition to the Amendment of my bon. Friend, and I will deal with the last speech first. The last speaker, as I understood him, says that in a sparsely populated district this proposal may have some effect. I gather he does not sit for a sparsely populated district, and the logical sequence is that in his district it will have no effect at all, and therefore he is going to support it.
§ Mr. HOGGEI may assure the hon. Baronet that if it were possible to veto every licence in my Constituency tomorrow I should be in favour of it if it were a practical proposal.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not think that advances the matter very much. The hon. Gentleman would be in favour of it if it were practical. It is not practical, and therefore he is going to vote for something which he knows is not practical. I do not think that is really a serious argument. Now I come to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wick Burghs. Their arguments seem to me to be almost identical. The argument of the Lord Advocate was that all you do is to transfer the power now in the hands of the justices into the hands of the voters, and he seems to think that it is sufficient argument to say that that would be the result, and that no further argument was necessary. The merits of the question did not seem to enter into his mind at all. He is a distinguished lawyer, and I would ask him whether he considers that the decision of the justices sitting in a room on a particular case, acting in a judicial manner after hearing the evidence, is the same kind of decision as is given by voters, however excellent 274 they may be, and I am casting no shadow of doubt upon their motives. Does he consider the decision given by 5,000 voters, who do not hear the evidence, or give it,, in a particular case brought before them, but on a large number of cases, not upon the merits of the cases, but upon the particular view they may hold as to whether or not temperance is a good thing or a bad, is the same as the decision of the justices? I venture to say, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as a lawyer, that he would not attempt to substantiate that view in a Law Court for a moment. Does he propose to substitute the voters for the judges?
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt is exactly the same thing. If the justices are the same as the voters, the voters are the same as the judges. In the course of time the right hon. Gentleman himself will fill a distinguished position on the judicial bench in Scotland. Is he going to maintain that his decision would be of no more value than that of 10,000 electors who have got a voting paper before them? The proposition does not hold water for a moment. It was the same proposition and the same argument that was put forward by the hon. Member for Wick Burghs. The hon. Member went a little further and he said there was a certain case in Stornaway where the justices took away certain licences, but when my right hon. Friend interrupted him he had to admit that these licences were restored by a Court of Appeal. Is there a Court of Appeal from the decision of the voters, and, if not, where is the analogy? If there is a Court of Appeal there might be something in the argument of the hon. Gentleman and of the Lord Advocate. It is useless to get up and say that when the justices give a decision from which there is an appeal that it is exactly the same thing iii the case of the voters from whose decision there is no appeal. Those are the only arguments which we have heard from the opposite side of the House against the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It is true that the hon. Member for Wick Burghs said something about English Members desiring to impose their will upon Scotch constituencies. I do not desire to impose my will on Scotch constituencies any more than upon English, Welsh, or Irish constituencies, but as long as I have the honour of sitting in this House as a Member of the House of Commons which represents the whole of 275 the United Kingdom, I claim the right to give my opinion whether the subject is a Scotch, English, or Irish question. I do not remember when the English Licensing Bill was discussed that there was any great abstention on the part of Scottish Members from enforcing their will in the Lobby. It may be that they did not get up and speak, but that was because they had not heard the arguments. They went into the Lobby and voted us down. No one in this House entertains a greater horror of intemperance than I do, or a greater detestation of the evils which I know drink brings about, but I say that by this sort of legislation you are not going to stop these evils. What will happen? Everyone knows that if a man chooses to drink he can get the opportunity whether a public-house is closed or not. He can buy a bottle of whisky and take it home, and in that case drinking is more likely to have an evil effect upon him than if he goes into a public-house and has two or three glasses of whisky, or whatever it is they drink in Scotland, and afterwards he is turned out of the public-house. In a private house there is no one to tell a man if he has had enough, and when he has drawn the cork, who is there to tell him when he has had enough. The result will be far worse than if he goes to a public-house and gets what he thinks is necessary for him.
In what I am going to say, I shall be, I suppose, for the moment, a democrat. I really do not see why, if I choose to buy a dozen bottles of wine and put them in my cellar and drink them, anybody should interfere to stop me. No one would do so, not even the hon. Member for Rushcliffe {Mr. Leif Jones). If I am allowed to do that, why should a poor man who cannot afford to buy a dozen bottles of wine, when he feels he would like beer or whisky, be allowed to go and have it? I may be wrong, but I really do not see any answer to that. I am not stating this in a political sense but from a common-sense point of view, and there is no answer. If hon. Members say we will for the future prohibit drinking of any kind amongst all classes of men in England, Scotland, and Wales, there would be something to be said for it, and I should vote for it, but they do not do that. What they say is that the poorer classes are to be put into a different position to the richer classes, and that is a doctrine which I have never supported and never will. I challenge any hon. Member opposite to tell me why, because I can 276 afford to buy a dozen bottles of wine, I am to be allowed to do so, whilst a man who can only afford to buy six pennyworth of gin is not to be allowed to do so. It seems to me that I have put this question into a nutshell. If my point can be met by a sound argument I am not at all sure that I would vote against this Amendment, but if it cannot be met, I shall support the Amendment, and I ask every hon. Member opposite, unless he is convinced by some one who will follow me, to do what is just and right, and vote for the same law for the rich as for the poor.
§ Mr. RAFFANIn the case of the public-house in the village which has been alluded to, when the lease expired the landlord refused to renew it. I may say that the result of that licence being withdrawn was that within two years the police-station in that parish was removed, and the only policeman in the village ceased to be employed there. That was the result of withdrawing the licence from that particular parish. If it was right that the landlord in that parish should have the right to withdraw a licence and thus deprive people of the opportunity of being able to obtain drink, why should the people themselves be deprived of the right to carry out the same object?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI did not know that any landlord had a right to withdraw a licence. I gather that in the case mentioned by the hon. Member, when the lease expired the landlord let the house for some other purposes, which he is perfectly entitled to do.
§ Mr. RAFFANBut all the land in the parish belonged to one owner. There was one licensed house there, and when the lease expired the landowner refused to renew it. They were all tenants of the same owners. The point I wish to make is why the people should not have the same right in regard to licences as that which was exercised by this landlord. I shall support this Clause because it would extend to all the people in all the rural parishes of Scotland the right which was exercised in this particular parish by this particular owner. I shall support this Bill because it gives the same right to the poor as to the rich.
§ Mr. CROFTThe hon. Member who has just spoken seems to think that in this case, because the landowner decided not to allow the property on his land to continue to bear a licence after the lease had expired, that 277 therefore the electors in those areas should be put on exactly the same terms. It is obvious that the electors do not own the land, and therefore the comparison is a very foolish one indeed. Even if that were so, two wrongs do not make a right; and if the landlord behaved wrongly, according apparently to the cheers we have just heard, it is no argument why the power of doing wrong should be put in the hands of others.
§ Mr. RAFFANI think he behaved rightly.
§ Mr. CROFTThat may be so, but did he act in accordance with the view of the people? I think he acted rather like some Eastern potentate in depriving the people of the possibility of obtaining something they desired and which this country has always declared to be lawful in the past. The hon. Member told us that when this licence was done away with he never saw any drunkenness and never saw a policeman. That rather bears out what my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet (Mr. Norman Craig) told us earlier in the evening, that the drinking, which we know continues, goes on secretly and is carried on in the home. That is a fact which is well known throughout the length and breadth of New Zealand, and it is exactly the same on the American Continent wherever you have this stringent veto which the people do not desire. I only heard ten days ago in the United States of an instance. A man was telling me there how he had just got round legislation of this description. He arrived at an hotel and wished to celebrate his birthday. He was told it was absolutely impossible to serve him1 with alcoholic liquor at that time, at six o'clock on a Saturday afternoon. You are unable on Saturday afternoon and on Sunday in certain States to procure alcoholic liquors. That was the case in this particular instance, and he was refused. When he made a fuss he was told there was one way of getting round the law and that was by taking a bedroom. Consequently, he took a bedroom, took all his friends to it, and they sat down and had a big supper and were able to celebrate his birthday.
