Commons Sitting of 6 February 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1911.
Copy presented of Order No. 8794, dated 29th January, 1913, revoking the Bristol (Avonmouth Dock) Foreign Animals Wharf Order, No. 6556, of 7th November, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PASSENGER MOVEMENT FROM AND TO THE UNITED KINGDOM.
Copy presented of Return showing for each month of the year 1913 (1) the numbers of the Passengers that left permanent residence in the United Kingdom to take up permanent residence in Places out of Europe and the numbers that arrived from Places out of Europe to take up permanent residence in the United Kingdom; and (2) the number of Passengers that left, or arrived in, the United Kingdom for or from Places out of Europe; and the number of Passengers between the United Kingdom and Ports on the Continent of
2
Europe or within the Mediterranean Sea [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the councils of the county borough of Canterbury and the urban districts of Leyton and Walthamstow, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Act to certain classes of Shops within the county borough and urban districts, respectively, and fixing the day on which the Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the council of the county borough of Burnley, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the day on which certain Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday and the closing hours on the several days of the week for the same Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (MONTHLY STATEMENTS).
Copy ordered "of Statements, for each month of the year 1913, of the number of Paupers relieved in England and Wales (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 50, of Session 1912)."—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]

PATENT MEDICINES.
Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed];
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be, printed. [No. 508.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 508.]

PUTUMAYO.
Report front the Select Committee brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed];
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 509.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 509.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Market Gardeners' Compensation (No. 3) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled,
"An Act to prevent the writing, printing, publishing, or circulating in the United Kingdom of advertisements of any betting or tipster's business." [Betting Inducements Bill [Lords. ]

BETTING INDUCEMENTS BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 361.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia (Russian Troops).
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the number of Russian troops in the Russian sphere of influence in Persia, and the number of Indian troops in the British sphere?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The answer to the first part of the question is that there are some 13,400 Russian troops in the North of Persia. According to the last Returns there are about 1,300 British Indian troops in the south, of whom 190 are temporarily there in connection with the arms traffic.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is there any prospect of any Russian troops being withdrawn according to the policy laid down by the right hon. Gentleman in 1911?
  Sir E. GREY: The state of affairs is not very settled at present in Persia.

  China (Six-Power Loan).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the scheme imposed upon China by the six-Power financial group comprises the appointment of the groups' nominees to important positions in the revenue, audit, loan, and railway departments of China; what means, if any, are being taken by His Majesty's Government to guard against the appointment to those positions of creatures of any section of the group or of the group's local agents; and whether he has sanctioned the provisional appointment as chief of the new Chinese audit department of one Herr Rump, who, as head of the German railway bureau at Tientsin, was recently implicated in malpractices relating to the purchase of land for the German section of the Tientsin-Pukou Railway, financed and controlled by Germans?
  Sir E. GREY: It is understood that the appointments to various Chinese departments under the reorganisation loan will be made in consultation with the representatives of the Powers interested. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. I am not aware that Herr Rump is not qualified for the post. So far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no appointment has yet been made.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the French ministers have objected to this particular man?
  Sir E. GREY: That is not a matter for me.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether, seeing that the only trade advantage derived by Great Britain from the six-Power loan to China consists of the discount for brokerage and underwriting, His Majesty's Government will make it a condition of this loan that in the expenditure of the same all contracts and orders for materials which China is unable to supply from her native resources shall be put up to public tender of the respective nationalities in proportion to the amount of the

  5
  loan subscribed by the respective sections of the group representing the same; that the appointment of all foreign employés in the Chinese service shall be in like proportions and open to public competition; and that the chiefs of the new Chinese departments shall be British so long as British commerce or British financial interest preponderates, in consonance with the treaty condition whereby the inspector-general shall be British?
  Sir E. GREY: Provision has already been made for an arrangement of the nature described by the hon. Member with regard to the contracts and orders for materials under the reorganisation loan. The appointments of foreigners in the Chinese services will, it is understood, be made by the Chinese Government in consultation with the representatives of the Powers interested. I am not prepared to make the new condition suggested in the last sentence of the hon. Member's question, which is not practicable.

  Opium Traffic (India).
  Mr. GINNELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman will say what was the estimated amount of revenue to be derived by India from opium exported to China during the transitional period of extirpating the opium vice to the end of 1915; whether India has already derived that amount of revenue from opium exported to China since the date of the agreement; if so, on what grounds the British Legation at Peking now withholds its consent to China's prohibition of Indian opium in certain Chinese provinces; and whether any other trade with China under the British flag receives from the British Government the encouragement given to the trade in opium?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): No calculation of the revenue likely to accrue from the Anglo-Chinese Opium Agreement during its currency was made by the Indian Government. It would not have been possible to estimate with any accuracy the effect of a progressively diminishing export, and in point of fact revenue considerations were not the basis of the agreement. As regards the third part of the question, His Majesty's Legation has not withheld its consent to the closing of any provinces to Indian opium which can be shown to have fulfilled the provisions of Article 3 of the Agreement of 8th May,
  6
  1911. If, in the fourth part of the question, by encouragement of the opium trade, the hon. Member refers to the efforts of His Majesty's Government to induce the Chinese Government to observe their treaty obligations the answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. LYNCH: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that this Government is bringing pressure to bear on the Chinese Government in order to prevent them carrying out their desire to restrict the opium trade?
  Mr. BAKER: No, Sir, the hon. Member must not understand that.
  Colonel YATE: How far are the Chinese carrying out their obligation in this respect?
  Mr. BAKER: I must have notice of that question.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the six-Power loan will be devoted under the pressure of this Government to payment for opium which China does not want?
  Sir E. GREY: That supplementary question has been answered in the negative more than once by the Foreign Office.

  Elizabethville (Imprisonment of Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can give any further information as to the case of Mr. Moore, who was recently arrested and imprisoned by the Governor of Katanga on a charge of libel; whether Mr. Moore has appealed against the sentence and, if so, with what result; what reports have been obtained as to the conditions of imprisonment and the state of the prisoner's health; and whether His Majesty's Minister at Brussels has yet received a reply to his request for a full inquiry?
  Sir E. GREY: According to a telegram from the Acting Vice-Consul at Elizabethville, Mr. Moore was sentenced on January 29th to a fine of 1,000 francs or 40 days imprisonment, and was also fined 6,000 francs for damages with the alternative of five months' imprisonment. Mr. Moore appealed, with the result that both sentences were confirmed. Payment was refused, and Mr. Moore has in default

  7
  been imprisoned, but I have not yet received any reply to my inquiries as to the conditions of imprisonment or the state of his health. His Majesty's Minister at Brussels has been informed by the Belgian Government that, from a telegram received from the Belgian authorities at Elizabethville, it appears that sentence was passed upon Mr. Moore for having published in the "Livingstone Mail" a statement that Baron Faidherbe would have been imprisoned for misappropriation ("détournement") if he had not been a Baron. A full report of the trial is being sent by mail.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Mr. Moore was represented by counsel at the trial, and whether he was allowed to call witnesses?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not heard that there were any irregularities at the trial. Of course, I am awaiting a full report.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Is it not a fact that the offence for which Mr. Moore was convicted was committed in British territory and not in Belgian territory; that Mr. Moore was arrested in Belgian territory and punished for an offence committed in Rhodesia under the British flag; and will the Government take that into consideration in making their inquiry from the Belgian Government?
  Sir E. GREY: What I understand, without having the full report before me, is that he was arrested in Belgian territory and he was sentenced for having published something which the Courts held to be libellous in a newspaper which circulated in Belgian territory.
  Sir G. PARKER: Have the Government satisfied themselves that the Belgian Government were within their right in trying a man for an offence committed in British territory?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not understand it was committed in British territory, because, as far as my information goes, it was in Belgian territory.
  Sir G. PARKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the paper of which Mr. Moore was the editor is published at Livingstone, in Rhodesia, in British territory, and therefore Mr. Moore has been
  8
  convicted for an offence committed in British territory, if it is an offence?
  Sir E. GREY: That is a legal point into which I must go when I get full information, but the contention of the Belgian authorities is that the libel was circulated in Belgian territory.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all attempts to communicate with Mr. Moore by his friends have been stopped at the Congo frontier?
  Sir E. GREY: I was not aware of that, and if hon. Members have any information of that kind I should be glad if they will supply me with it.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is he aware that a copy of a telegram was sent to the Foreign Office yesterday—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members had better put down any further questions. The Foreign Secretary has said over and over again that he is awaiting a full report.

  Macedonia (Political Crime).
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it appears from the monthly reports of the Consul-General at Salonica from December, 1905, to March, 1908, dealing with political crime in Macedonia that, exclusive of troops killed by insurgents and insurgents killed by troops, about 1,663 murders were committed by Christians and 474 by Moslems; and whether he can give corresponding figures for the period from April, 1908, until the outbreak of the Balkan War?
  Sir E. GREY: The hon. Member can examine the figures in any reports that have been published. I cannot undertake to make an analysis of them, nor can I give further figures from reports not published.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Moslem opinion in India is drawing a contrast between the action of the Foreign Office in former years, when they rightly pressed upon Turkey the necessity of Macedonian reform, and the present reticence, which is being regarded as screening far worse atrocities?
  Sir E. GREY: If any inference of that sort has been drawn, I am afraid it must have been stimulated by the misleading

  9
  nature of questions put in this House. I have explained more than once that all last year I was pressed to publish reports which were presumed to contain accounts of outrages which had taken place in Turkish territory, and for which Turkish authorities were responsible. I declined to publish them last year because the war was in progress between Turkey and Italy. I have applied, and I am applying, to the Consular reports now received with regard to what is happening under the Bulgarian, Greek and Servian authorities exactly the same rule as I have applied to Turkish reports ever since 1908.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Turkish Government whether they have any objection to the fullest publication of all reports on the subject of Macedonia up to the outbreak of the war?
  Sir E. GREY: What I am trying to do, in so far as it is in my power, is to bring about peace and a good settlement for the future. There has been nothing about Macedonia for some years past up to the present day which is anything but unpleasant reading, and if I am to rake up the past at this moment, I think it would be most unfortunate from the point of view of Moslems as well as Christians.

  Dublin Castle.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland on account of what statement in it was Detective-Inspector Kane's report on the theft of the Crown Jewels in Dublin Castle in 1907 withheld from the Commission subsequently investigating the matter to which that report related; were the Commissioners informed that Mr. Kane had made a report; if not, why was that information concealed from them; what instructions were given to Mr. Kane before he was allowed to appear as a witness; whether there is any precedent for withholding from a body investigating a crime the previously written report of an important witness relating to that crime; and whether the Crown will produce Mr. Kane as a witness in any criminal proceedings against any of the persons implicated in his report?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Inspector Kane's report was a confidential report addressed in the usual course to the heads of the Criminal Investigation Department, Scotland Yard,
  10
  and was not available therefore for submission to the Commission which investigated the circumstances of the loss of the Crown Jewels. Nor was this at all necessary, as Inspector Kane attended the Commission as a witness, was examined at great length, and gave oral evidence on all the points dealt with in his report. No instructions were given to Inspector Kane before his appearance at the inquiry beyond the direction that he should attend and give evidence. In the event of a criminal prosecution, it will be for the counsel who conduct the prosecution to decide what witnesses should be called to give evidence.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that reports made by possible witnesses are always submitted to a body of, this kind, and can he state any reason why that course was departed from in this particular case?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: May I ask whether it is a fact that there were any Crown Jewels?
  Mr. GINNELLasked the nature of the evidence in the Probate Court, Dublin, in the custody of Mr. Norris Goddard, Sessional Crown solicitor, relating to crime committed in Dublin Castle in 1907; why no action has been taken on that evidence; and, in the event of criminal proceedings against any of the persons involved, whether that evidence will be placed at the disposal of the counsel or solicitor in charge of such proceedings?
  Mr. RUSSELL: My right hon. Friend referred this question to Mr. Norris Goddard, Crown Solicitor for Carlow, who states that he has not the slightest idea of what the hon. Member refers to. Mr. Goddard, Crown Solicitor for Carlow, who and never had, in his custody, possession, or procurement, any evidence relating to crime committed in Dublin Castle in 1907, or at any other time.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will inquire into the circumstances connected with the proposed sale of a farm at Bally-more, known as Fordstown, on the Pop-ham estate, near Boyle, in county Roscommon, belonging to Mrs. Eliza Anderson; whether he is aware that this