10.0 P.M.
Something in the same way happened to me quite recently. I was leaving a railway station by a train which started at eight o'clock. There happened to be somebody on the train who was taken ill, and required a little brandy. I went out of the station to see if I could get a 278 small glass of brandy, and was told to go down to the hotel 300 yards from the station. I went there, and they said they could not serve me, but I could get it if I went to the doctor who lived one and a-half miles up the street and got an order. I had not time to do that, so I said, "Is that the only way, when somebody is ill, that I can procure brandy in this country on a Sunday evening?" The reply was, "Well, if she is really very ill, you can go down to such and such a street, where I think you will be able to get it if you knock at the door." It is perfectly obvious, and everybody knows, that when you are passing through a prohibition State of the United States, if you want to have something to drink and cannot get it—[Laughter.]—Hon. Gentlemen are referring to a most distressing incident, which I am not prepared to discuss further. Everybody is well aware of the fact that, although when travelling through a prohibition State in the United States, you will not be served on the train with anything which looks like the usual thing, there is no real difficulty providing you are prepared to take your alcoholic liquor through a teapot, in getting all you require. I believe, in bringing in this absurd legislation, you are only encouraging the same underhand smuggling of liquor in these various districts.
The hon. Member for the Wick Burghs (Mr. K. Munro) seemed to be much distressed that an English Member should seek to impose his will upon Scotland. Really, we have heard that argument a little too often. The Liberal party thrive on imposing their views on other people and on various nations. We have only to think of the interference in foreign policy by Liberal Members. We need not blame them. At this very moment the great Powers are trying to impose their view on the Balkan States. Will anybody say that is necessarily wrong? It is not altogether impossible that the minority in Scotland are forcing their country to do something which is not desired by the majority, and which may be very bad for the country as a whole. We are told by the same hon. Gentleman that our resistance to this Clause means we do not believe in democracy, and two or three times he used the words, "Why should we not have the logical complement." I think the logical complement of this particular veto would be found in the next Amendment on the Paper. If this really is a democratic measure, if you really believe it is right to entrust to the electors of Scotland the 279 power of deciding there shall be no licensed house, are you prepared, and is the Secretary for Scotland prepared, to accept the next Amendment, trusting them as I know he does, and to give them the power to increase the number of licences in a district? If he is not prepared to do that, I think, with the greatest respect, there really cannot be much sincerity behind this oft-repeated boast that you are merely serving the democracy of Scotland and carrying out the will of the people.
No one will deny that throughout the length and breadth of the British Isles alcoholic consumption to excess is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Most of the big clubs in London are in an embarrassed condition for the simple reason that nobody is drinking alcoholic liquor, and consequently they are raising their subscriptions and entrance fees. [An Hon. MEMBER: Except the National Liberal Club."] Well, not being a member of the National Liberal Club, I cannot speak of it. It is exactly the same in every class of the community. We find public opinion is killing excessive drinking. Therefore I say, unless Scotchmen are very much worse than Englishmen, it is absolutely unnecessary to have a tyrannical Clause such as this in the Bill. If there is a real desire to act without doing injustice to licence holders, then you have your limiting Clause, and if it is discovered that that is not sufficient for your purpose, if you should find Scotland, contrary to the rest of the world, is becoming more addicted to drink, then you can bring in an amending Bill with this extreme Clause. I honestly believe that the only people who will vote on this no-licensing Clause are going to be extreme temperance fanatics, on the one hand, and licensed victuallers and publicans and their friends, on the other. Moderate men will not go to the poll; you will not get the opinion of the community, and that is contrary to the true principles of Liberalism, as I have been led to understand them, and certainly opposed to the principles of democracy.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe last speaker but one, the hon. Member for Leigh, gave us a very interesting reminiscence of his boyhood. According to "Who's Who" and "Dod," the hon. Member was born in Aberdeen, and if anyone born in Aberdeen never saw either a policeman or a drunken man, then he must have gone about that town with blinkers on.
§ Mr. RAFFANAberdeen is a county as well as a town. I was born in the county.
Earl WINTERONThen the statement in "Who's Who" and "Dod" is extremely misleading, for anyone born in Aberdeen can realise that the state of things could not have been as described by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. RAFFANIf there is any doubt cast on the question as to where I was born, I will give the Noble Lord the name of the parish. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you sure you have not been misinformed?"] It may be due to the fact that I am a Scotchman that I am unable to appreciate that particular kind of humour. The statement which I made can be investigated, and I will therefore at once state the name of the parish is Fintray, in Aberdeenshire.
§ Earl WINTERTONOf course I entirely accept the statement of the hon. Member. My only object in rising to call attention to this matter is to ask the House to realise that there is no single State in America that is known as a "dry State," in which total prohibition is enforced, where it is not perfectly easy for any single man in that State or in any town in that State to obtain liquor if he wishes to do so. I would venture to suggest to any extreme temperance advocate—for instance, the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire (Mr. Leif Jones), who will, I am sure, not object to being called an extreme temperance advocate—that he should go to any State known as a dry State, and take with him some one to be the corpus vile for the purposes of the experiment, and he will be able to obtain from that man as much drink as he wants or even more. Is it not preposterous to suggest that by giving power to localities to close, public-houses you are going to stop drinking? There is a certain trait in human nature not altogether unknown in this House, by which, if a man is stopped doing certain things, he is strongly tempted to break the law in order to do them. The fact is prohibition in every country has been followed by an increase in secret drinking. If you look at the history of prohibitionist countries, you will see a distinct movement forward in a more reasonable, more up-to-date, and more civilised direction. It is better, if a man wishes to obtain alcoholic liquor, to allow him to obtain it under proper restrictions, rather than to prohibit it altogether.
§ Question put, "That those words stand part of the Bill."
282§ The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 79.
283| Division No. 218.] | AYES. | [10.10 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Muldoon, John |
| Adamson, William | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Munro, Robert |
| Alien, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Hackett, J. | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| Armitage, Robert | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Arnold, Sydney | Hancock, John George | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Barnes, George N. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Beck Arthur Ceci | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Dowd, John |
| Bentham, G. J. | Hayward, Evan | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hazleton, Richard | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Boland, John Pius | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Shee, James John |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Henry, Sir Charles | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Brace, William | Higham, John Sharp | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Hinds, John | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Hodge, John | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hogge, James Myles | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | John, Edward Thomas | Pringle, Wm. M. R. |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea) | Radford, G. H. |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Clancy, John J. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Reddy, Michael |
| Clough, William | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Clynes, John R. | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Joyce, Michael | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Keating, Matthew | Richards, Thomas |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Kellaway, Frederick George | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Kelly, Edward | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cowan, W. H. | King, J. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lamb, Ernest Henry | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Cullinan, John | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Delany, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lewis, John Herbert | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Logan, John William | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Doris, William | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Rowlands, James |
| Duffy, William J. | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lundon, Thomas | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Lynch, A. A. | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | McGhee, Richard | Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B. |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Maclean, Donald | Sheehy, David |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Essex, Richard Walter | MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Macpherson, James Ian | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) |
| Falconer, James | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Farrell, James Patrick | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Sutton, John E. |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Field, William | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Tennant, Harold John |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Meagher, Michael | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Furness, Stephen | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Menzies, Sir Walter | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Millar, James Duncan | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Gill, Alfred Henry | Molloy, Michael | Wadsworth, John |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Moiteno, Percy Alport | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Mond, Sir Alfred M. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Mooney, John J. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Goldstone, Frank | Morgan, George Hay | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Watt, Henry A. | Wiles, Thomas | Winfrey, Richard |
| Webb, H. | Wilkie, Alexander | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Williams, John (Glamorgan) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) | |
| White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Whitehouse, John Howard | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Whyte, A. F. (Perth) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Fell, Arthur | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Forster, Henry William | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Goulding, E. A. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Grant, J. A. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barnston, Harry | Gretton, John | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts Wilton) | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Boyton, James | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Stanier, Beville |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Butcher, John George | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Campion, W. R. | Hills, John Waller | Stewart, Gershom |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hoare, S. J. G. | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Cassel, Felix | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Cave, George | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Clyde, James Avon | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Winterton, Earl |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Hon. S.) | Younger, Sir George |
| Croft, H. P. | Magnus, Sir Philip | |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Malcolm, Ian | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mackinder and Mr. Norman Craig. |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. | Newman, John R. P. | |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. |
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe next Amendment on the Paper (standing in the name of Mr. Fell) is outside the scope of the Bill.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Committee took a more generous view.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERMight I point out that this is a question of dealing with the future, when licences may have been unduly decreased? It is surely quite within the scope of a Local Option Bill.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is too subtle.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words "or (d) a disinterested management resolution."
I could not find a better text or a better argument for this Amendment than that supplied by the last speech of the Lord Advocate. He varied the monotonous formula by which every Amendment to this Act is declined by a slight and somewhat striking peculiarity. He gave us for once the principle of the Act. That principle he told us was to give absolute discretion to each locality. This was not, he said, a Bill for advocating or for setting up a peculiar method of promoting tem- 284 perance. The principle of the Bill, he said, and repeated with some emphasis, was that the Bill left the decision of the means to be applied for the promotion of temperance to the people, and that was the principle of the proposal which His Majesty's Government was laying before the House. If he adheres to that argument I demand with some emphasis that he ought to support the Amendment. It is one which finds support with very many leading authorities in Scotland. I have here a petition which shows the large amount of support that is given to it in Scotland, and the readiness which a large number of people of the highest authority, who command the greatest respect and confidence, have in putting the scheme into operation. I regret that it should find only myself as a proposer. In the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) it had an advocate whose skill and whose thorough familiarity with the whole question in dispute are unrivalled. It was he who put forward this proposal before the Committee, argued it, and obtained for it considerable support amongst those who generally follow the Government. On the occasion when this Clause was debated in Committee, it was defeated by 28 votes to 23, and among the minority were many of those who are among the most constant 285 supporters of the Government. Why is it that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) has not this time come forward as the champion of the proposal which he advocated before? Is it that the lash of the Whip has been brought more severely to bear upon those recalcitrant supporters, and that the liberty they exercised in Committee is not permitted in this House? I boldly assert that, as appearances now stand, there is sufficient to convince me that has been the case, and that hon. Members are ready to sacrifice their own convictions in obedience to the party Whip. Even though they supported this proposal in Committee, they have not the courage to bring it forward here, because it is not acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland. Argument has been absolutely useless in Committee, and on the Report stage in this House. This is the course which the right hon. Gentleman chooses to take in this House. He can admit no change, and because he has laid down that principle, which is dictated to him by some of the extremists in his own party, he has issued his Whip to the recalcitrant Members of his own party, and the result is that we have no supporters on the Government side of this proposal which found eminent champions on previous occasions.
This scheme of disinterested management is one which is supported by well-known and respected men. It has the advantage of being advocated by a large body of substantial opinion, not only in this country, but elsewhere. It has the advantage of having been actually put into operation, and the good results have been seen. I am perfectly well aware that these results have been attacked with the usual Ananias-like inaccuracy which is peculiar to the advocates of the extreme temperance party. It has been attacked, but the rottenness and the absolute baselessness of the argument had been sufficiently exposed in a pamphlet written by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, which has been sent to myself, and I suppose to other Members of the House. He has shown the baselessness of Mr. Charles Smith's attack. Mr. Charles Smith is satisfactorily shown to have perverted statistics, to have misrepresented facts, and to have attributed motives to men more honourable than himself in accusing the public authority of Sweden with corruption in regard to the operation of this scheme. I think we may safely lay 286 such arguments aside. I think that the scheme may stand on its own merits as a sufficient foundation. It is not necessary that I should put forward arguments to bolster up this particular method of advancing temperance. What we ask is, Are you going to deny to these electors the power of saying, "We think that the experience of other countries and the able advocacy of this scheme justifies us in giving this scheme a trial and seeing whether it would produce here the same satisfactory results with regard to temperance that it has produced in other countries"? We ask, Are you prepared on any of the democratic principles of which you; are so fond of talking to set aside that same option in Scotland?
The burden of showing whether this scheme is right or wrong rests with those who refuse the people of localities in Scotland the right to try this experiment if they believe conscientiously that it will lead to good results. I myself have read enough and seen enough of such schemes as are in operation to be convinced that it will do far more for temperance than any propagandist schemes put forward by extreme teetotalers. But my own position is perfectly clear. I am not speaking as one concerned with any particular scheme of disinterested management. I have nothing to do with it. Many of my friends are interested in proposals of the kind, but I have never sat on any committee of the sort. In promoting temperance my remedy is not the fads of the teetotaler or the effect of any legislative restriction whatever. It is an appeal to the better nature and the dignity of my fellow countrymen and the throwing of responsibility upon them. It is with great difficulty that only in the earlier hours this afternoon we got some assent to the proposal to bring the responsibility of drunkenness upon actually the man who disgraced himself by getting drunk. If you wish to forward temperance you should act more drastically upon the man who makes himself contemptible by that vice, and not treat him, as you are too apt to treat him, as if he were a poor petted plaything against whom the vile machinations of the publican had been exercised. That is not the way to give him dignity to raise his self-respect or to infuse in him that responsibility which is the only thing that makes his temperance worth anything. I value nothing that temperance which comes to a man only because he is refused any access to drink, 287 because by the operation of circumstances utterly beyond his control he is unable to have access to drink of any kind. On these grounds I put forward this Amendment, which would give this option to the voters in each locality.
I am quite prepared to admit, though I do not think for a moment you will promote temperance by any amount of restrictive and parental legislation, that there is a certain impediment or stumbling block in the fact that we entrust this traffic, which we consider dangerous, to a class of persons whose interest is in stimulating the traffic in and consumption of liquor. That, I admit, is a flaw in our system. That flaw we seek to amend if you will allow us to adopt this new kind of disinterested management. You will then have the distribution of drink in the hands of responsible persons, with no interest in the profits accruing from its sale, who are under the strictest supervision of various inspecting authorities, the legality of whose accounts will be open to audit and examination, and who will be bound to hand over the profits from the drink to some object of public advantage. Are you so certain that a proposal of this kind, which has been received elsewhere so well, will so certainly be condemned to failure in Scotland, and will so certainly be put into the hands of persons unworthy to be trusted with such a responsibility, that you are going to deny the people of Scotland the possibility of their being given a chance of making an experiment of this kind? I would ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has considered the petition which was laid before his predecessor in January last?
Has he considered the names appended to that petition? The first name, Sir, is that of one of your predecessors, always respected in this House, Viscount Peel. Following are the respected names of many of the most worthy Members of every party in Scotland. Among the universities I select two at least of the Principals who happen to be pronounced political opponents of my own and who have signed this petition. Among other signatories I see the name of the late Sir Robert Fuller; and the late Member for West Lincolnshire. Sir Thomas Graham Hope was a most ardent supporter of this scheme. But because a certain extreme section are determined that nothing will satisfy them but the 288 most extreme and intemperate proposal, the right hon. Gentleman refuses to listen to the arguments of some of his own most respected and most powerful supporters, and turns a deaf ear to any suggestion that this Bill should be modified. In the name of the principle which the Lord Advocate says is the central principle of this Bill, and in the name of the democracy that you are so apt to represent as the only proper authority, I claim that you should extend the option and give the people of Scotland the opportunity to adopt this scheme which is advocated by so many of their leading citizens, and which has succeeded notably in other countries, though condemned by the extreme fanatics of the temperance party.