  11
  lady has been trying to sell the farm to private purchasers, but has failed to do so owing to the interference of the local blanch of the United Irish League, who demand that it should be sold to the Congested Districts Board and divided amongst the neighbouring tenants; that graves have been dug on the farm and horns blown to intimidate any intending purchaser; that Mrs. Anderson entered into negotiations with the Congested Districts Board, and has been offered a price much below what she would have got from private purchasers but for the intimidation which has been practised; and whether, as under the circumstances Mrs. Anderson can get no purchaser but the Congested Districts Board, he will see that she is not compelled to sell at a less price than she would have obtained if other purchasers had not been driven off?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am informed that Mrs. Anderson is anxious to sell the farm referred to, but up to the present has been unable to do so. The people of the district are anxious that the Congested Districts Board should buy the farm and divide it amongst adjoining tenants. Some graves were dug on the farm and horns were blown near Mrs. Anderson's house. Mrs. Anderson entered into correspondence with the Congested Districts Board regarding a sale of the farm, but the Board have not yet offered her any sum for acquiring her interest in the lands pending the purchase of the fee simple. The price which the Board would offer Mrs. Anderson for her tenancy interest in the farm would be arrived at on a basis of the value of the land, and would not be affected in any way by the circumstances alluded to in the question.
  Mr. DELANYasked when the sale on the Kirk estate, Castletown, Queen's County, will be completed; whether dissatisfaction exists amongst the purchasing tenants on the property with reference to the allocation of the turbary rights, which it is asserted have been placed in the hands of one occupier to the exclusion of the great body of the tenantry; whether a memorial protesting against such exclusion has been received by the Estates Commissioners; what course they propose to adopt in this case; and will the complaints of the tenants be inquired into and due notice given to all the tenants of the date on which the inspector will visit the property?
  Mr. RUSSELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903. The memorial referred to has been received by the Estates Commissioners, and the matter is at present under consideration. The Commissioners hope to be able to make an arrangement by which each tenant will receive a sufficiency of turbary. The purchase money of the estate will be advanced and the holdings vested in the purchasing tenants as soon as practicable.
  Mr. DELANYasked whether the farm of Kilcoake, Thompson estate, Ballybrophy, Queen's County, has been acquired by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, what steps have been taken to ensure that the claims of small holders in the locality shall get due consideration in the distribution of those lands?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners have instituted proceedings under the Evicted Tenants Act for the acquisition of the lands of Kilcoake on the Thompson estate, Queen's County, and, if acquired, they will be utilised for the purposes of that Act.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked whether Mr. Charles Phibbs, J.P., of Doobeg, Bally-mote, county Sligo, has stated, in reply to inquiries recently made by the Congested Districts Board regarding the sale of his untenanted land, that he owns no untenanted land outside his demesne; whether the grazing farm of Crowhill owned by Mr. Phibbs is altogether unconnected with the demesne and surrounded by the holdings of several small farmers whose valuation does not exceed £7; and, if so, whether, seeing that many families were evicted from this Crowhill farm, further steps will be taken by the Board to acquire it for the enlargement of the small holdings surrounding it?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Mr. Phibbs has informed the Congested Districts Board that there are certain tenants on the Doobeg estate adjoining his demesne to whom he declined to sell their holdings at the prices offered by them, and that he had no lands to sell outside his demesne. The Board have no information regarding the farm of Crowhill mentioned in the question.
  Mr. O'DOWD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand that Mr. Phibbs distinctly said he had no

  13
  untenanted land outside his demesne, because I live in the neighbourhood, and I can vouch for the absolute accuracy of all the statements contained in the question?
  Mr. RUSSELL: What I said was that the Congested Districts Board have no information regarding the farm of Crowhill mentioned in the question.
  Mr. O'DOWD: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my representation as correct as I live in the neighbourhood
  Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a hay shed on the farm allotted to Michael Kelly, an evicted tenant, Kildellig, Ballybrophy, Queen's County, on the Hamilton Stubber estate, was forcibly removed by the late owner after the agreements had been signed; whether he is aware that the value of the shed was included in the purchase price which Kelly agreed to pay, and consequently proportionately increased his annuity; and can he say whether the Estates Commissioners propose taking steps to have the shed restored or, failing this, to have Kelly's annuity reduced?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the hay shed referred to was erected by Mr. Hamilton Stubber and removed by him before the Commissioners took over possession of the lands, and was not included in the price of the holding allotted by them to Michael Kelly. The Commissioners sanctioned in Kelly's case the same sum for buildings as in the case of the other persons for whom they provided holdings on the lands acquired on this property. The reply to the concluding portion of the question is in the negative.

  Land Judge's Court (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether, having regard to the failure of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland to lay before Parliament the annual Returns required by Statute, to the refusal of the Court to supply specific information when asked in Parliament, and to the facts that the sale of land is the Statutory business of the Court, that estates subject to an order of the Court for sale since 1849 are still unsold, and that hardships result, the Government will treat failure to sell in sixty-four years as sufficient proof of incompetence, and transfer the sale of all those estates to the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Registrar of the Land Judge's Court informs me that par-
  14
  ticulars of the working of the Court required by Statute are now to be found in the Judicial Statistics published annually by the Registrar-General and presented to Parliament. The Land Judge has never refused any information within his power, but he has pointed out on many occasions that to ascertain accurately the particulars of all the property now in Court would entail an exhaustive and laborious inquiry. Since the appointment of the present judge most drastic means have been adopted for disposing of the estates before the Court, and no property is permitted to remain in Court unless the parties are prepared to proceed to an early sale. There is no power to transfer the sale of these estates to the Estates Commissioners.
  Mr. GINNELL: Has the Land Judge explained the fact that there are estates in his court which have been for sale since the year 1849?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am personally aware, because this is a subject, which has been before Parliament very frequently in days gone by, that in late years enormous progress has been made in clearing off these estates.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that there is no Statutory authority for the appointment of receivers and management of estates in the Land Judge's Court in Ireland for indefinite periods or in perpetuity, he will say under what authority such appointments are made; the number of receivers now employed, with their total annual salary; whether the continuance of their employment depends on the estates remaining unsold; by whom and under what power the receivers' qualifications are ascertained, their salaries fixed, and their functions regulated; and whether he will consent to give a Return of the rules now in force, the receivers employed, their previous occupations, dates of appointment, and present salaries?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Registrar of the Land Judge's Court informs me that the appointment of a receiver must necessarily be for an indefinite period, but no receiver is retained in perpetuity or for a longer period than is necessary. The Land Judge is bound to appoint receivers, not merely in cases where absolute orders have been made in his own Court, but in all cases where the appointment is

  15
  required by other judges. The number of receivers now employed is 186. They are not paid by salary but by fees on the amounts collected. All the rules in force have been made by the rule making authority under Section 75 of the Judicature Act and presented to Parliament. The receivers are nearly all experienced land agents, and many of them are members of the Surveyors' Institute. My right hon. Friend cannot consent to the granting of the Return referred to in the last paragraph.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is it correct, as stated in the question, that it is in the interest of these receivers to keep the properties unsold?

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Sir WALTER NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if a decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the recoupment of salaries stopped from teachers in Ireland under the maternity rule which has recently been withdrawn; and, if not, when he expects to be able to announce the result of the investigations which were commenced in December last dealing with the claims of teachers in such cases?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Treasury have, subject to certain necessary limitations, sanctioned a refund to teachers who were in the service before due notice of the Maternity Rule was given of the loss inflicted on them by that rule.
  Captain CRAIGasked if the Treasury arc making provision this year to grant the promised extension of the standard numbers of Irish national school teachers in first grade, so as to allow those who have got paper promotion to be financially promoted?
  Mr. RUSSELL: No provision has been made in the Estimates for 1913–14 for the extension of the standard numbers in the first grade, nor has any such extension been promised. As has already been stated in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on this subject on the 26th October, 1911, the Irish Government informed the Commissioners of National Education that they were prepared to recommend to the Treasury a limited expansion of the standard numbers at present. fixed for the first grade on the understanding that no further promotions were made to that grade save on
  16
  the occurrence of vacancies. The Commissioners, however, declined the offer and no further action has since been taken in the matter.
  Captain CRAIG: Is no further action going to be taken?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The real point of the reply to the question is that these teachers cannot be promoted until vacancies take place.
  Captain CRAIG: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary promised that he would bring the matter before the Board and the Treasury, in order to get them to carry out their own rules?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The last paragraph of my answer states that the Commissioners declined the offer, and no further action has been taken in the matter.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: If the education authorities in Ireland think a teacher deserves promotion, why is it that the Treasury authorities in this country refuse the salary attached to that promotion?
  Mr. RUSSELL: That question ought to be addressed to the Commissioners.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Through you.
  Mr. HAYDENasked whether any arrangement has yet been made by the Commissioners of National Education with regard to the recoupment of those teachers who suffered financial loss owing to the operation of the recently withdrawn Maternity Rule 92 (j) of the Commissioners' Code?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the question of the hon. Member for South Westmeath on this subject.

  Imported American Meat (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether American meat saturated with preservatives is allowed to come into this country without restriction, while in America no preservatives are allowed; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the Irish public who, in ignorance of this fact, may purchase this meat?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the Foreign Meat Regulations (Ireland) of the 18th November, 1908, and the 1st November, 1909, the general effect of which is to render meat imported from

  17
  places abroad liable to be examined by the medical officer of health of the district to which such meat has been imported, and, if found diseased, unsound, unwholesome or unfit for human consumption, liable to be destroyed unless it is proved not to be intended for human consumption or its exportation is guaranteed and carried out.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department has the carrying out of this Act, and, if so, is this foreign meat inspected to see whether it complies with those regulations?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I do not think my Department has any control over the medical officer of health.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Who has control and inspection of the meat that comes to Ireland from America?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The medical officer of health is under the Local Government Board.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Does any inspection of the meat imported from America as a matter of fact. take place at all?

  Ennis Quarter Sessions (Address to Grand Jury).
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether his attention has been directed to the alleged statement that His Honour Judge Bodkin, K.C., in his address at Quarter Sessions in Ennis to the Grand Jury, suggested the formation of vigilance committees for the purpose of the punishment of crime and outrage without recourse to any legal proceedings; and whether he proposes to take any action upon this suggestion of the learned judge?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to a question on the same subject asked by the hon. and gallant Member for East Down on the 30th January. That reply has been inaccurately reported in the newspapers so as to make it appear that the learned judge had suggested the establishment of vigilance committees in Clare. He not only did nothing of the kind, but he disclaimed the intention of making any such suggestion. The OFFICIAL REPORT shows that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary did not attribute the suggestion to the learned judge.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put down
  18
  that question for the purpose of clearing the hon. judge of the imputation which was cast upon him by this report?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have no doubt of the hon. Gentleman's good intentions.
  Mr. CREAN: May I ask whether it is a case of one job-hunter defending another?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Mr. Speaker, is it worth while noticing that. question? Did you hear the accusation? I was accused of being a job-hunter.

  Magistracy (Ireland).
  Mr. REDDYasked why, in King's County Catholic district, magistrates of the Protestant denomination are in the proportion of twelve to one Catholic; and why A. H. Howard, J.P., of Strawberry Hill, Cloghan, can adjudicate at the Petty Sessions Courts of Moystown and Ferbane, whilst Catholic and Nationalist magistrates in the same area are strictly confined to one district?
  Mr. RUSSELL: It is not understood what is meant by the expression King's County Catholic district. The Lord Chancellor informs me that there are forty-three Roman Catholics and eighty-three Protestants holding the Commission of the Peace for the King's County. Most of the Roman Catholic magistrates in the Petty Sessions districts referred to are entitled to sit at more than one Petty Sessions.
  Mr. REDDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many of the forty-six are dead, and also how many of the forty-three Roman Catholics are Unionists?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am unable to answer either of those questions.
  Mr. REDDY: Then I will ask another question: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me on whose recommendation Mr. Howard was appointed as a magistrate for the King's County?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am not able to give an answer.
  Mr. REDDY: Then can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how it is that, all the Petty Sessions districts in the Birr Division of the King's County are made the dumping ground of Unionists and carrion crows?
  Mr. DUFFYasked whether any complaints have reached the Irish Government

  19
  regarding the preponderance on the magisterial bench in Ireland of men completely out of sympathy with the views of the great majority of the Irish people; are the people entitled to any direct representation on the magisterial bench; how the views of the people are to be conveyed to the Lord Chancellor; and is there any law, written or otherwise, which entitles the Lord Chancellor to insist upon the maintenance of a bench three-fourths of whom are strongly opposed to the people to whom they interpret the law?
  Mr. RUSSELL: My right hon. Friend is aware that the appointment of magistrates fails to give general satisfaction. The Lord Chancellor informs me that he is very anxious that all classes should be adequately represented. As he has previously stated, the Lord Chancellor is always prepared to consider suitable names submitted to him from any representative source.
  Mr. REDDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Rosse, the Lord Lieutenant of King's County, on accepting the appointment of Lord Lieutenant, promised Lord Aberdeen that he would make no political or popular appointments; he told me that?
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked how many copies of Return No. 396, issued on 16th December, 1912, have been distributed to date?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The Return was ordered by the House on the 16th December, and issued on the 21st January; 569 copies have been distributed.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Return deals with magistrates in Ireland, and does he not think something should be done to set the minds of the Irish people at rest, owing to the unfairness of the present distribution of magistrates?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Return is available for the Irish people whenever they want to see it.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I have personally shown that this Return is inaccurate?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I know nothing about the Return. The answer gives the number that has been distributed.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked whether the Estates Commissioners have yet made a grant to Rose Carroll, an evicted tenant on the Gray estate, county Fermanagh, who was reinstated two years ago, or when they intend to make such a grant for the necessary repairs and improvement of the dwelling-house and to assist Mrs. Carroll in the purchase of stock?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners have decided after inquiry not to make any grant in this case.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked what steps the Estates Commissioners are taking to deal with those cases of evicted tenants in the county of Limerick which they have recognised as genuine; and whether he can fix any date by which they will be settled?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that there are six county Limerick evicted tenants whose applications for reinstatement have been provisionally noted for consideration in the allotment of untenanted land acquired by the Commissioners and who have not yet been provided with holdings. The Commissioners have been able to make arrangements for the reinstatement at an early date of one of these persons. They are not at present in a position to say when they will be able to provide holdings for the others, but their cases will be dealt with as soon as practicable.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there has been great delay in the reinstatement of these evicted tenants and in making some provision for them, and is it not time now, so long since the passing of the Act of 1903, that their cases should be dealt with at once?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have no doubt there has been delay, but it has been unavoidable delay. The hon. Gentleman must know that the process of reinstating these tenants is very difficult.