§ Mr. EUGENE WASONThe hon. Gentleman opposite is always lecturing this House on what other countries do, and he asks that because other countries have adopted this proposal why should we not follow them. This is a proposal for disinterested management, but, for my part, I do not believe there is any such thing as disinterested management. I would just as soon believe in painless dentistry as in disinterested management. The hon. Gentleman has told us to-night of names connected with the Liberal party who are in favour of this proposal, which is a novel proposal, and I know that there are some friends of mine in Scotland, and there is my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, who will always be honourably associated with reference to reforms in the liquor trade. After all, and this is why I have risen, there is not a single temperance body in Scotland, not one single body of temperance reformers prepared to go in for this scheme of disinterested management. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] No, there is not one. I have resolutions from the different temperance associations and from the different presbyteries saying that their wish and desire is that this House should pass the Scottish Temperance Bill in the way in which it left the Scottish Grand Committee. That is the reason I have got up here to-night. I hope sincerely we are not going to be led astray by other countries. I heard a disquisition about the failure of temperance in America earlier, and I heard that it is possible to get drink in the Prohibition States but, having been to America, all I have got to say is that I never was able to get any in the Prohibition States. We are alluded to as robbers and 289 spoliators and everything else, although the hon. Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik), was very moderate to-night—very moderate for him. What I want to say here to-night on behalf of my colleagues in Scotland, the great majority of them, on behalf of the Scottish Temperance Associations, and on behalf of the churches in Scotland, is that they want to see this Bill pass as it left the Scottish Grand Committee, and that you are not going to add this other option of disinterested management, which I believe would be an absolute and utter failure. I believe wherever it has been tried it has been anything but a success. We ask that this Bill should be passed without this option, because if it were passed with it would give the greatest dissatisfaction to every temperance reformer throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI desire to combat one or two of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. E. Wason). He stated that there is no temperance body in Scotland in favour of disinterested management. Does the right hon. Gentleman forget a deputation headed by the Lord Provost of Glasgow, which was very scurvily treated by hon. Members opposite? [Several HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] They were not listened to.
§ Mr. EUGENE WASONThey were received perfectly courteously, and we listened to every argument they put forward.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEThen the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that there was a deputation in favour of the proposal. I do not wish to discuss the right hon. Gentleman's experiences in America. Mine were different. I was more fortunate, or perhaps I knew better where to look. I should like the Lord Advocate to tell us what view he takes upon this question. A few minutes ago he told us that he wanted to put everything into the hands of the people, and to give them absolute freedom to legislate for themselves. I said at the time that if he meant that he absolutely stultified what he said in Committee, while if he adheres to what he said in Committee he will be going back on what he gave as his only reason for giving the people the prohibition option. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Wason) is described as being in favour of placing the control of the liquor traffic in the hands of the people.
§ Mr. EUGENE WASONQuite right.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEWhy not give them the system they want instead of forcing upon them something which they do not want? Why not trust them altogether, instead of pretending to trust them, and really not trusting them at all?
§ Mr. HOGGESome of us have been twitted with having abandoned the position we took up in Grand Committee on the question of disinterested management, and the hon. Member for Glasgow University has expressed his surprise that he is the only Member seeking to introduce this option at this stage. All I can say is that there is a limit to attempting to extract concessions from the Government on this Bill. If I had thought for a moment that the Government would concede anything, I should have put down an Amendment on those lines, but with the Government, persisting in forcing the Bill through in the form in which it appears, practically to the very punctuation, it is obvious that we should be beating a dead horse—[Opposition cheers]—in attempting to get any further concessions from them. I do not know that we should have got any valuable concessions from hon. Members opposite, so that I do not quite understand their glee. But I do want to point out that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan has made the extraordinary plea that the reason the Bill should remain as it is is because all the temperance bodies in Scotland insist that it should remain so. But surely this is not a Bill for temperance people! Obviously such require no Bill or legislation; they provide for themselves. What we are legislating for are altogether different classes of persons. We are legislating for the general mass of people, and I have yet to learn as a Scotsman that the proportion of people attached to temperance societies in Scotland is of such a nature that they can intimidate this House of Commons, or any Member of the House.
I do think that the great body of opinion in Scotland is being treated in a very cavalier fashion by the Government. The hon. Member for Clackmannan has said that there is no such thing as "disinterested management." I can quite believe that he believes that, because the example he gave us was that of the Cowdenbeath, which does not comply with the conditions of "disinterested management" but is alien to it. Anyone 291 who says that these Fifeshire examples are examples of disinterested management is not doing justice to the arguments that underlie that temperance reform which certainly has achieved marvellous success in other countries. We are told that this is a novel principle. If so, it must be because one's eyes have been deliberately shut. I believe in allowing the people of any country to have full liberty in these matters, and not being tied by legislation at all. Take the example of Cowdenbeath. In the Fifeshire district the standard of temperance is very different from that in other parts of Scotland. There are many parts of Scotland that tomorrow would put into operation advanced principles but do not because of the trouble of getting an Act of Parliament. For instance, in this particular measure we have had to put a Clause in stating that on this Bill becoming law public-houses cannot be opened before ten o clock in the morning. It is perfectly ridiculous that any local authority or community should have to come to Parliament to secure that kind of privilege. If you are able, as you ought to be under any sound scheme of reform, to liberate temperance sentiment in any community, you would get in different parts of Scotland experiments in temperance similar to those that you have obtained in those countries which are so much reviled. These would, if nothing else, give examples to the rest of the country in legislating for temperance reform. I do not want to make a long speech on this point, and I should not have risen at all, because, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow University, I think it is hopeless to press these things at this time, but for the repetition of the misrepresentations of management so frequent not only in this House, but outside it. I take the worst example most frequently recited—Gothenberg in Sweden. Gothenberg is supposed to be one of the most drunken towns in Europe, and the statistics of drunkenness are frequently quoted against those of us who advocate management. If you take the one fact that in 1868 the houses which were operated by disinterested management companies were in the ratio of one to every 1,200 of the population, and that today they are in the ratio of one to every 4,400 of the population, I say deliberately that that management, with all the evils attributed to it by its critics, which has provided one public-house to every 4,400 of the population, instead of, as in Scot- 292 land, one to every 440 of the population, must have something in it, and in a scheme which can bring about that reduction, which is larger than the 25 per cent, reduction you secure under your limiting resolution. Therefore, even at the last hour, if the Government would make any concession on this point, there would be some force in continuing the Debate and elaborating the argument. But I believe that time is gone, and it is no use to elaborate the argument, but certainly misrepresentation ought not to be allowed to pass, and I hope, in the few remarks I have made, I have helped to remove such misrepresentation.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI do not wish to discuss the principle of disinterested management or to make any attack on the principle of disinterested management, or on those who believe very strongly in it. I give them every credit for their desire for it. What we have to do with is not the principle of disinterested management, because this Bill puts no difficulty in the way of experiments being made in the direction of disinterested management. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent magistrates granting licences to public-house companies. The proposal was before the Committee, and it was discussed at great length and I think, in view of the length, it was discussed in the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh is perfectly justified in not taking up the time of the House in discussing it now. The matter was discussed for more than two days without any Closure, and the proposal was not for disinterested management pure and simple, but was a proposal to provide for a monopoly of disinterested management in particular districts. There is not the slightest reason to believe, in my judgment, that the people of Scotland are desirous of having that option. On the contrary, I had hundreds of representations from all parts of England and Scotland that to insert that option in the Bill would interfere with the exercise of the other options in the Bill, and that in particular it could be proved to demonstration that it would interfere with the option of reduction which I regard as most valuable, and likely to be most frequently availed of. Most people agree that in many parts of the country there should be reduction, and anything that would interfere with that would be generally regarded as a misfortune. There is another reason why my hon. Friend is not very anxious to support these particular proposals, because the 293 proposals put forward by hon. Members opposite are very different to the proposals put forward by the Committee. There they proposed that the magistrates should take away the licences from individual owners and hand them over to a new company to be created under the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland, which company was not to be called upon to pay any money to the publicans. The proposal of the Unionist party is one more animated by a desire to swell an insurance fund than for disinterested management. It is proposed not that you should have disinterested management pure and simple, but that you should have a disinterested management the proceeds of which would go into the insurance fund for the benefit of the licence holders. In the Clause put forward by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs, half the profits of disinterested management are to go in perpetuity to the fund, and the other half to the fund for ten years, so that there is not much left for public objects. It is therefore rather a case of benefiting the licence holders rather than any public object. I hope we shall be united in opposing this proposal for disinterested management. I hope we shall carry this Bill in its present simple and practical form, under which we shall be able to obtain a reduction of the facilities for drinking in Scotland.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI must say a word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I take full responsibility for the Amendment standing in my name, although it was sent to me by a committee. I do not suppose that there is anyone who suggests that the licences in any area should be handed over to a public company without paying anything for the privileges they are to enjoy. I never heard of that.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI think it was the hon. Member for Huddersfield who said he proposed to pay something to the people dispossessed, if they were going to carry on the same trade afterwards for the purpose of profit. The Secretary for Scotland makes an extraordinary statement. He is always breaking out in new places.
Mr. McKINNON WOODIt is useless for the hon. Member to make those charges when the Amendments are recorded in the proceedings of the Committee.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERIt is simply a question of whether any payment was to be made for the transfer, and hon. Members opposite intimated their desire to agree to a proposal by which they ought to pay. The right hon. Gentleman cannot ride off at a tangent as he always tries to do. I think the House ought to know the exact position of this matter. Owing to the pressure at which we were working yesterday this particular Amendment did not appear in my name at all, but in that of the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir Henry Craik). He had to leave the Committee, and I did not feel justified in putting the words down to his name without his consent, but he has assured me that if he had been able to remain long enough he would have consented to them.
§ Sir C. HUNTERIn the natural course of events I should not have intervened in this Debate, considering this legislation affects only Scotland, and not my Constituency at all, but when I hear disinterested management mentioned, I may be allowed to detain the House a few minutes. Although disinterested management has certainly been tried in Scotland in one or two places in small areas, if you want any sure indication of whether disinterested management has been a success, then you must turn your attention to those countries where it has been tried in large areas, and those two countries are undoubtedly Norway and Sweden. Probably, I am the only Member in the House who happens to own property in Sweden, and I have watched the operations of disinterested management in that country on and off for the best part of twenty years. Those people who go there as tourists, who probably cannot speak one single word of the language, and who are shown just what the people of the country want them to see, come away with a wrong impression of how the principle works in that country. I can only say, from experience I have had in Sweden watching very carefully how the thing works in that country that there is nobody in that country in favour of temperance who does not believe that disinterested management has been a long step forward; and I believe if the Government are really in earnest and this is to be a temperance measure they are making a great mistake if they do not put in a Clause regarding disinterested management in the Bill. For that reason, I cordially support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. SHERWELLI had not intended intervening in this Debate, and I do not propose to take part in the Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For a very good reason. After what took place in Committee, I at least was left with the conviction that it was perfectly hopeless to attempt to argue the question on its merits or to get a pronouncement in the Division Lobby on the merits of the question. Those who took part in the Committee stage of this Bill upstairs are perfectly well aware of the fact that the close Division which we had in connection with my Amendment in favour of a disinterested management option was not determined solely by the merits of the case, nor did the vote given against my Amendment represent only those who were opposed to it. Owing to the great pressure exercised by the Government—I will not say illegitimately exercised—through the Whips, and particularly through the Scottish Whip, several Members voted against my Amendment who assured me privately that on the merits they were in favour of it. The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) seemed to be under the impression that because I had not put down in the Order Paper the Amendment which I moved in Committee, I had therefore gone back on my convictions in response, as I gathered, to pressure from the Whips.
§ Sir. H. CRAIKI did not really say or suggest that was the case. I suppose the hon. Member had not put down the Amendment, because he was not assured of the support of hon. Members who sit on that side of the House.
§ Mr. SHERWELLI am in the recollection of the House. The hon. Member suggested I had not put down my Amendment because of orders given to me by the Whips. But the Whips are shrewd men, and I believe not one of them would think of issuing an order of that kind to me. As far as I know, no pressure of that sort has been exercised in regard to any Member on these benches. I am simply refraining from moving any Amendment again because I am absolutely satisfied from the attitude and tone of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland that however overwhelming may be the arguments for the inclusion of this option, he will not consent to it, and under the ordinary party pressure an overwhelming majority will vote against it. My views are well known, and I am quite content with having moved the Amendment in 296 Committee. I am satisfied that in the future the Government and all true temperance reformers in Scotland will regret that owing to the extreme pressure brought to bear by certain prohibitionist organisations in Scotland they were terrorised from including the logical development of their Bill in this form. I protest against the assumption which has received sanction from the Chairman of the Scottish Liberal Members that there is no single temperance organisation in Scotland behind this proposal. The Temperance Legislation Beard is one of the most influential bodies there. It includes Prohibitionists, Reductionists, and men who take most moderate views on licensing questions That body has done its best to induce the Government to include the option of disinterested management in this Bill, and the Prime Minister has to-day received a memorial bearing the signatures of most representative men in Scotland in favour of including this principle—a more numerous and more representative body than petitioned against it. It is the fact that the Established Church has for many years past by overwhelming majorities, and even unanimously in its annual assemblies, passed resolutions in favour of the inclusion of this option. The memorial presented to the Prime Minister to-day includes influential signatures of representatives of the Churches in Scotland, trades councils, and representative men in all walks of thought and life.
I have here a copy of a Bill introduced in this House in 1898 and reintroduced in 1899—a threefold option Bill, one of the options being that of disinterested management. It was backed by representatives of all parties in this House and in each year it bears the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate. Therefore, to suggest that this is a novel proposal is simply to disguise the true facts, which are familiar to students of this question. I to-night still await an answer to the question how such an option can be refused in face of the grounds on which the proposals in this part of the Bill are based. Here you have the recognition of the right of local self-government—of the right of the people to determine this matter for themselves. If you assent to that principle, how can you withhold the further liberty of bringing all the licences in an area under disinterested management? It seems to me that that is the logical and inevitable development of your principle 297 of local self-government which is the basic this principle in your own Bill. The Secretary for Scotland says there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the licensing justices handing over an individual licence to a public-house trust. But we had this question threshed out upstairs on a proposal for a condition of things which would allow complete and proper demonstration of the disinterested management system. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest you can prove the merits of disinterested management if you have but one house under such management and 200 or 300 competing houses under private management? The standard of the privately conducted houses will determine the standard in that individual case, and unless you have a complete monopoly of the public-houses in a particular area you cannot expect anything like a satisfactory demonstration of all the possibilities of disinterested management. The right hon. Gentleman just now informed the House that he objected to the inclusion of this option, because, in his judgment, it would hinder reduction. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know the historical results of disinterested management? My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) stated or hinted at them just now. Disinterested management has proved itself to be the greatest power in aid of that reduction of licences which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to bring about. It has been tried in Norway and Sweden, where you have a far greater measure of reduction than the right hon. Gentleman will secure under the provisions of his Bill, and if you do secure a satisfactory scheme of disinterested management you will not require the option the right hon. Gentleman proposes, the option of reduction. I sincerely deplore that, under the pressure of certain estimable but over-zealous organisations, which are not content to get their own proposals embodied in the Bill, but are even more eager to exclude the proposals of those who are equally desirous as themselves of securing temperance reform—of organisations, which however influential and however excellent may be their work and objects, in no way represent the majority of those in Scotland who desire temperance reform, the Government have refused this Amendment. I have addressed, perhaps, more representative public meetings in Scotland during the last ten years than any Scottish representative on 298 this side of the House or any of hon. Friends around me. I have never met with a case where in a large meeting there were more than from three to six dissentients from the proposal to include disinterested management in a Bill like this. I only wish to say I shall not vote, as I did not move, simply because I am content to let the Government take the responsibility for the Bill as it will leave this House. I am not satisfied with the Bill. I believe that the Government have taken the line of unwisdom in hardening their hearts against every Amendment, whatever the merits of or arguments for those Amendments might be, and I believe the Government will live to regret the day when they exhibited the spirit which has been exhibited, both in Committee and on Report by the Secretary for Scotland.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSONWhatever may be the result of this Bill, it will have an educational result in Scotland. I think it will show that the taunt addressed to us on this side of the House that because we oppose this Bill we are not friends of temperance may be equally applied to many of the best friends of temperance on the Government side of the House. I confess for my part that I do not understand how the Government have taken up their line. The Secretary for Scotland lays down an extraordinary principle. He says that because this question had been discussed upstairs it is not to be discussed here.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSONHe said something uncommonly like it. He said it is not necessary to discuss a question in the House on Report because it was very fully discussed upstairs.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSONWe had two days upstairs, and we are not to get two hours downstairs. That is the policy of the Government. Send things upstairs where they can be discussed for two days, but for Heaven's sake do not discuss them in the House of Commons. I do not wonder, because when we get speeches from his own supporters, like the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge), and the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell), the less discussion-there is downstairs the better for the Government. They are loyal to their 299 party. They express their opinions but then they say they will not vote. This, after all, is a Bill to promote temperance—as if temperance were confined to drinking. The intemperance of temperance societies and all those who support them is worse to my mind than intemperance for over-indulgence in alcohol. That is the position the Government are taking up, and on this question of disinterested management I desire to express my entire agreement with what the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) has said.