  Disciplinary Charges Against Constable (Monaghan).
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been directed to an incident which took place on the 16th January last at the house of Mr. Peter MacFadden, Dublin Street, Monaghan; whether the person who broke into the house and took possession of it,

  21
  barring the doors and terrorising the only occupants, women and children, was subsequently apprehended by the police and taken into custody; if so, when and by whose authority was he discharged; if he was not convicted, under what circumstances he was taken away by a police officer; and whether it is intended to bring any proceedings against him?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The hon. Member has sent me a newspaper report of the occurrence referred to in the question, but it appears on inquiry that the account of the matter is greatly exaggerated. Mrs. MacFadden has made a statement to the police, from which it appears that on the evening in question a strange man entered her house, the door being open. He did not bar the door or say or do anything to frighten her or her children. She called the constable on duty, and the man went quietly with him to the police barrack. It was then found that he was a constable from another part of the county who was proceeding on leave owing to the serious illness of his father. He was not arrested or detained, as he had committed no offence, but certain disciplinary charges are pending against him, and will be investigated by the county inspector on his return to duty.

  Ancient Order of Hibernians.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether the twenty-three members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians who were sentenced to a term of imprisonment for attacking a Sunday school excursion, consisting of women teachers and young children, at Castledawson, have been released by the Lord Lieutenant before the expiration of their sentences; if so, on what grounds; whether such action is to constitute a precedent for members of the order in future; and are they to be permitted to break the law and then be released if found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to postpone that question.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he is empowered to answer some questions, but when he comes to the really important ones he cannot answer them?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The only reason is that the answer had not arrived from Dublin to-day when I left the Irish Office.
  Captain CRAIG (at a later stage): In view of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I will call the attention of the House to this matter, on the Motion for the Adjournment, in the hope that I will get from him some excuse for the action that has been taken.

  Sierra Leone (Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total area, in square miles, of the Sierra Leone Dependency, and the total area, in square miles, over which the privileges applied for by Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, and associated firms will extend?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The answer to the first question is 31,624 square miles and to the second 311 square miles.

  British East Africa (Londiani District).
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware of the unrest amongst the natives in the Londiani district, British East Africa; whether he has any official information as to a recent Masai raid on Lumbwa, when many cattle were stolen and some of the Moran in charge murdered; and, having regard to the alarm amongst the European settlers in the district, will he take steps to provide protection against these raids?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am aware that rumours of unrest in the district in question have been current in the Protectorate, but the matter has been grossly exaggerated, and I understand from the Governor that there is no ground for anxiety. The particular report to which reference is made appears to have been based on the fact that the action of a small party of police in seizing some strayed cattle belonging to the Sotik was disputed by a section of that tribe. Neither Masai nor Lumbwa were involved and no lives were lost.
  Sir J. SPEAR: Is it a fact that there is a less number of available troops in that district to deal in insurrection than was formerly the case?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot tell, without notice, the precise distribution of troops in the district at this moment, but I will make inquiry if the hon. Gentleman wishes it.

  Federated Malay States.
  Mr. FALLEasked if the proposal to present a battleship originated with the Sultan of Perak or if the suggestion was made by a British official and conveyed to the Sultan of Perak and, through the same channel, to the three other Sultans of the Federated Malay States; and if a repetition of this offer by other protected States will be pleasing to the Government?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the dispatch from the High Commissioner for the Malay States published in the Press on the 18th of December last, which gives a full account of the origin of the proposal. I do not think that it Would be fitting or discreet that I should answer the second part of the question.

  Public Officials (Private Practice).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the rules and practice regarding freedom of officials to receive extra pay from public funds and to carry on private practice for pay, in addition to official salary, as applied to the Law Officers of the Crown and to all barristers receiving a salary from public funds?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Law Officers of the Crown are not Civil servants, and are, therefore, not subject to Civil Service rules. In England and Ireland they receive fees for contentious business in addition to their salaries. Barristers who are Civil servants do not receive additional pay beyond their salaries except occasionally (as in the case of other Civil servants) for other Government work not covered by their salaries, nor are they allowed to carry on private practice.
  Mr. GINNELL: Are there any rules applying to the Law Officers of the Crown in this respect?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware that any rules have been issued. I will make inquiries on the subject.

  Advisory Committees (Glamorgan and Cardiff).
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Prime Minister when the Advisory Committees will be appointed for Glamorgan and Cardiff; and the reason for delaying the appointments?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George, for the Prime Minister): The Advisory Committee
  24
  for Glamorgan was appointed some months ago, but is in suspense, as it was found desirable to make some additions to render it more thoroughly representative. It will be finally settled within a very short time. The committee for Cardiff was appointed some time ago.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the committee for Cardiff was appointed?

  Parliamentary Session, 1913.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked (1) whether, in view of the scheme of agricultural reform foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, His Majesty's Government intend to postpone dealing with the question of educational reform; and (2) whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to propose to Parliament any scheme of agricultural reform in regard to wages and housing which shall extend to Ireland?
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether the scheme of educational reform, promised by the Lord Chancellor, will have precedence over the scheme for land reform promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the measure of primary importance to be introduced into Parliament next Session or vice versâ?
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the promise given to hon. Members representing constituencies containing barracks and permanent camps, that soldiers stationed therein would enjoy the franchise benefits proposed to be conferred upon residents by the Franchise and Registration Bill recently withdrawn, will hold good in respect of the Franchise Bill to be introduced in this House next Session?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend cannot at present make any statement as to the business of next or future Sessions.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask whether the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the National Liberal Club was made with the knowledge and assent of the Prime Minister?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: From what I know of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think he is perfectly incapable of making any statement of which his chief would disapprove.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is there any truth in the report that the land scheme proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been "torpedoed" by the Prime Minister?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Speaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed any land scheme.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: With reference to the answer as it applies to Question 54, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be bitter disappointment among soldiers who expected to get votes, unless this promise is carried out?

  Outdoor Pauperism (Prime Minister's Speech at Leven).
  Captain CLIVEasked the Prime Minister if he will give the figures on which he based the estimate in his speech at Leven that with the grant of old age pensions outdoor pauperism has been concurrently reduced by no less than 94 per cent.?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend was referring in his speech, as I think is clear from the context, to the effect of old age pensions on outdoor pauperism amongst the aged in England and Wales. As compared with 1906, the number of outdoor paupers over seventy in 1912 showed a decrease, as he stated, of 94 per cent. The actual figures are 168,096 in 1906, and 9,530 in 1912.
  Captain CLIVE: Does the right. hon. Gentleman suggest that the words used by the Prime Minister, which are quoted in my question, referred only to old age outdoor pauperism?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. I cannot see what other purpose he could have had in making the reference to old age pensions.

  Supplementary Estimates (Board of Agriculture and Irish Department of Agriculture).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, as a matter of convenience, the Supplementary Estimates of the Board of Agriculture and of the Irish Department of Agriculture, consequent upon the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth-disease, can be taken in this House at the same time and a single discussion founded upon them?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This has been arranged through the usual channels, and the Votes mentioned are the first upon the Order Paper for discussion this evening.

  Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898.
  Major HOPEasked whether, in view of the terms of Section 1 (2) (d) and Section 2 (1) (a) of the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, a certificated teacher who transfers from Scotland to England is entitled to superannuation allowance from the English Board of Education if his recorded service in England is less than half his total service as a certificated teacher in Scotland and England?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In such a case recorded service in Scotland prior to the 1st April, 1912, the date on which the Scotch Teachers' Superannuation Scheme came into operation, is reckonable; but in view of the provisions of Section 14 (6) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, it would not appear to be possible to have regard to service in Scotland after that date for any purposes under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Acts.
  Major HOPE: Is the answer to my question in the negative?
  Mr. MASTER MAN: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he will do so, had better look at it and think it. out. It is a qualified negative.

  Road Board (New West Road).
  Mr. BARNESasked whether any further steps are being taken by the Road Board to create the new west road which was estimated to cost £1,750,000; and, if so, what steps are being takn to secure that the cost shall be borne by those who benefit. in the rise of their land values?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Road Board have not yet received from the highway authorities concerned any intimation of their intention to proceed with the scheme for a new western approach road towards the cost of which the Board intimated their willingness to contribute. No further steps have therefore been taken.
  Mr. KING: Will legislation be necessary before this scheme can be carried out?
  Mr. MASTER MAN: Speaking without advice, I think some kind of legislation will be necessary.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Have the Road Board made any stipulation whatever with the local rating authorities as to any contribution from the land values of the district, which will be increased by the making of the roads?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.

  University Education in London (Royal Commission).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked when the Report of the Royal Commission on University Education in London will be ready for publication?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I understand that the Royal Commission have nearly completed their final Report, and that it is likely to be published shortly.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately when it will be published?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret I am not able to do that.

  Letting of Room for Election Purposes (Leeds).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Varley, of Temple View Road, Leeds East, who, having let a room in the house occupied by her to the Labour party for committee purposes during the recent municipal election, has been evicted by the landlord, the reason for eviction being stated in the presence of other persons who are prepared to give evidence on oath; and whether, having regard to the circumstances of this case, the fact that Mrs. Varley is seventy-four years of age, and the hardship generally of such cases, he will agree to inaugurate legislation dealing with the subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I will, if my hon. Friend wishes it, make such inquiry as may be possible regarding the facts of the case referred to; but he must remember that there may be many cases of hardship that cannot be remedied by any alteration of the law.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I should like him to make inquiries in this case, anyhow.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked whether arrangements will be made to prevent consumption patients in the East End of London from being kept nearly, eight weeks before any decision is given as to whether they can obtain sanatorium benefit, seeing that under the present circumstances more harm than good is in many cases done by preventing alternative treatment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of any such delay before decision as is suggested by the hon. Member, although some patients have been kept waiting a short period while the accommodation for them is being completed. Patients who remain at home until accommodation is ready in sanatoria, so far from being prevented from receiving alternative treatment, are provided with it; medical attendance, medicines and articles ancillary to their treatment, such as extra food, all being supplied to them at the expense of the insurance funds. I am informed that the Downes School at Carshalton, which is being equipped as a sanatorium for over 300 cases, will commence receiving patients from the London Insurance Committee in a few days' time, and so relieve any waiting list at present existing.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to have facts brought to his notice?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am always delighted to have facts on the Insurance Act.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are still constant complaints that the necessary food and other medical appliances in the case of domiciliary treatment are being at the present time delayed?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of it. If the hon. Gentleman will give me some definite statement, I will have inquiries made.

    NURSES.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the nurses of a, nursing institution in London, being insured persons, who are sent in the course of their employment to different parts of the Kingdom or abroad, are entitled to medical benefit in any part of the Kingdom, and to sickness benefit upon

    29
    the certificate of any qualified doctor wherever the sickness may occur?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I have stated on many previous occasions, arrangements are made under the Medical Regulations whereby insured persons who change their residence within the year are able to obtain medical benefit from a practitioner on the panel of the area into which they move, on giving notice to the insurance committee for that area. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question, the acceptance or otherwise of a certificate of any particular medical practitioner so as to enable an insured person to obtain sickness benefit, is a question for that person's approved society, or, in the case of a deposit contributor, of the insurance committee, to decide.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Will a second ticket be issued to insured persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think any second ticket is or will be required in any case. Insurance committees and friendly societies will have to register the names.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: How is the doctor to get the fees?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: The doctor will get the fee paid by the insurance committee.
    Sir H. CRAIK: In the case of those persons who go to another place, will the certificate of the medical practitioner be accepted, and, if not, do they run the risk of losing the whole of their benefits under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The medical certificate is to show they are sick. If they are sick and a certificate is refused, they have a right to appeal to the Commissioners in order to show that they were sick.

    DISPENSERS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked if it has been represented that many unregistered druggists trading as store proprietors in different parts of the country who have served regular terms of apprenticeship to registered chemists and druggists, and subsequently by experience gained in having acted for a considerable period of years as dispensing managers or assistants to practising chemists, druggists, apothecaries, and pharmacists, are qualified to dispense medicines, are deprived of the right to do
    30
    so under the National Insurance Act, either on their own account or as dispensers to persons, firms, or bodies corporate entitled to carry on business as chemists and druggists under the Pharmacy Act; and what, if any, steps are being taken to remedy the disability under which these men suffer?
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) if the proprietor of a drug store who has dispensed for the past fifteen years is now debarred from doing so under the National Insurance Act unless he has a registered pharmacist on the premises; and (2) if he is aware that a London house of wholesale chemists has been inundated with applications from dispensers who have had to leave their employment owing to the incidence of the National Insurance Act, asking if they could find them employment as chemists' assistants, and that, in the majority of cases, they have been unable to do so; and, in view of the hardship caused by the Act, can the Commissioners make regulations to allow dispensers of three years standing to go on the panels?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave yesterday on this subject.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no Amendment was introduced on Report to carry out the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those persons who were qualified to dispense before the Act was passed would not be cut out of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certain Amendments were introduced in order to meet that promise, but I think this is more a subject for discussion than for question and answer.
    Major HOPEasked the Secretary to the Treasury the position as a dispenser under the National Insurance Act of a man who served his apprenticeship to a registered chemist, has dispensed for three years prior to the passing of the Act for a medical man, and has presented the form signed by a medical man to the local insurance committee, but has been told that they cannot give him a certificate to show he is qualified to dispense under the Act; is he aware that chemists refuse to recognise his qualification unless he has either a certificate to show he is a qualified dispenser or some form of registration

    31
    which would answer the same purpose; and will the Insurance Commissioners take steps to protect his interests and those of men similarly situated?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Neither the Insurance Commissioners nor the insurance committees have any power to give certificates of qualification. The conditions under which medicines may be dispensed for insured persons are laid down in Section 15 (5) of the National Insurance Act.