All of us remember two or three years ago, when this threefold option measure was introduced, it had an amount of support from all the best friends of temperance—I do not say the most extreme but the best friends of temperance—in Scotland that no other proposal has ever had as far as my experience goes. I do not know whether my name was on it or not, but I am quite glad to hear that the Lord Advocate's name was there because I am quite sure he would not support anything which was not in favour of true temperance reform. It has been said to-day that this proposal is a novel thing that we never heard of before. It is written in the records of temperance reformers in Scotland as one of the best things they desire, and so far as I am concerned I receive more representations from a larger number of the best representative men, not party men at all, in favour of disinterested management than on any other subject. I do not know that the trade like it. That is not the point. I believe probably the trade do not like it. But we are twitted on this side of the House with being the protagonists of the trade. We are nothing of the kind. We want to get a good, workable temperance Bill, and we on our side have done more to do that than you on the other side have done in the last fifty years. You have made up your minds that you will have this Bill as passed in Committee upstairs without the change even of a comma. You are running the risk of losing your Bill altogether.
§ Earl WINTERTONAnd their seats.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSONThey do not care for seats. By-elections do not count
§ with them. I think the result will be, as the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) said, that this is a dead horse, and what do you do with a dead horse? You send it to the dogs, and that is where you are going to send your Bill. That is the result of this absolute refusal to consider, not as we say but as your friends and supporters say, the merits of Amendments and the weight of the arguments submitted. The Bill and nothing but the Bill, whatever the arguments or whatever the weight of the Amendments be. If that be your policy, in my judgment you are doing the very best thing you can to wreck your Bill and to prevent real temperance reform. Not only because of my own convictions on the subject, but because of the enormous number of representations I have received from those in Scotland who really have temperance reform at heart, and do not allow their wits to be led astray by the extreme views of extreme temperance people, representations which agree with my own considered opinion. I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEThe right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that the trade did not like this Amendment, but if that is so, they are supporting it. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well the great advantage in an election of introducing a vote splitting issue, and having a split contest. If you introduce a fourth and vote splitting issue, you are going to remove the possibility of carrying any other issue. You require sixty out of 100 to carry "no licence." The hon. Member for Huddersfield said you could not discuss this Amendment on its merits or vote on its merits. I admit that you cannot. The Bill will be killed if that issue is introduced. A great many Members on this side of the House, irrespective of their views on disinterested management, are supporting the Bill as it stands because, if the Amendment were introduced, it would do away with the possibility of carrying the "no licence" issue at all.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 222.
303| Division No. 219.] | AYES. | [11.30 p.m. |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Barnes, G. N. | Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell |
| Ashley, W W. | Barnston, Harry | Bridgeman, W. Clive |
| Baird, J. L. | Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Burn, Col. C. R. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Butcher, John George |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Campion, W. R. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Booth, Frederick Handel | Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred |
| Cassel, Felix | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cator, John | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Clyde, James Avon | Hill, Sir Clement | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Hoare, S. J. G. | Stanier, Beville |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Starkey, John R. |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cowan, W. H. | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Sutton, John E. |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Hunter, Sir C. R. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Croft, H. P. | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. | Malcolm, Ian | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Newman, John R. P. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Fell, Arthur | O'Grady, James | Winterton, Earl |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Forster, Henry William | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Goldman, C. S. | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Goldstone, Frank | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | Younger, Sir George |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Quilter, Sir William Eley C. | |
| Grant, James Augustus | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | |
| Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Rees, Sir J. D. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Henry Craik and Mr. Mackinder. |
| Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Remnant, James Farquharson | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Field, William | Logan, John William |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) |
| Adamson, William | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lundon, T. |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Furness, Stephen | Lynch, A. A. |
| Arnold, Sydney | Geider, Sir W. A. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | McGhee, Richard |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Gill, A. H. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon, Dr. T. J. |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Devon, Barnstaple) | Gladstone, W. G. C. | MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Glanville, H. J. | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Greig, Colonel J. W. | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Bentham, G. J. | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Griffith, Ellis Jones | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Boland, John Pius | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hackett, John | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Brace, William | Hancock, J. G. | Meagher, Michael |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Molloy, M. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Carr-Gomm. H. W. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Hayden, John Patrick | Mooney, John J. |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Hayward, Evan | Morison, Hector |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) | Morton, Atpheus Cleophas |
| Clough, William | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Muldoon, John |
| Clynes, John R. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Munro, R. |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Higham, John Sharp | Nolan, Joseph |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hinds, John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Hodge, John | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Cullinan, John | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Dowd, John |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Delany, William | John, Edward Thomas | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea) | O'Shee, James John |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Doris, W. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Duffy, William J. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Joyce, Michael | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Keating, M. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Kellaway, Frederick George | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Kelly, Edward | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | King, J. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Radford, G. H. |
| Falconer, J. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Reddy, Michael |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Levy, Sir Maurice | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Lewis, John Herbert | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Richards, Thomas | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Sutherland, J. E. | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Tennant, Harold John | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Toulmin, Sir George | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Rowlands, James | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Winfrey, Richard |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Verney, Sir Harry | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Wadsworth, J. | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Scanlan, Thomas | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | |
| Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | |
| Sheehy, David | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a) to leave out the words "three-fifths" ["if three-fifths at least in number"], and to insert instead thereof the words "two-thirds."
I submit this Amendment, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend (Captain Gilmour), who is absent, because I think it is only right that this kind of resolution should not be carried by a small percentage of the electors. Although there is a provision that thirty per cent, of the electors should vote before a resolution can be carried, that is really a very small percentage of the population who will be affected by it. In seven or eight cities of Scotland thirty per cent, of the electors only represents five per cent, of the population, and if you take a population of 20,000, it represents only nine per cent. I submit that five per cent, or nine per cent, of the population should not be able to carry the resolution. It is perfectly true that Viscount Peel thought there might possibly be local option for Scotland, but he suggested that three-fourths of the electors on the roll ought to vote for a no-licence area. That was his well-considered public proposal. I think it is not an extreme thing to ask that instead of three-fifths a two-thirds majority should be required. I have no confidence that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, but it is necessary that it should be discussed in this House for various reasons.