    MEDICAL PANELS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether any panel of doctors under the National Insurance Act, other than that of the Isle of Ely, has been closed; if so, which; and what arrangements have been made in the circumstances?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Shropshire Insurance Committee have made special arrangements—which are generally similar in character to those adopted in the Wisbech and Chatteris districts in the Isle of Ely—in one district, that of Bridgnorth, in which there was not a sufficient number of doctors available for the panel system; and I am informed that another district is now under consideration by an insurance committee.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of statements to the contrary now being made by agents of approved societies, he will consider the advisability of issuing a circular informing all insured persons that there is no compulsion upon them to select a panel doctor if they wish to obtain medical benefit under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No insured person is compelled to select a panel doctor, but payment out of the Insurance Fund can only be made for medical attendance under the conditions laid down by the Act and Regulations.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked whether it is permissible for a doctor to accept more insured persons on his list than he can possibly attend himself in illness, with a view to engaging assistants to attend them instead of himself?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir. No doctor aught to accept more insured persons upon
    32
    his list than he considers he can personally be responsible for. An assistant not on the panel may only treat insured persons oh behalf of his principal when the latter is precluded by urgency of other professional duties, absence from home, or other reasonable cause from giving personal attendance to an insured person under his care. If the assistant is on the panel, the insured person may choose either the assistant or the principal, or may express his willingness to be attended by either.
    Mr. F. HALL: Do the Government intend to make any Regulation as to the number of insured persons that any doctor on the panel may take?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not. think any general Regulation, but, of course, it is the duty of the insurance committee to see that no doctor takes more patients than he can adequately attend.

    BENEFITS REFUSED.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case of a housekeeper, Bridget Connor, who was accepted as an insured person under the National Insurance Act by the Refuge Assurance Company, 105, Stephen's Green, Dublin, representatives of the National Amalgamated Approved Friendly Society, the assurance company, after accepting her contribution card duly stamped, tendered by Mr. G. F. Beatty, of Carrig-na-Mara, Killiney, county Dublin, who was acting on her behalf, and informing him that her proposal form, which he tendered at the same time, was all in order, subsequently refusing the woman any benefits although she had regularly contributed, and although she was confined to bed, having a stroke of paralysis?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Irish Commissioners are communicating with the society referred to as to this case, and I will inform the hon. and gallant Member of the result.

    PATHOLOGICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether medical benefit under the National Insurance Act includes modern methods of exact diagnosis such as pathological and bacteriological investigations?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: Pathological or bacteriological investigations of an expert character are not services demanded of a

    33
    doctor working under the Act, who is only required to give such treatment as is of a kind which can consistently with the best interests of the patient be properly undertaken by a general practitioner of ordinary professional competence and skill; although, of course, such a practitioner would utilise any facilities placed at his disposal (without expense to himself) for obtaining expert assistance.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether any insurance committees under the National Insurance Act have refused to send Form Medical 21 to insured persons who have applied for it, and, if so, which?
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked whether the Form Medical 21, issued by the insurance Commissioners, has been withdrawn; if so, upon what ground they have withdrawn it; and, if not, where compulsorily insured persons can obtain copies of this form on applying for it.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed that some insurance committees have not issued Form Medical 21, pending the publication of an alternative form dealing more fully with the conditions under which applications for permission to make their own arrangements under the provisions of Section 15 (3) of the Act will be entertained.
    Mr.GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether any insurance committees under the National Insurance Act have refused to allow insured persons to make their own arrangements for receiving medical attendance and treatment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of any general refusal of any insurance committee to grant permission to insured persons to make their own arrangements when the panel system is working, though I believe some committees have suspended the granting of such permission until they are satisfied that a panel system sufficient to provide adequate attendance for all insured persons is assured.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a recommendation of the general purposes sub-committee of the Middlesex insurance committee, that under no circumstances should an insured person be allowed to make arrangements with a medical practitioner who had withdrawn from a local panel, and that only
    34
    under exceptional circumstances should insured persons be allowed to make their own arrangements, each case to be dealt with on its merits; and whether he will explain why this insurance committee proposes thus to penalise a medical practitioned on the ground that he has reconsidered a decision to serve on a local panel?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that the Middlesex Insurance Committee recognised that it was impossible to allow doctors who had made contracts for a definite period and had not been released, to break these contracts and yet undertake the attendance of insured persons within the same period upon different terms.
    Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Middlesex Insurance Committee at that particular meeting—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Minister cannot have knowledge of the proceedings of the Middlesex Insurance Committee.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked if a panel doctor is empowered to prescribe the hours during which he will receive applications from insured persons to call upon them at their own homes; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to remedy an arrangement likely, under the present congested conditions, to have serious results in cases of dangerous illness?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A doctor on a panel is under the same conditions in the matter to which the hon. Member refers as are doctors in ordinary private practice. He may give notice of a time within which he will receive requests to call upon patients for ordinary attendance, and he is under obligation to attend them at any hour in cases of urgency.

    EMERGENCY MEDICAL ATTENDANCE.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether any provision has been made under the National Insurance Act for emergency medical attendance on insured persons who happen to be taken suddenly ill outside the panel district in which their doctor officiates?
    Mr. F. HALLasked if, in cases of emergency, it is open to an insured person to obtain the services of a doctor other than the one on the

    35
    panel by whom he has elected to be treated, and to recover any expenditure so incurred?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is, of course, open to an insured person to obtain the services of another doctor in an emergency. The Act does not contemplate any insured person having the services of more than one doctor at a time, and there is no power to recover any expenditure incurred, although reciprocal arrangements could probably be made between the panel doctors themselves for such cases.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask whether it is in order for an hon. Member to put ten questions on the same day to the same Department? On several occasions when I have brought questions I have been informed by the Clerks at the Table that no more than four questions could be asked.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Eight is the limit. I was not aware that the hon. Member had asked ten.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: This is the sixth question.

    DEATH OF INSURED PERSON (R. P. DARKEN).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the death of an insured person named R. P. Darken; will he explain why this insured person was not sent to a sanatorium; and what benefit he received in return for his contributions?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As the grossest misstatements have been widely circulated concerning this case, I must ask the indulgence of the House for a reply of rather more than the normal length. This patient first applied for benefit about six weeks after the Act commenced. He was certified as having suffered from consumption for nearly six months. He was examined by the expert medical adviser of the committee who reported "advanced disease, little expectation of improvement," and recommended dispensary or domiciliary treatment. Such treatment was offered, but the late Medical Officer of Health of St. Pancras reported that the patient declined to receive home treatment, unless he was assured that he would receive at home approximately the same drugs, medical
    36
    comforts and diet as he would receive in an institution, and 10s. a week sick pay after 13th January. The committee wrote again, explaining that he was recommended for domiciliary treatment, and pointing out the disadvantage to himself of declining this treatment, which in-eluded special food, and other assistance, but the medical officer of health again reported that the patient refused to accept the treatment offered without the assurance of the sick pay. The committee again pointed out the advantage to himself of accepting this treatment. A relative of the patient subsequently communicated with the chairman of the insurance committee, who gave personal consideration to the case, and further communicated with the
    patient. The patient, in reply, stated that he had not refused home treatment, and was willing to receive it, and the committee immediately instructed the medical officer of health to give him the assistance he required. For the ten weeks between that date and 7th January, the date of his death, he received medical attendance, drugs, extra diet, articles for supplementary warmth, and a separate bed, for all of which the committee paid. The patient was never advised by an official of the insurance committee (as has been stated) to go to the workhouse infirmary, nor was the St. Pancras Dispensary refused extra payment for the extra food, etc., provided for the patient, although some of the items on the list required to be submitted before actual payment for the sanction of the Commissioners. Had this patient been recommended by expert. medical advice for treatment in a sanatorium he would have been sent to one, with some thousands of others now in such institutions under the Act, and had the Act been in operation a few months earlier his life might have been saved. As it was, he received free payments of doctor's bill, £6 10s.; medicines, 13s. 6d.; special food: as milk, eggs, and cream; bedstead and bedding, blankets, etc., amounting to £12 13s. 7d., making a total payment in respect of his case of £19 17s., in return for insurance payments of less than 2s. 6d.
    Mr. CASSEL: Were the articles which were ordered by the doctor in the first instance supplied partly by charity and partly by a dispensary; had they been refused before the patient died, and was payment for them only made after his. death?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, the articles were provided by the St. Pancras Dispensary, and the bill was sent in to the insurance committee. There was no refusal of payment of the bill. The bill was referred to the Insurance Commissioners in order that they might sanction the articles. The patient received all the articles and the bill has been paid.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it not. the case that several weeks had expired after the articles were applied for before the insurance committee decided whether they were going to allow them or not, and that they only paid for them after the man was dead?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, the patient was receiving treatment all the time, and the insurance committee was assured he was receiving the treatment. Some of the articles were queried, but they have all been paid for. The patient received full treatment, and the statement that the articles were refused is an absolute falsehood.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement he has made is not in accordance with that in possession of those who are familiar with the case—the doctor in charge and the relatives of the patient?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I thought the case of sufficient importance to go into it myself. I have seen all the documents in the case, and I can show them to the hon. Gentleman.

    CONSTITUTION OF INSURANCE COMMITTEES.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether regulations will be framed by the Insurance Commission to provide for the election of two representatives of the medical profession OD each insurance committee; whether he will state why these representatives have not been already elected; and whether, where more than two candidates offer themselves for election, it is proposed that the method of election shall be that known as the block vote or that known as the single transferable vote?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Regulations have been issued providing for the election of two representatives of the medical profession to each insurance committee, and a circular, explaining the method of election and enclosing a nomination paper,
    38
    has been sent to every practitioner appearing upon the medical register. The method of election is that known as the single transferable vote.

    STAMPING CONTRIBUTORS CARDS,
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked whether, in the case of an employé bringing a fully stamped card to his or her employer, the employer is within his rights in employing the said person without paying any contribution for the period franked by the card?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: An employer is relieved from liability for stamping a card in the latter part of the week if the insured person has been in employment within the meaning of the Act in the earlier part. The fact that the card has an insurance stamp on it is not in itself conclusive evidence that this condition has been complied with; and if the employé has himself stamped the card, it is the duty of the employer to ratify the stamping as having been done for himself by paying to that employé the cash value of that stamp.

    EASTERN COUNTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (DELEGATES' EXPENSES).
    Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that expenses have not been paid to delegates who attended the advisory committee, Eastern Counties area, under the National Insurance Act, Part II., held at King's Lynn, on 6th November last; is he aware that some workmen made a journey of 180 miles to such meeting, and can get no reply to applications for payment, and will he see that prompt payment is made for such meeting, and make provision for prompt payment for future meetings?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): It is the general practice to settle claims of this kind shortly after the date of the meeting. The delay in the particular case referred to by my hon. Friend has been due to the necessity of making inquiries into the details of the claims submitted by certain members of the committee. Any payments found to be due will be made at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. BARNES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men have written several times and received no reply?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. They have written and they are aware that the matter is under investigation.

    Ardglass Harbour.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the urgency of the matter and its importance to fishermen on the coast of county Down, he can now make a statement with regard to the improvements it is proposed to carry out in the Royal Harbour of Ardglass, and the amount to be allocated by the Development Commissioners for the purpose, and when the work is to be started; and can he give an approximate date of completion?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The proposal for improvements at Ardglass Harbour has been before the Development Commission, who have reported that they do not see their way to recommend further expenditure from the Development Fund for the development of fisheries on the East Coast of Ireland. I understand that the Department of Agriculture propose to spend considerable sums on harbour works in county Down.
    Captain CRAIG: Does the Department of Agriculture cover the Royal Harbour at Ardglass?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice, I will find out.
    Captain CRAIG: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has hitherto Definitely promised assistance to the harbour at Ardglass which, being a Royal Harbour, is quite outside the Department of Agriculture's jurisdiction, and now after all the trouble that has been taken, there is no Grant?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I said the Development Commission were not giving a Grant. I have no control over the Development Commission at all, nor has the Treasury.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already more than a quarter of the whole Development Fund has been allocated to Ireland, and that on population basis they would only be entitled to one-seventeenth?

    Chinese Bacon.
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the
    40
    fact that Chinese bacon is sent from Liverpool to various parts of Ireland not stamped Chinese, but sold as American, will he say what steps he proposes to take to save the Irish public from this fraud, especially seeing that in England this bacon cannot be sold except it is branded Chinese?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: There is no obligation either in Great Britain or Ireland to brand Chinese bacon as such, but if to such bacon is applied a description which includes a false statement or false indication direct or indirect as to the place or country in which the bacon was produced, the application of such a description, or sale of bacon with such a description, whether in Ireland or Great Britain, constitutes an offence under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. I shall be glad to consider any case of this nature which may be brought to my notice.
    Mr. O' DONNELL: May I ask if Chinese bacon is sold in Ireland branded as American, who is to see that the fraud is prevented? Is there any public authority to do so?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Board of Trade has no machinery to find out whether it is Chinese bacon. That is a matter for the authorities in Ireland.

    British Motor Industry (Portugal).
    Sir. GEORGE YOUNGERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the duty on British motor vehicles and rubber tyres imported into Portugal varies from 50 to 1,100 per cent. higher than that upon similar vehicles and tyres of French or German manufacture; whether there is no Most-favoured-Nation treaty with Portugal; and, if not, whether he will make representations against this differentiation with a view to securing equality of treatment for British manufacturers?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow, of which I am sending him a copy.

    Board of Trade Clerks.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the practice in his Department for clerks engaged upon overtime to be required either to forego the usual Saturday

    41
    half-holiday or to sacrifice the pay for the first three hours of any overtime they may work; and, if so, when this practice was introduced?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: There has been no such practice in the Board of Trade.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the chancellor of the Exchequer if he can make a statement as to the business of the House for next week?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): On Monday we shall begin with the Army Supplementary Estimates, and then continue, and I hope conclude, the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates. Then we shall take the Ways and Means Committee, and thereafter the Railways (No. 2) Bill—Committee; on
  Tuesday we shall take the Report of the Supplementary Estimates, and Ways and Means Report, followed by the introduction of the Appropriation Bill, and the Report and Third Reading of the Railways Bill; on
  Wednesday the Appropriation Bill will be read a Second time; on
  Thursday we shall take the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill, which is a purely formal matter, and thereafter the discussion on Indian finance, requested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  On some of these evenings we shall hope to take the Shops Act (1912) Amendment Bill, and the Superannuation (No. 2) Bill, both of which, I understand, may be regarded as agreed measures, and it is possible that some other small Bills may be regarded in the same light. On
  Friday we shall take the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, to be followed by the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
  We propose to ask the House to meet again on Thursday, 6th March, to consider any Amendments to Bills that may return from the House of Lords. On
  Friday, 7th March, Parliament will be prorogued, and the new Session will begin on Monday, 10th March.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Is that programme of business for next Session or next week? If it was for next week, does the right hon. Gentleman really seriously propose or suggest that these subjects can be disposed of in that time?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know what part of the programme the right hon. Gentleman refers to.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Take Monday.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: After the Army Supplementary Estimates, the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, and the Ways and Means Committee, we propose to take the Railways Bill, which has been pressed from the right hon. Gentleman's own side. I may remind him that it was pressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). There was very considerable pressure brought from both sides of the House to get that Bill passed this Session. [An HON. MEMBER: "At a decent hour."]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to my question. Of course, I am anxious that the Railways Bill should go through, but I would suggest that the programme he has announced is absolutely impossible if there is to be discussion.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask what time the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give to the Railways Bill? There is on this side of the House a considerable desire to discuss the Bill, but under the time-table laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer we shall only have opportunities of doing so in the early hours of Monday and Tuesday, and this House will have to sit continuously to conclude.
  Captain CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no time has been given for considering the Superannuation Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had noticed what I said, he would remember that this is taken to be a Bill to which there is agreement. If it is understood the Superannuation Bill is a contested Bill, certainly the Government will not ask the House to take it. It was proposed on the assumption that it was an agreed Bill. If, as I understand, that Bill is contested, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take the usual means to inform the Government about it. It was proposed only on the assumption that it was an agreed Bill. With regard to what has been said by my hon. Friend, if the Railways Bill cannot be taken on Monday, then it could be taken on Tuesday and Wednesday.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Why not drop it?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government cannot drop it, because it redeems a very definite pledge which the Prime Minister had to give at the settlement of

  67
  the railway strike, and which should certainly be regarded as binding. It was on this pledge being given that the railway company settled, and it is a definite obligation.
  Mr. J. WARD: Seeing that there is likely to be considerable discussion, even from the Opposition on the subject, why not drop it?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that is at all conclusive. The Opposition is divided about it, exactly as Members on this side are. This is an obligation undertaken by the Government, and if the time given is not adequate to discuss it, then I am afraid we shall have to ask the House of Commons to sit a little longer.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister stated on Tuesday, in answer to me, that the Railways Bill would be taken as a second order on Monday?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that is so. There are only Supplementary Estimates and Ways and Means Committee, which is a purely formal stage, and therefore really this is the second order.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he stated that ample time would be given for the discussion of this Bill provided there was no obstruction, and is he aware that some years ago he made the statement that when the two Front Benches were openly agreed private Members ought always to oppose?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no recollection of that. It is very useful to have a convenient memory. The responsibility is on the House of Commons. If the House of Commons desires some time in the following week for discussion, of course it is not for the Government to ask them to sit up late at night. It is option of the House of Commons to decide the matter.
  Mr. JOWETT: Did the Government take any steps to ascertain the feelings of the House of Commons before it gave this pledge?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in settling labour disputes, and knows that that would have been absolutely impossible. The settlement of a labour dispute is a matter of give-and-take across the Table.
  68
  If you were really to refer back to the House of Commons every point, you would never settle it.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Could you not in the circumstances have a Saturday sitting?
  Mr. O'DONNELL: You could have a Saturday sitting. [HON. MEMBERS: "A Sunday sitting."]
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A Saturday sitting is, of course, another alternative.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Before considering the Amendments seriatim, which the Government propose to do, I think it would be convenient to make a few very brief, practical, uncontroversial remarks on the Bill as amended, and to suggest to the House what I think would be the most convenient form in which to discuss the new proposals now contained in the Bill. I will refrain from entering into any discussion of the merits of these proposals, because I think the House will see that it would be most convenient to raise those points when we reach the first Amendment on each subject. The Amendments lend themselves to this process. For instance, on Clause 1, the question of time limit will arise. On Clause 2 the question of disinterested management will naturally suggest a discussion of the whole scheme. The new Clause to insert a scheme of compulsory insurance will naturally suggest a discussion of that scheme. I think the House will see that it will be for everybody's convenience that we should discuss the whole of each' scheme on the first Amendment on that subject, because obviously the House of Commons could not decide to insert a disinterested Management Resolution or a proposal for compulsory insurance without considering the scheme as a whole. The Bill has been altered in nearly every particular. The time limit has been doubled. The majority required to carry a No-licence Resolution has also been doubled. In the Bill as it left this House the majority was three-fifths, which means that you require a majority of 50 per cent. The Bill, as amended, requires a two-thirds majority, which means 100 per cent. The method

69
of voting on the options is altered; the areas where voting is to take place are altered, and there have been other great alterations in the Bill. As the Bill left the House it consisted of 468 lines; 403 lines have been added.
The Bill, therefore, has been doubled in magnitude. In fact it has all been a sort of doubling process. There are two new proposals of very great importance and of a very controversial character which were not in the Bill when it was introduced into this House or was sent from this House to another place. First, there is a novel scheme of compulsory insurance, which was inserted in another place on Third Reading, it having been rejected in Committee; and in the second place, there is the proposal to give facilities for disinterested management to a disinterested management company which would obtain the monopoly of control of the licences in the district on conditions which it will be necessary to discuss as a complete scheme. To deal with the matter in that way is what I propose to the House. These two additions transform the Bill into a very different Bill from that which left the House or from that which was introduced and passed its Second Reading, and went to a Grand Committee. This is a Bill double in bulk, with two entirely new principles inserted in it. It is not too much to say that substantially it is a new Bill. On the question of areas in which the vote shall be exercised I think there is a great deal to be said for small areas. At the same time I am prepared to meet the wishes of those who desire larger areas by accepting the Amendment inserted in another place to raise the limit in urban areas, which are not to be divided into wards, from 10,000 to 25,000 of a population. The proposal, however, to create ad hoc areas is open to serious objections from an administrative point of view. Certain other Amendments have been introduced in another place, to increase the control of the Licence Boards over clubs and to discourage drinking clubs, which are certainly within the intention and scope of the Bill, and I propose to accept them on behalf of the Government. I have made this short general statement before the House considers the Amendments seriatim, because I thought it would be for the convenience of the House and save time, which I think is desired oa both sides of the House, and because the matters to which I have referred are likely to be the main topics of discussion.
70
I hope the House will now consider the. Lords Amendments.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: May I ask whether, in your view, Sir, it will be desirable to have a general discussion now on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, or to confine the discussion to each Amendment?
4.0 P.M.
Mr. SPEAKER: The suggestion is that each Amendment should be discussed separately. The first Lords Amendment
is to leave out the word "five" and to insert the word "ten." That will give an opportunity for discussing the general extension of the time limit, and then, when we reach the fourth Amendment, the "disinterested management" resolution, that, of course, will give an opportunity for discussing the whole of that Question, and, whatever decision the House comes to upon it, will be followed on all the other Amendments which depend upon it.
Sir G. YOUNGER: It is quite understood that we are to have a general discussion upon each point that arises.
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr. BARNES: Would it be in order, in discussing the question of "five," and "ten" years, to ascertain the view of the Government, because it seems to me that would determine other matters?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think I can only use the words of the Prime Minister that "every relevant consideration" will betaken into account.
Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Date of Art Conning into Operation.)
This Act shall, except as otherwise in this Act provided, come into operation on the expiration of ten years from the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twelve.
Lords Amendment After the word "of" ["on the expiration of"], leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the word "ten."
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I beg to move, "That the House do disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment
I think the remark made my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes) is a very fair one. I

71
can understand that it would influence the votes of a good many Members of the House if they knew what line is to be taken, not so much by the Government, as in another place, and that would be a very "relevant consideration." Unfortunately I am not in a position to say what would happen in another place, and I can only tell my hon. Friend with regard to the news of the Government, that I do not think I have anything to add to what I said just now, that we do not think that either the scheme of insurance or the scheme of disinterested management are schemes for which the Government can take responsibility. The House is aware that Clause 6, which was inserted in the interest of the licence holders, provided that the magistrate shall not order any structural alterations of public houses, however desirable they may be, in the interval between the passing of this Bill into an Act and the time when the first vote will be taken. I think the House will generally agree that it would be most disadvantageous to make this disability of long duration. And there is a still larger consideration. I cannot help thinking that the majority of the people in Scotland, and especially in the great towns, will agree that a reduction of the number of licences is urgently necessary in the interests of the people. That was frankly admitted in another place. Lord Balfour of Burleigh laid great stress upon it, as did other Members of the Upper House, and the effect of passing this Bill with a long time limit would, I think, be extremely harmful. The Licensing Courts would be extremely slow to interfere with a licence when they knew that it must be for the popular vote to decide the question with regard to the number of public houses. Therefore I think you would be practically stereotyping the existing state of affairs for a long period if you accepted the Lords Amendment as it stands. The period we have given in the Bill is practically six years from the time of the Second Reading. The Second Reading took place in April, and no licence would really be taken away from anybody until May, 1918; so that practically there is six years of time Limit between the Second Reading of the Bill and the time when anything effective will be done with the licence. That is a very considerable period of time. Lord Peel's Report, issued about fourteen years ago, recommended that Scotland should Jae allowed to vote on the principle of local option with a time limit of, five years.
Sir G. YOUNGER: And with proper safeguards.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot help thinking that the safeguards put in the Bill requiring three-fifths for no licence is a very substantial safeguard. Under these circumstances I ask the House to disagree with this Amendment. I think it is a great misfortune, in the existing state of affairs in regard to the number of licences in many of the crowded towns in Scotland, that we should preserve them for so long a period as ten years.
Sir G. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman has advanced certain reasons for the rejection of this Amendment, all of them very feeble, and he bases practically the. whole of his case on the fact that Clause 6 appears in the Bill. I am quite willing to make him a present of Clause 6, and if he thinks this ten years is too long, let him take out Clause 6. That would be a very simple way out of his difficulty, and it answers his main objection to the proposal. During the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks he left entirely out of consideration the interests of the licence holder. For him the right hon. Gentleman has no bowels of compassion. I do not expect it; we know what he is exactly; we know how he has dealt with this measure; we know how thoroughly ruthless he has been in connection with the proposed modifications of the extreme proposals of the Government. We have seen him refuse reasonable suggestions made by the authors of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) in Committee, as one of the authors of the Bill, most distinctly stated that, the circumstances being wholly altered, owing to the Budget of 1909 having been passed since the Bill was introduced, he thought a reasonable extension of time should be allowed—I think he said eight or ten years. The Secretary for Scotland took no notice of that, but he did not know Scotland, and Scotland did not know him, and it is a pity that they do know him in the capacity in which he now acts. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] I do not pretend to withdraw what I have said. It is a proper Parliamentary expression of opinion. I state it for the reason that I think it is very desirable that the Secretary for Scotland should be a man who thoroughly knows Scotland, and that he should be a Scotchman, born and bred, and who has lived in that country.