§ Mr. MACKINDERI beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe Bill as it stands provides that 201 people are sufficient to destroy the vote of 300; in other words you have to get a majority of fifty per cent. more. That is a very onerous obligation, and when you have the proviso that the majority must consist of thirty per cent of the electors it is perfectly clear that if there is any large proportion of the electors who are opposed to 304 the exercise of the veto you must have a very large majority numerically in order to carry the resolution. I submit that the interests of the trade are sufficiently safeguarded in the concessions that have been made after repeated discussions, and they are really sufficient to meet all reasonable demands.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI do not quite follow the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. I could not attend the whole of the Debate but I have attended a good half of it, and I am bound to say, whenever I have heard the right hon. Gentleman I have never been able to follow the argument he has presented. I do not follow his argument on this occasion either. He regards this merely as a protection to the trade. So far as I am concerned, I do not care a button about the trade except that I desire to do justice to everybody. My concern is the people who desire to resist the "no-licence" resolution. To my mind the great thing is to secure that there shall be no oppression on any considerable minority in that matter. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the precautions and safeguards are inserted for the protection of the trade that is not the point at all. The question that the House has got to consider is whether three-fifths or two-thirds is the more reasonable figure for the protection of the minority who desire to resist a "no-licence" resolution. I must say, considering that we are trying the plan for the first time and that you cannot in the least tell how it is going to work, and owing to the conditions of society in the country I should have thought a majority of two to one would not be an unreasonable one to suggest. It depends on what value you attach to liberty and to drinking. I personally have always felt that liberty is always a more valuable quality than sobriety. I still hold that view. I think it is more valuable from the point of view of the State, and far more valuable from 305 the point of view of the individual. I do not think compulsory sobriety is of any greater value than compulsory thrift. I believe in none of those compulsory virtues. Therefore my view is that the great thing is to secure liberty. I think two-thirds is more reasonable than three-fifths, and if my hon. Friend presses the Amendment to a division, I shall certainly support him in the Lobby.
§ Mr. HARRY HOPEI think the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland will be a great surprise to the people of Scotland. We are here asked to sanction prohibition being introduced into the licensing system of Scotland. I do not think there is any proposal which would go more against the grain of the Scottish people than prohibition. The only chance of it working smoothly and successfully is
§ if moderation is exercised in the working of it. In Canada, in Saskatchewan, and in Manitoba, three-fifths of the electorate are required before prohibition can be carried. The people of Scotland will resent the proposal unless the majority in favour of prohibition is really equitable. We know that in municipal elections only some fifty per cent, of the electors vote. If, in a town or district where there are 1,000 voters, only 500 vote, by this Clause if 300 out of the 500 vote for prohibition, you will have 300 dictating to 700. Such a proposal is too drastic, and can never work smoothly. Therefore I shall support, the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the word 'three-fifths' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 63.
307| Division No. 220.] | AYES. | [11.50 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Adamson, William | Essex, Richard Walter | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) |
| Armitage, Robert | Falconer, J. | Joyce, Michael |
| Arnold, Sydney | Farrell, James Patrick | Keating, M. |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Kelly, Edward |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Ffrench, Peter | King, J. |
| Barnes, George N. | Field, William | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Furness, Stephen | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Black, Arthur W. | Gill, A. H. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Boland, John Pius | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Glanville, H. J. | Lundon, T. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Goldstone, Frank | MacGhee, Richard |
| Brace, William | Greig, Col. J. W. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Gulland, John William | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hackett, J. | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Hancock, J. G. | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale) | Meagher, Michael |
| Clancy, J. Joseph | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Clough, William | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Clynes, John R. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock). | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Mooney, J. J. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hayden, John Patrick | Morison, Hector |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hayward, Evan | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Cotton, William Francis | Hazleton, Richard | Muldoon, John |
| Cowan, W. H. | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Munro, R. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Cullinan, John | Henry, Sir Charles | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Higham, John Sharp | Nolan, Joseph |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Hinds, John | O'Brien, Patrick Kilkenny |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Hodge, John | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Delany, William | Hogge, James Myles | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Doris, W. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Dowd, John |
| Duffy, William J. | Hughes, S. L. | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | O'Shee, James John |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | John, Edward Thomas | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea) | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Rowlands, James | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Scanlan, Thomas | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B. | Webb, H. |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Sheehy, David | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Radford, G. H. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Sutherland, J. E. | Whyte, A. F. |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Sutton, J. E. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Reddy, Michael | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Tennant, Harold John | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Richards, Thomas | Toulmin, Sir George | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Verney, Sir Harry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. William Jones. |
| Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wadsworth, J. | |
| Roch, Walter F. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Ashley, Wilfrid | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Baird, J. L. | Craik, Sir Henry | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Balcarres, Lord | Croft, H. P. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Barnston, Harry | Forster, Henry William | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Goldman, C. S. | Rees, Sir J. D. |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Goulding, E. A. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Grant, J. A. | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Gretton, John | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Campion, W. R. | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Stanier, Beville |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hickman, Col. Thomas E. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cassel, Felix | Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Cator, John | Hoare, S. J. G. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Hunter, Sir C. R. | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Lewisham, Viscount | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Mackinder, Halford J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir G. Younger and Mr. H. Hope. |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Malcolm, Ian |
§ Mr. HARRY HOPEI beg to move in Sub-section (3), paragraph (a), to leave out the word "thirty" ["and not less than thirty per cent, of the electors"] and to insert instead thereof the word "forty."
I move this Amendment in order to ensure that the vote in favour of the "no-licence" resolution should coincide with the real wishes of the community. This legislation can only be a success if we make certain that the real wishes of the people are accurately interpreted and not that any well organised minority can impose its will upon a district or a town.
§ Mr. GERSHOM STEWARTI beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think the House fully realises the very small number of persons who can inflict their will upon the people in Scotland under this Bill. Three-fifths of thirty per cent., or eighteen people out of every hundred, can declare a particular area that was wet to be dry. In no country more than Scotland would such changes as are proposed by this 308 Bill be felt more seriously by the people. In the polling districts of Scotland the people are subject to many difficulties. I see by Clause 4 that elections cannot be held before November. In the outlying islands bad weather would prevent many people coming in, and well organised minorities might interfere with the will of the majority. This Government always object to minority rule. They objected to it in Midlothian and in Oldham, and they do not believe in it in Ulster, but under this Bill well organised minorities could easily impose their will upon the majorities.
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment is under a complete misapprehension as to the provisions of the Bill. It is impossible for eighteen per cent, of the electors to carry any resolution. It is not a question of three-fifths of thirty per cent.; it is a question of a majority of three-fifths of those voting who must be thirty per cent., not of those voting, but of 309 the electors upon the roll. So that eighteen per cent, of the electors could not carry anything. The hon. Member is therefore under an entire misapprehension, and a misapprehension which I have seen repeated again and again. I cannot understand how anyone could read the Bill and come to that conclusion. With regard to the hon. Member's point as to the difficulty of people coming to poll, I would remind him that under this Bill small districts
§ have been decided on, and in small districts there could not be any such difficulty except in very scattered districts. The hon. Member is thinking of Parliamentary elections with big constituencies and large distances to be travelled. That would not occur under this Bill.
§ Question put, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 62.