73
The right hon. Gentleman does not pretend to know Scotland as does Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He quotes Lord Balfour of Burleigh when it suits him, and he takes care to ignore him when it is convenient. Lord Balfour of Burleigh knows the situation of Scotland, and almost without exception those who are familiar with the circumstances of that country think that the right hon. Gentleman is imperilling his measure by the hard-and-fast attitude he has assumed in dealing with all these proposed modifications. One of the most prominent, if not the most prominent Liberal newspaper in Scotland, told him that he ought in these matters to give way to some of the proposals of the Lords, and be reasonable and fair. If he does not it is almost certain that he will lose his Bill. Let the right hon. Gentleman make no mistake about it, and do not let him imagine that the House of Lords Amendments are at all likely to be repudiated by the people of Scotland. Do not let him suppose that the passage of the measure will be made any the easier if he does riot give way on some of these moderate proposals. Why the people of Scotland should he legislated for according to the extreme opinions which the right hon. Gentleman holds, and not according to the reasonable views which have found expression through the right hon. Member for Leith, I do not know, but I think it is a very great misfortune. Personally, I think the House of Lords have gone a long way in accepting the whole principle of the Bill. They have extended the time limit without any interference with the principle, and they have added another option without interfering with the principle. It gives a more extensive choice—an extended choice, backed up by Members sitting on the bench opposite, by the Prime Minister, by the Lord Chancellor. by the late Lord Chancellor, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate. The Secretary for Scotland says that he will not accept this Amendment, and in doing so I think he is really going very far indeed to contradict and render perfectly inconsistent the declarations that have been made on this subject by Ministers sitting on that bench, and by those who preceded him.
I think that if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to get his Bill passed into law he will require to alter his attitude on this particular Amendment, on which I am quite certain the Second Chamber lays very great stress and regards as most im
74
portant. No one wants to behave either unjustly or harshly to the licence holders, except, perhaps, the right, hon. Gentleman himself, who has very little tenderness towards them. He does not want to alter the time limit in any way. It was suggested that he might alter it with regard to the no-option licence. But that he does not alter. In my view, the alteration of the time limit, and an extension of it in connection with the no-option licence, is far less important than the extension of the time limit with regard to the limitation of number. I do believe that the latter is much more likely to be carried in certain districts than the former, and therefore it. is more important to have a time limit with regard to The limitation of number than it is with regard to the no-option licence. I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill is not at all likely to go through if lie retains Clause I in the form to which we object, and I do not think it is at all likely that the House of Lords will accept a measure which includes a provision such as that which the right hon. Gentleman supports. I think that a reasonable modification of the time limit should be allowed, and that some adequate opportunity should be allowed these unfortunate people to ensure themselves against loss. I am perfectly certain that you are not going to turn men out into the streets simply because of the extremist views of the right hon. Gentleman. I regret that he does not see his way to accept. some limitation of the time limit, and I am perfectly sure that he is endangering his Bill by the attitude which he has taken up.
Mr. MUNRO: In the observations I desire to address to the House I shall endeavour to avoid the rhetorical extravagance which characterised the speech just made by the hon. Baronet, whose observations as a rule are marked by geniality. I do not think the occasion warrants his observations. I propose to confine my observations to the question before the House, namely, whether the time limit should be five or ten years. I read very carefully the debate in another place, and so. far as I can judge the proposal to extend the time limit was bared on the warning thought to be due to the licence holder and on the compensation to which it was supposed that he was entitled. So far as a warning is concerned, I venture to suggest that such a warning to the licence holders of Scotland is at this time of day entirely

75
superfluous. The House must not forget the history of measures of this sort, which is quite different, so far as Scotland is concerned, from England. During the last fifteen years at least there has been a time notice of the most clear and emphatic character given to the licence holders of Scotland by reason of what has transpired in this place. Licence holders are by no means simpletons; they are very wise, far-seeing men, and they must have been able to recognise the writing on the wall, and to have foreseen this day many years ago. It seems to me under those circumstances there is not a man amongst them who did not fully understand within recent years when he took up a licence that he took it on a much more precarious tenure than those who had preceded him. Looking to the history of this Bill and of previous Bills of an identical character, I think that such a time limit as is proposed is perfectly fair, and that the notice of ten years proposed is quite unwarrantable.
So far as compensation is concerned, I would remind the House that Earl Grey in another place, speaking of that subject, said that he could not conceive a worse form of compensation than extending the time limit, and he dilated on that subject in the course of a speech which hon. Members have probably read. On those two grounds it seems to me, and those are the only two grounds so far as I have read the Debate on which the House of Lords bases this proposal, I submit the argument failed. Our case is quite a simple one. As I understand it, it is this: The time limit proposed is the time limit which was proposed in the Minority Report years ago, namely, five years. On this side of the House we respectfully decline, as I understand our position, to sterilise temperance legislation in Scotland for a decade, and to paralyse the administration of the licensing laws. As was said in another place, a time limit of fourteen years would be a public calamity, and I venture to think that a time limit of ten years would not be much better, but would be a national disaster.
Mr. GRETTON: I entirely agree with one remark made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. It has always been the view of those who have investigated this subject, and of the licensed trade, at any rate in England and the rest of the United Kingdom, that as a form of compensation any time limit was an absolute
76
farce. We have always objected to it as being any form of adequate compensation for taking away property from a class of traders on whatever pretext. As a form of compensation it has now become even more ludicrous than it was when we were discussing the Licensing Bill before the Budget of 1909–10. The means of accumulating a reserve fund out of the business has been destroyed by the excessive taxation proposed by the Finance Act of 1909–10. Therefore all idea that any time limit of five, or ten, or fourteen years is of any value whatsoever as a form of compensation may be set aside and is not relevant to the arguments. With regard to the question of warning, I do not agree with the hon. Member. I do not think five years' warning is sufficient. I think that a longer period is necessary, and certainly, so far as the proposed Amendment sent down from another place goes, I believe the extended warning will be of great benefit to the trade in Scotland, and that they desire it. At any rate, it gives the opportunity for a new state of political circumstances to arise, when the whole matter may be revised and reconsidered by a more able House of Commons—from the practical point of view, if not from the sentimental one. On the general subject I may say none of the Amendments which we are asked to consider to-day in any way alter the character of the Bill, and in that I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). The Bill is as objectionable and as injurious, and I think as immoral, as it was when it was sent up from this House to another place. The Amendments do not alter its character and do not mitigate the circumstances, and do not make it in any way more acceptable to the licensed trade, and do not do away with the harsh injustice of confiscating property without compensation and without consideration for those who hold it. Therefore I, personally, am very indifferent as to the fate of these Amendments. The only one of value to which the licensed trade of Scotland attach any value is the one which we are now considering, and on that ground I shall vote with the Scottish licensed traders, who desire ten years instead of five.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I entirely disagree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. I think that the Bill in its general principles is a good Bill, and that it will effect what has long been required

77
and urgently needed in the public interest, and that is legislation to break down the tyranny of the liquor traffic over local administration and the conduct of public business. Whether the Bill itself will be as effective as its promoters think may be a matter for dispute, but, where I think the hon. Member opposite spoke without the slightest vestige of ground was in describing this Bill as a bad Bill. It is a very good Bill in principle, although I think in some details it might have been made more effective from an administrative point of view. I have not read the Debates which took place in another place, and I do not propose to do so, and I did not hear them. I have been familiar with this subject for a very long time. I have had my name on the back of a Bill promoted by Mr. McLagan in 1884 which provided for no time limit., and which was a very arbitrary measure. As I say, I look upon this matter from the administrative point of view and as to what the effect of the Bill will be in operation. The great difficulty we have in administering the present licensing law as to reductions is not having any power of time notice, there being no provision of time notice in which we could carry out reduction. We would have to take away licences in the same way as Mr. McLagan's Bill proposed, and in consequence no reduction of licences were effected. We have had varied experience in this matter of time notice, and many people still hold, along with the late Mr. McLagan, that no time notice is required, and there are persons of great authority who hold that view. Lord Loreburn holds the view that no time notice is necessary; he is a high authority, and I could name others. I do not agree with them. I think it would be extraordinarily difficult.
As it has been impossible in the past for benches to reduce licences, so I think it would be very difficult to reduce licences under a popular vote unless there is general agreement that the time notice is a fair notice. I think once it is accepted that the time notice is fair that at its expiry there will be no difficulty whatever in either reducing or abolishing licences. I think in some parts of the country that the total abolition of licences would be an extremely good thing in the public interest. Once, as I say, this question of the time notice is settled, then I think either abolition or prohibition or reduction will be frequently resorted to, at any rate the second, and in some cases the third. Originally we had no time notice;
78
then we had five years' notice inserted. I have said I thought eight years' notice was about right, and I would even go the length of ten years to get a settlement by agreement. I think from such experience as I have had in dealing with this matter and from the experience of disinterested management and the working under that system, which at any rate gave me some practical insight into the matter, I should have thought about eight years' notice would have met the circumstances of the case. I think that it would be unwise, therefore, to adhere to the five years' notice, and I should support either eight years, or, as I have said, even ten years. Many of the Amendments which have been made in the other place are, I think, unnecessary or unworkable, but this is really the vital point if we are to get the Bill. I should like to get the Bill, because I think from the point of view of administration later on we shall have much less difficulty in applying the Act if we could have a settlement by agreement. I attach some importance also to disinterested management, and I look upon this as a matter of the very first importance.
I would like to see this matter, if possible, settled. No doubt it would be better still to be able at once to have prohibition, but the only way in which that could be done in my opinion would be by making a money payment, and to make a money payment would, I think, be found impracticable. I do not think it would be possible to get that principle accepted in Scotland even if it was considered expedient. There is much to be said against it; but to have any immediate application of the principle of prohibition or of the reduction of licences, there would have to be some financial provision made, and you would have to pay in hard cash instead of delaying the objects aimed at through the operation of a time notice. I think that is the real point of view from which this matter should be approached, and not from the point of view of the Debates here or in another place, but, from the point of view of practical experience and difficulties of administration, of the surest way of getting effective remedy for the great evils from which we suffer. Undoubtedly excess in drink is the great curse of Scotland. In my own county of Fife I see from the report of the Chief Constable that sixty-five per cent. of the crime in Fife is caused by drink. In addition to those crimes there is all the poverty and helplessness and sorrow that is wrought on the community by the curse—
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is now discussing the Bill as a whole. We cannot go back on that discussion, but must limit ourselves to the Amendment under discussion.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I apologise. I was trying to remind the House of the immense objects to be gained, and I was going to conclude by showing how immense the interests are that are at stake, and that an extension of three years or even of five years in enabling the magistracy or the community to deal effectively with those evils is a very small point as compared with the results which may be obtained.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: I am sorry I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) as to the merits of this Bill as a whole. It embodies principles of legislation which I am sorry to see adopted. But I am glad to welcome the right hon. Gentleman's practical help on this particular Amendment. Evil as the Bill may be, I think it would be made, to a certain extent, more tolerable if the Amendment of the Lords with regard to the time limit were accepted. The hon. Member for the Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro) gave two reasons against accepting the Amendment. The first was that the Scottish licensee has had ample warning. It is a totally new principle to lay down that a man is to be assumed to have had warning as soon as any body of politicians preach the doctrine that he is holding property wrongfully, and that he ought to be dispossessed. For instance, is a landowner, because there are certain politicians who think he ought to be dispossessed of his property, to be assumed to have had warning, and in consequence to be liable to be dispossessed hereafter without any compensation? The second argument of the hon. Member was that a time limit is a bad principle of compensation. We all agree that it is a very bad principle of compensation; but it is the only one that you have. I admit that if you attempt to strip people of their property and of their means of livelihood, and simply give them permission to carry on for a number of years, that is not an ideal way of telling them how they may compensate themselves. It is not likely that a public house would be managed any better on that account during the ensuing five years. But if you have nothing else, I do not see how you can in justice deny something to these people whom you would deprive of their property and means of livelihood.
80
I defend this principle of a decent time limit upon much broader grounds. I, at any rate, am not speaking in the interests of any trade association. The trade has no effect whatever upon me, either politically or personally. I do not think that any hon. Member can assert that I am moved in any way by that consideration. I am speaking on the broad principle of what is right and what is wrong in legislation. When we abolished slavery we did not do it at the expense of the slave owners. If you want to promote temperance you must do it at your own expense and that of the nation, and not at the expense of the man whom you wish to make the scapegoat and to whom you apply your unselfish, beneficent legislation. If this is to be done it ought to be by means of the public compensating the man whom you have placed in the position of being an ally of the State, who pays large taxes to the State, who is authorised by the State, who is trusted with certain duties by the State, and who acts under the supervision of the State. It is not at his expense that it is just to carry out this wide-reaching scheme of temperance reform. I do not believe in the particular scheme proposed in this Bill, but if you do carry it out, the least you can do is to exercise a fair, just, and righteous system of honourable conduct towards these licence holders.
Mr. EUGENE WASON: The hon. Member opposite objects to this Bill altogether in principle, but, so far as the bulk of the Scottish Liberal Members are concerned, we heartily support it. It has been passed on three separate occasions by the Scottish Grand Committee, once with this very same kind of time limit included. But if to get this Bill it was necessary to give a slightly extended period, although Members opposite do not appear to care about it, as the price of getting rid of the other. Lords Amendments—disinterested management, insurance, and so on—I do not think that many of us would stand in the way. That, at any rate, would be my feeling if it would satisfy the gentlemen known as the trade, and get rid of these other Amendments, I think most of us would be quite prepared to agree. But if we are not to have a "deal" in this matter, if we are not able to conciliate the trade in any shape or form, we are bound to resist any extended Amendments such as those put in by the House of Lords, and the great bulk of Scottish Liberal Members will stand by the Bill as it left this House, including the five years'

81
notice, which in the opinion of most of us is ample and sufficient.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I do not understand the attitude of hon. Members opposite who take up the position assumed by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I thought that whatever our views as to alternative proposals might be, our duty was to endeavour to secure what we considered would be a good and fair Bill, and that the idea of effecting a deal was not the attitude in which we should approach the question. Personally, I have always claimed to be a friend of temperance in Scotland, and I can appeal to my record in this House to bear out that contention. I think also that on this very Bill the position taken up by the Opposition has not been that of opponents of temperance reform. The House will remember that, although there was a reasoned Amendment moved, the Second Reading was carried without a Division. If hon. Members Will consider the action taken in another place on this question of a time limit, they must agree that the consideration of the question was approached in a judicial frame of mind, and with the desire to get a period that was fair for all parties concerned. It is quite true that they struck out five years and inserted fourteen, but it was quite understood that that was not the final word, and they ultimately accepted a ten years' period. I agree that you cannot say that five years is right and fourteen years wrong. or rice versâ, and that there must be give-and-take in this matter. The right hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) has indicated that quite distinctly. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) also has shown that he regards the question as to the period which is to elapse before the Bill comes into operation as a most material point in connection with the future progress of the measure. For my part, I ask the House to support the ten years' period, because I honestly believe that if that were accepted it would do a great deal to facilitate the progress of the Bill.
I regret that neither in another place nor in this House has there been the slightest suggestion made from the Government Bench that any concession was possible—not even the "deal" to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite referred. Their attitude is—the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. I do not think that that is the manner in
82
temperance legislation can be forwarded, or one which is likely to enable you to turn your Bill into an Act. I have no warrant or authority to speak for the trade, but I believe that they attach importance to this extension of the time limit. The ground upon which I attach importance to it is that I think it would largely affect the votes when the question was put before the electors if they had the feeling that they were giving a period sufficiently long to prevent injustice being done to individual traders. The suggestion has been made not from the Treasury Bench, I admit—that you should allow a ten years' period for a no-licence resolution, and a five years' period for a restricted licence resolution. That will not stand consideration. A restricted licence resolution reducing licences from a hundred to seventy-five would, so far as the 25 per cent. who lost their licences were concerned, inflict just as great an injustice as if it were a no-licence resolution. Therefore that suggestion seems to me to have no logical basis at all. With regard to the point that this is a form of compensation, I agree that in a sense it is. I think that many of those who support the Bill regard it as such and object to it on that ground. With regard to the warning which is said to have been given, if a trade or an individual is to take warning because a Royal Commission reported fourteen or fifteen years before and private Members had introduced Bills Which never proceeded further, that is one thing. If the warning dated from the time when the Government took up the Bill I could understand it. But that was only this year.
Mr. PIRIE: It is the second time the Government have taken up the measure
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: The hon. Member knows more about that than I do. I was under the impression that this was the first time. If the hon. Member says this is the second, I will accept his statement. It is, at any rate, the first time that we have had a Government Bill dealing with the matter, and that makes a difference, if there is any force in the argument at all. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leith Burghs on the wise, discreet, and statesmanlike position which he has taken up. He believes that an extension of the period to eight or ten years would do a great deal to facilitate the passage of the Bill. I agree with him. I think that the out-and-out supporters of

83
the Bill are making an enormous mistake. from the point of view of their own policy in rejecting this proposal. There is an enormous difference between eight or ten years' purchase and eight or ten years' notice. We are not proposing to take eight or ten years' purchase. That, indeed, would startle even those of us on this side of the House. I do not know how the confusion between "purchase" and "notice" came about. In conclusion, I only desire to say that I am honestly desirous to see this Bill pass into law, and I do submit to hon. Members opposite that they will do a great deal to facilitate it passing into law if they can see their way to accept the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith, and allow this Amendment of the Lords to stand.
Mr. PIRIE: Hon. Members of this side of the House will welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow that he is as anxious as any one of us that this Bill should become law. I do not see why the word "deal" should be used, "settlement" or "compromise" would be better. However, perhaps there is no need to quibble about words. I think that most Members on this side of the House will be anxious to see, and glad to know, that this long-desired measure is in such an advanced stage in this House. May I personally express the hope that it will not be the last time this Session that it will be seen before the House? I hope that on March 6th, which is the date that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this House was again to discuss this Bill, that we may arrive at a settlement of this long outstanding question—this Session if possible. This is the only opportunity one is allowed of putting suggestions in regard to this time limit before the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, and before the House. We know perfectly well what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland said, that the Government are not going to accept, and are very strongly opposed, to two of the chief Amendments which the Lords have put into the Bill, namely, that relating to "disinterested management" and that relating to compulsory insurance. Therefore, if there is to be a compromise or an arrangement, this is the Amendment on which such a compromise can take place The hon. Member for Rutland attached
84
most importance to this question of the time limit. I think that it might be met in this way: When the Bill was first before the House it was very nearly being divided into two parts—on the question of local option as regards licences, and on the other distinctly and entirely apart question contained in one single Clause—I think Clause 7—the later opening of public-houses. That Clause 7 comes also under this time limit—five, eight, or ten years, as the case may be—
Sir G. YOUNGER: No, no.
Mr. PIRIE: Well, then, it is my mistake. Anyhow, if it is not possible, I still hope the suggestion of compromise on this question may be carried out. I myself should willingly, in order to see this Bill become law without having been brought under the operation of the Parliament Act—a course which, I think, would be very detrimental to the best interests of temperance on both sides of the House—like to see it come into operation on this occasion by agreement. I would ask hon. Members, especially on this side of the House, to remember that, though this House has the power that the Parliament Act gives it, that there must still be wisdom in its deliberations and in what it enacts. We have power to enact, and to force our enactments upon the minority, but wisdom should accompany those enactments. Personally, as I should like very much to see the Bill become law, I would go the length of those who prefer a time limit of eight years, or even ten years, if we could get this Bill settled by agreement and passed into law this Session.
Mr. BARNES: I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his Friends are unnecessarily afraid of the operation of this Bill, if it ever becomes an Act. There is also the assumption underlying all their speeches that the Bill is to become operative, so far as reducing the number of public houses goes, at the end of five years. I do not think the Act is likely to work so harshly as they think, but after all, if it becomes an Act, it will only give to the people themselves the right which is at present held by licensing justices, or rather it gives the people themselves the right to reduce in the as the bench at present. reduces in single cases. Therefore I think hon. Gentlemen opposite are unnecessarily alarmed as to what the Bill will do. It is quite right, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite says, that I have expressed myself rather in favour of show-

85
ing more consideration to public-houses. I am in a rather peculiar position, because I do not like the extension of time beyond five years, and I have always said so; at the same time, I have also said upstairs, where I proposed a scheme of compensation, that I should prefer the publicans to be given the opportunity of compensating themselves out of funds subscribed by themselves. I am in this position: the Bill, as it is presented to us, contains such a scheme. I should like before the vote is taken to-day, to know the intention of the Secretary for Scotland in regard to that scheme? If it is to remain part of the Bill, I shall have no hesitation in voting for the five years.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman behind me that if it were possible to get this Bill through with something like the goodwill of the other side, at the same time slightly lengthening the time limit that should be given, I should heartily support that. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides not to be too virtuous. A good many of these things are arranged behind the scenes. It would be far better if we could arrange them now on the floor of the House, and before we leave this Amendment. My own position simply is this: that if the Government have any intention of retaining the compensation scheme in the Bill I stick to the five years. If, on the other hand, they do not intend to retain that compensation scheme, I shall be inclined to go a long way in getting this Bill through with something like the goodwill of both sides.
Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I should like briefly to say that the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland has taken up, and also foreshadowed in regard to the other Amendments of the Bill, is one which I believe will commend itself very largely to the people of Scotland. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench has been in receipt of resolutions from the City of Glasgow and other parts of the country which have indicated to him, and to other Scottish Members in the House, how strong the feeling is upon the subject of this Bill. In these resolutions reference is made to the time limit, and the generous period which is already given in the Bill in the opinion, I believe, of a very large section of the Scottish people. When this measure was debated in another place, I was very glad to find that some recognition was being
86
given at last to the wishes of Scotland, as expressed to their representatives in the House of Commons. Lord Balfour of Burleigh indicated in these words his view of the matter:—
"I agree quite ungrudgingly that the time has come when my fellow countrymen in Scotland may fully be trusted in this matter to manage their own affairs:"
I put it that the Scottish people, through their representatives, have made it perfectly clear already that they desire to stick by this time limit in the Bill, because that matter was raised in Scottish Grand Committee. I find that there was only one Scottish Member who sits on this side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith Burghs, who voted for the extension of the five years' time limit. All the other Scottish Members voted against it. I am bound to say I was not greatly impressed by his argument, when the right hon. Gentleman, after referring to the great evils of intemperance in his own county, urged that there were reasons—so far as I could judge—for the extension of the time limit. This was to my mind, rather a reason for trying as soon as possible to do away with the evils. I do not desire for a moment to suggest that my right hon. Friend put that as his main argument, but he did suggest that it was desirable to offer a longer period as a time limit.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: May I put what. I did suggest? What I did suggest—and I will put it in still plainer language so that no one may misunderstand—was that in order to bring this Bill into operation one has to ignore the fanatic.
Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt himself be in a position to judge of the strength of feeling in Scotland on this subject. I am prepared to accept the views of my fellow countrymen in Scotland. I believe that they are preponderatingly in favour of the Bill in the form in which it stands to-day. So far as the other arguments which have been adduced are concerned, I do not desire—no one desires—to see injustice done to the holders of licences. I do think that there is a great deal of misapprehension on the part of hon. Members as to what this proposal amounts to. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in another place, indicated his view that at present, for Death Duty purposes, the period was taken of six years' profits of licensed businesses. There was a Return issued in the House of Lords dealing with that subject. The Noble Lord in referring to that Return

87
referred to one case which was given of the case of a public-house where six years was the period taken. In the Return there were two other cases, in the one three and a half years, and in the other two years, was taken. At the foot of the Return it was stated:—
"It may be added, however, that in the great number of cases, especially when the deceased was a mere yearly tenant, the value of the goodwill is small or even nominal."
I put a question in the House to the Secretary to the Treasury in regard to the average period on which the valuation of licensed businesses was calculated for Death Duty purposes. He told me so far as the figures were available, in cases where note was taken of the profits earned in the larger businesses, it was something like four years, but that did not take account of the great number of cases where it was merely nominal. I submit, therefore, three years at the outside would be the average period which would be taken for Estate Duty purposes, and that a five or six years' time limit is a generous allowance to give in these circumstances. I hope that the House will adhere to the Bill in the form in which it has already passed through the Scottish Grand Committee, and I feel sure in doing so that we shall receive the support of the people of Scotland.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. A. C. MORTON: I am satisfied, from the evidence I can get, that we should stick to this Bill as it left the House of Commons. Of course, I am aware we are only now considering the question whether it should be five or ten years. I think five years is a fair term. I know hon. Members opposite do not think so; they do not want temperance, and they say that if we are to have it we must pay for it. I do not believe in doing so. Then we are told we must look to what the House of Lords are going to do as between five and ten years. We know that hon. Members opposite will tell the House of Lords exactly what they should do. We have been considering this question, not for five years, but for fifty years, and we always announced that we would do something in the direction of the limit in the Bill. Of course, I am aware that many hon. Members opposite do not want to stop drink; they do not want temperance; it is contrary to the interests of their pockets. What they want to do is to sell as much as they possibly can, and on the question as between five and ten years their object is to get as long a period
88
as they possibly can without any regard to morality or anything else.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not in order to impute unworthy motives to hon. Members. The action they have taken is taken upon the general principle of what they consider to be right in the interests of the State. The hon. Member is not entitled to impute motives to them.
Mr. MORTON: I do not desire to discuss that question further. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I will withdraw anything Mr. Speaker likes. I was trying to show that, at any rate, we want temperance very much, and whether the period is five years or not, what we want to do is to stop excessive drinking, and to do that we must remove the temptation from people. I trust therefore we shall insist in doing something in that direction. We should not be frightened by any threat of what the House of Lords or anybody else will do. I know, of course, as far as they are concerned, it is largely a question of electioneering, but I am very pleased to know that the Liberal party in Scotland are prepared to take all the risks of electioneering and to stick to the period of five years. As the law stands, the licence must end at the end of a year, and therefore no one could claim to be treated badly or illegally or in any way wrongly, because the licence has not been renewed. I hope we shall have no more compromises. We compromised and spoiled our Small Landholders Bill; we do not want a bad Biil, and if it comes to that we had. better make use of the Parliament Act and get our Bill at the end of two years, and by and by we may get the Bill carried with a smaller limit. All I say is that in the interests of the people of Scotland I am anxious to promote temperance, and therefore I would rather have five years than ten.
Mr. J. M. HOGGE: There are one or two points, I think, that want to be emphasised before we divide upon this particular Motion. I have listened to the speeches made on this side of the House and on the other and I find myself in a quandary as to how to make up my mind upon the arguments brought forward. My hon. Friend who sits for the Wick Burghs has made the point that the trade in Scotland has had sufficient notice of what the time limit would be and that this period of five or ten years need not be taken into account in considering whether or not it will disturb the position of the trade. Now it so happens that my hon. Friend the