311| Division No. 221.] | AYES. | [12.3 a.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Goldstone, Frank | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Greig, Colonel James William | Mooney, John J. |
| Adamson, William | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Morison, Hector |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Griffith, Ellis James | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Armitage, Robert | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Muldoon, John |
| Arnold, Sydney | Gulland, John William | Munro, Robert |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Hackett, J. | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Barnes, George N. | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Hancock, John George | Nolan, Joseph |
| Beck, Arthur | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Boland, John Pius | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Hayward, Evan | O'Shee, James John |
| Brace, William | Hazleton, Richard | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Henry, Sir Charles | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Higham, John Sharp | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hinds, John | Pirie, Duncan Vernon |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hodge, John | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Hogge, James Myles | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Clough, William | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Radford, George Heynes |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Illingworth, Percy H. | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | Heddy, Michael |
| Cotton, William Francis | John, Edward Thomas | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Jones, Haydn (Merioneth) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Cullinan, J. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Richards, Thomas |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Jones, W. S, Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Joyce, Michael | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Keating, Matthew | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Delany, William | Kellaway, Frederick George | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Kelly, Edward | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | King, Joseph | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Doris, William | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Rowlands, James |
| Duffy, William J. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm't) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lewis, John Herbert | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. C. E. |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Sheehy, David |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lundon, Thomas | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Sutherland, John E. |
| Falconer, J. | MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) | Sutton, John E. |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Macpherson, James Ian | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Ffrench, Peter | McGhee, Richard | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Furness, Stephen W. | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Gill, A. H. | Meagher, Michael | Wadsworth, John |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Menzies, Sir Walter | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Glanville, H. J. | Millar, James Dunstan | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Goddard, sir Daniel Ford | Molteno, Percy Alport | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Whitehouse, John Howard | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Watt, Henry A. | Wilkie, Alexander | |
| Webb, H. | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. William Jones. |
| Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Williamson, Sir A. | |
| White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | |
| White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Winfrey, Richard | |
| NOES. | ||
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Craik, Sir Henry | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Croft, Henry Page | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Barnston, H. | Forster, Henry William | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) | Goldman, C. S. | Rees, Sir J. D. |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Grant, J. A. | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby), |
| Bigland, Alfred | Gretton, John | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Stanier, Beville |
| Campion, W. R. | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hickman, Col. Thomas E. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Cassel, Felix | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Cator, John | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Clyde, James Avon | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) | Younger, Sir George |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Lewisham, viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Harry Hope and Mr. Stewart. |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Mackinder, Halford J. | |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), paragraph (c), leave out the word "such" ["such resolution shall"] and insert instead thereof the words, "or if no other resolution is carried a no-change" ["resolution shall be deemed to be carried."]—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
§ Mr. MACKINDERI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4).
The effect of the words which it is proposed to omit is to give double weight to the extremists. The chief, in fact the only, reason advanced against the disinterested management option was that it would complicate the issue. Here we have ingenuity exercised for the sake of the extremists—while for the sake of the moderate experimental temperance reformer we have no such ingenuity exercised. If that were an honest objection to the inclusion of the disinterested management Clause I venture to say it could be got over here, but as it is not included we object to giving double weight to the extremists.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI beg to second the Amendment. If hon. Members will take the trouble to read the Clause, they will see that if the "no-licence" resolution be not carried the votes recorded in favour of such resolution are to be added to those recorded in favour of the limiting resolution and are to be deemed to have been recorded in favour thereof. From this it seems the extremists 312 want to have their cake and to eat it too. I cannot understand why the Secretary for Scotland should put in a Clause which certainly would not be accepted in any other connection. It certainly would not be allowed in the case of an ordinary club—it would not be agreed to give certain members two votes because one was not enough for their purpose. It certainly does not accord with what I consider to be the true spirit of Liberalism, and it appears to me that in dealing with this Bill hon. Members opposite are doing all they can to prevent the spread of temperance. They do not in fact appear to want the Bill to pass: they desire that the House of Lords should throw it out so that they may have something to cry about when they go to the country later on. It seems absurd that teetotal men like hon. Gentlemen opposite, to whom the word "drink" is anathema and absolutely wicked, are going to place themselves in the position of voting for drink if a "no-licence" resolution is not passed. They may declare that they are doing nothing of the kind, but the fact remains that if a "no-licence" resolution is not passed their votes are to go for drink.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESNo.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEIn the first place they are voting for prohibition, and if that is not carried they will not be content with being beaten: they cannot take their licking like anybody else, but they seek 313 to secure an unfair advantage and to get double weight for their votes. Surely that would not be correct or honest according to the ordinary canons of voting. I cannot see why a man should have two votes. We hear a great deal about one man one vote, and a good deal of cant about the fairness of that, but when it comes to one man one vote here, it has got to be loaded in favour of the extremists who control the Secretary for Scotland and this Bill.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThe Chairman misunderstood us, or rather we misunderstood the Chairman, and he took the next Clause without our realising what was being done.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI quite accept that explanation. The point is this: Instead of having two polls, it is reasonable to assume that if a voter is in favour of all licences in a district being taken away, he is in favour of a certain number being taken away.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that a prohibitionist is in favour of drink?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI do not see the point of that interruption. All the descriptions of this Clause seem to me to have no relevance to the Clause at all. What the Clause says is, that if you have a certain number of people in favour of doing away with all the licences in the district, it is reasonable to suppose they are also in favour of doing away with twenty-five per cent., and if there are not enough of them to do away with all the licences in the district—which we have seen requires a very large majority—there is no reason why their desire to effect a reduction of licences should not have effect and be counted to that end. It is a simple proposition. There is no monstrosity, or enormousness, or unfairness, or double voting about it. It is merely preventing the necessity of having two polls, and that is a principle to which no one can fairly take exception.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 55.
315| Division No. 222.] | AYES. | [12.20 a.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) |
| Adamson, William | Delany, William | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Donelan, Captain A. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Armitage, R. | Doris, W. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Arnold, Sydney | Duffy, William J. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hayward, Evan |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Hazleton, Richard |
| Barnes, George N. | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Helme, Sir Norval Watson |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Henderson, Arthur (Durnam) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Elverston, Sir Harold | Henry, Sir Charles |
| Black, Arthur W. | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Boland, John Pius | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Hinds, John |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Essex, Richard Walter | Hedge, John |
| Bowerman, c. W. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Hogge, James Myles |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo N.) | Falconer, J. | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) |
| Brace, William | Farrell, James Patrick | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Brady, P. J. | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Ffrench, Peter | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Flavin, Michael Joseph | John, Edward Thomas |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Furness, Stephen | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Geider, Sir W. A. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Gill, A. H. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushclifle) |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Glanville, H. J. | Joyce, Michael |
| Clough, William | Goldstone, Frank | Keating, Matthew |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Kelly, Edward |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | King, J. (Somerset, N.) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Gulland, John William | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Cowan, W. H. | Hackett, J. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Cullinan, J. | Hancock, J. G. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | O'Shee, James John | Sutton, John E. |
| Lundon, T. | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Outhwaite, R. L. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Lynch, A. A. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Macpherson, James Ian | Pirie, Duncan V. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| M'Callum, Sir John M. | Power, Patrick Joseph | Verney, Sir Harry |
| McGhee, Richard | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wadsworth, J. |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Pringle, William M. R. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Radford, G. H. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Meagher, Michael | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Reddy, Michael | Watt, Henry A. |
| Millar, James Duncan | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Webb, H. |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz | Rendall, Atheistan | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradestonh |
| Mooney, J. J. | Richards, Thomas | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Morison, Hector | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Muldoon, John | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Munro, R. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Rowlands, James | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Needham, Christopher T. | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Winfrey, Richard |
| Nolan, Joseph | Samuel, J. (Stockton) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Scanlan, Thomas | Young, W. (Perthshire, East) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. William. |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | |
| O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Jones |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Sutherland, J. E. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Ashley, W. W. | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Baird, J. L. | Croft, H. P. | Rawlinson, J. F. P. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Rees, Sir J. D. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barnston, Harry | Forster, Henry William | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) | Goldman, C. S. | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Gretton, John | Stanier, Beville |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hickman, Col. Thomas E. | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Campion, W. R. | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hoare, S. J. G. | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Cassel, Felix | Hohler, G. Fitzroy | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Cator, John | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Younger, Sir George |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) | |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Lewisham, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mackinder and Marquess of Tullibardine. |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Peto, Basil Edward |
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.