89
Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) has introduced a Bill in which it is sought to deprive the profession of barrister to which the hon. Member for Wick Burghs belongs of the emoluments which attach to offices now only open to advocates in Scotland. Supposing the Government makes itself responsible for the Bill of my hon. Friend some years hence, will the hon. Member for Wick Burghs accept this as sufficient notice of a time limit? That seems to me to be a cardinal argument to the one which is used in opposition to the time limit being further increased. I also want to ask the hon. Gentleman, the Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. Duncan Millar), who pretended to speak for the people of Scotland, a question. I am very much more humble than my hon. Friend, and I do not profess to speak for the people of Scotland as I prefer to allow the people of Scotland to speak for themselves, and the people of Scotland have Spoken very plainly for themselves in the past few weeks.
There has been a plebiscite of the city of Glasgow which has a population equal to one-fourth of the whole of Scotland and that plebiscite consisted of a reply postcard being sent to each elector in Glasgow asking him if he were in favour of one of three options. This postcard had behind it the full authority of the corporation and the Lord Provost, magistrates and councillors of the city of Glasgow. All each elector had to do was not to come to the poll as he would have to do if this Bill became law, but simply to take the reply postcard, marked, and drop it into a pillar-box. My hon. Friends behind me seem to think that. might be a hazardous undertaking, and that some of these postcards might never reach their destination, but my point is that the only trouble the elector was put to was to drop this postcard into a pillar-box after having recorded his vote upon it. The plebiscite was on three things. First, whether they wanted to reduce the licences; second, whether they wanted any change; and, third whether they wanted an increase.
Mr. EUGENE WASON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, what a plebiscite has to do with the time limit in this Bill?
Mr. SPEAKER: That is what I am waiting to see.
Mr. J.M. HOGGE: I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanark pointed out in his
90
argument that the people of Scotland were in favour of this Bill.
Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The point I made was this: That resolutions had been received by hon. Members from all parts of Scotland, and that we had reason to believe that the great. mass of the people were in favour of the limited time limit.
Mr. J. M. HOGGE: What I want to do is to show the House that there were further resolutions by plebiscite which my hon. Friend omitted to mention. This plebiscite was taken inside the last fortnight at the instance of the temperance party, and disproves altogether the contention of my hon. Friend that the people of Scotland, as a whole, are in favour of this Bill. The result was this: That out of an electorate representing one-quarter of the entire population of Scotland only 55 per cent. took the trouble to record their votes, and of that 55 per cent., 53 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the whole population voted in favour of reduction, the rest of the people were in favour of no change or increase. My deduction from that is this: If there had been an actual poll under the Bill in Scotland it is obvious that while the temperance organisations and a great many of the Scottish Liberal Associations—and I am the first to admit it—are in favour of the provisions of this Bill, that is a different thing from saying that the people in Scotland are in favour of it. It has been suggested in the Press and in the house this afternoon that, unless there is compromise on the point of the time limit, the fate of this Bill in the House of Lords is dubious, which I understand to mean that unless some agreement is come to on the time limit, the House of Lords will reject the Bill and place this House under the necessity of passing the Bill under the Parliament Act. Some want this limit of five years; others want it increased to ten years, which is more than I should like to see, but I should be quite willing to compromise upon a figure between five and ten. If this Bill is passed under the Parliament Act it. will be eight years.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Two years from 1912.
Mr. J. M. HOGGE: Very well, then, I say add an extra two years. If our Friends opposite will agree to a compromise of that kind they will find a very large number of us on this side of the House, who

91
while recognising that it is true that those who are of our political colour in Scotland, and of our political organisations, have declared themselves in favour of the principle of this Bill, are not blind to the fact that there are a great many other people in Scotland indifferent about the Bill, and that there are a great many other people opposed to the Bill, and therefore if it becomes law it will be to a large extent inoperative, certainly in our large industrial centres, and will defeat the common object which this House has to promote temperance in Scotland.
Mr. C. E. PRICE: I should like at once to state my resentment of the observations which were made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). We have, however, got somewhat accustomed to such remarks in the Committee upstairs. It is an extraordinary thing that when we had the Land Bill
before us an hon. Member opposite referred to the late Secretary for Scotland as "the curse of Scotland." It is a great pity that we are not to be allowed to get legislation without listening to such observations as those. Under these circumstances I think we should be very chary before we talk about any compromise on this point. On each occasion when this Bill has been before the Committee we have been frequently asked, "What are you prepared to give?" Now we are discussing again the same Bill, and we are again asked what we are going to give. What I want to know is whether we are going to get the Bill, and unless we have some definite assurance that we are going to get this Bill I do not think we ought to make any change whatever in it.
Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 257;. Noes, 153.

Division No. 578.]

AYES.

[5.19 p. m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N.E.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Crooks, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Crumley, Patrick

Hazleton, Richard

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cullinan, J.

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork. N.E.)

Alden, Percy

Daiziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Higham, John Sharp

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Dawes, James Arthur

Hogg, David C.

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Delany, William

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Barnes, G. N.

Dickinson, W. H.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Barton, W.

Donelan, Captain A.

Hudson, Walter

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Doris, W.

Hughes, S. L.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Duffy, William J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Beck, Edward Cecil

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

John, Edward Thomas

Bentham, G. J.

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Boland, John Pius

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Elverston, Sir Harold

Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Jowett, Frederick William

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Joyce, Michael

Brace, William

Falconer, J.

Keating, Matthew

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Farrell, James Patrick

Keilaway, Frederick George

Brocklehurst, William B.

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Bryce, John Annan

Ffrench, Peter

Kilbride, Denis

Burke, E. Haviland-

Field, William

King, J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fitzgibbon, John

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Ginnell, L.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Carr-Gomm, Robert

Glanville, Harold James

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Chancellor, H. G.

Goldstone, Frank

Levy, Sir Maurice

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Lewis, John Herbert

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Clancy, John Joseph

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Lundon, Thomas

Clough, William

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Lyell, Charles Thomas

Clynes, John R.

Hackett, John

Lynch, A. A.

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Hancock, John George

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

McGhee, Richard

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Macpherson, James Ian

Cotton, William Francis

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Outhwaite, R. L.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding),

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Snowden, Philip

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.)

Martin, Joseph

Pearson. Hon, Weetman H. M.

Sutherland, J. E.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Sutton, John E.

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Meagher, Michael

Pointer, Joseph

Tennant, Harold John

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Thomas, J. H.

Millar, James Duncan

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Molloy, Michael

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Toulmin, Sir George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Radford, G. H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rea. Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Wadsworth, J.

Mooney, J. J.

Reddy, M.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Morgan, George Hay

Redmond. William (Clare, E.)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Morrell, Philip

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Ward, W. (Southampton)

Morison, Hector

Rendall, Athelstan

Wardle, George J.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Muldoon, John

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Munro, R.

Roberts, G. H.(Norwich)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Needham, Christopher T.

Robertson, John M.(Tyneside)

Webb, H.

Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

Robinson, Sidney

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Nolan Joseph

Roch, Walter F

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rowlands, James

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wiles, Thomas

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Russeil, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Doherty, Philip

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

O'Dowd, John

Scanlan, Thomas

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

O'Grady, James

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Winfrey, Richard

O'Malley, William

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Clas.)

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Sheehy, David

Young, William (Perth, East)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Shortt, Edward

O'Shee, James John

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Larmor, Sir J.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Dickson, Rt. Hon. Sir C. Scott

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Lewisham, Viscount

Astor, Waldorf

Faile, Bertram Godfray

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col, A. R.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

Flannery, Sir J. (Fortescue)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fleming, Valentine

Lonsdale, Sir John Browniee

Barnston, Harry

Fletcher. John Samuel

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Barrie, H. T.

Forster, Henry William

Mackinder, H. J.

Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Gardner, Ernest

Macmaster, Donald

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gibbs, G. A.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Giazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Goldsmith, Frank

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Beresford, Lord C.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Bird, A.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Blair, Reginald

Greene, W. R.

Mills, Hon, Charles Thomas

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Gretton, John

Mount, William Arthur

Boyton, James

Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Bull. Sir William James

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Newdegate, F. A.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Haddock. George Bahr

Newman, John R. P.

Butcher, J. G.

Helmsley, Viscount

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield).

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

Herbert. Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Nield, Herbert

Campion, W. R.

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A.

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hickman, Colonel T. E.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Cassel, Felix

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Cator, John

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Cautley, H. S.

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Perkins, Walter F.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Peto, Basil Edward

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hunt, Rowland

Randles, Sir John S.

Clyde, J. Avon

Hunter, Sir C. R.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Craig, Charles (Antrim, S.)

Ingleby, Holcombe

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Remnant, James Farquharson

Crack, Sir Henry

Kerry, Earl of

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Keswick, Henry

Rothschild, Lionel de

Dairymple, Viscount

Kimber, Sir Henry

Royds, Edmund

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Knight, Captain E. A.

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

94

95

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Sanders, Robert A.

Talbot, Lord E.

Winterton, Earl

Sanderson, Lancelot

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Sassoon, Sir Philip

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Wortiey, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Valentia, Viscount

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Spear, Sir John Ward

Walker, Col. William Hall

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Stanier, Beville

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Yerburgh, Robert A.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Watt, Henry A.

Younger, Sir George

Starkey, John R.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Stewart, Gershom

Williams, Cot. R. (Dorset, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Eyres-Monsell and Captain Gilmour.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Poll of Electors on Resolutions Submitted.)
(I) If, in the manner hereinafter provided, a requisition demanding a poll under this Act in any area is found by the local authority to have been duly signed, 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 question 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 disinterested management resolution, or (c) a limiting resolution, or (d) a no-licence resolution.
(3) On a poll in any area—

(a) if two-thirds 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, or of a disinterested management resolution, as the case may be, 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, or if no other resolution is carried, a no-change resolution shall be deemed to be carried; and

any such resolution so carried shall come into force on the 28th day of May immediately following the taking of the poll.
(4) An elector shall not be entitled to vote for more than one of the resolutions submitted at the poll. An elector, in giving his vote—

(a) must place on his ballot paper the figure (1) in the space opposite the resolution for which he votes; but

96

(b) may in addition place on his ballot paper the figure (2) or the figures (2) and (3), or the figures (2), (3), and (4) in the spaces opposite the other resolutions in the order of his preference.

If, on a scrutiny, it is found that no resolution has been carried in accordance with the conditions above prescribed, the no-licence resolution shall be deemed to have been negatived, and the papers marked (1) against such resolution shall be examined and transferred in accordance with the preferences, if any, expressed upon them to the new resolution or resolutions marked (2) on such papers; and if after this transfer no one of the three remaining resolutions is found to have been carried, the resolution in favour of disinterested management shall be deemed to have been negatived, and the voting papers which either originally or by transference support this resolution shall be examined and transferred in accordance with the preferences, if any, expressed upon them. If the limiting resolution is then found not to have been carried, the no-change resolution shall be deemed to be carried.
(5) Any such resolution, if carried, shall remain in force until the resolution is repealed or superseded as hereinafter provided.
Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "lodged with," and insert instead thereof the words "found by."
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This is an Amendment which I propose to accept. I do not know that it is absolutely necessary, but as it is thought desirable in another place I ask the House to agree to it.
Lords Amendments agreed to: In Subsection (1), after the word "authority" ["by the local authority"], insert the words "to have been duly signed."
Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2), after paragraph (b). insert the words "a disinterested management resolution or (c)."
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." I should like to put one point very clearly to the House. I think it would be a waste of time if we attempted to discuss disinterested management as a general principle because there has been a great deal of discussion upon it already, and you cannot put a general principle into an Act of Parliament. You must put in a concrete scheme which will, if possible, work. I dare say a good many hon. Members have received postcards urging them to support the principle of disinterested management. The speeches I have heard in this House and in another place, some of them very able and earnest speeches and many of them eloquent, dealt altogether with the advocacy of the principle, and urged that an experiment should be tried in disinterested management, and their arguments were not directed to justifying the concrete scheme for giving a monopoly under this Bill. A person might very well believe strongly in the principle of disinterested management and yet strongly oppose the large and sweeping monopoly which is proposed in this case. Experiments are being tried with disinterested Management, and we have no objection to that. This Bill does not limit, the right of public-house trust companies to try experiments, nor does it interfere with the opportunities for trying these experiments, except in so far as it reduces the number of licences, and I think the supporters of disinterested management will very gladly welcome such reduction. These experiments have had various results, nor have they all been successful. I believe it is admitted that they have not all accomplished the objects which those who promoted them, with the very best intentions, had in view.
I am not satisfied that past experiments have been so uniformly successful as to justify us in giving the facilities now demanded to erect disinterested management into a privileged monopoly. The other House showed very considerable hesitation in consenting to allow a monopoly of disinterested management. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who in Committee introduced the monopoly proposal. found be could not carry it, and he withdrew it at that stage. In its place Lord Salisbury
98
made a modified proposal which was carried. I should like to call the attention of the House to the great difference of opinion there was in another place on this subject. Lord Salisbury distinctly and directly objected to an absolute monopoly as too extreme a course, and the reason he gave was that the system was on its trial, and the people of Scotland did not know very much about it. He argued it was not reasonable to say to the electors of a particular locality:—
"Yon are in favour of disinterested management, but you do not know much about the companies who offer to give you disinterested management. You do not know much about their financial success or their management success; but, if you choose disinterested management, you must have all or nothing. If you try to press it intemperately and drive it, as it were, down the throats of the people, on will not get it in that way."
I think that. is quite true in Scotland. The Noble Lord was supported by the authority of Lord Lansdowne, and I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that Lord Grey, in a most eloquent speech on the principle of disinterested management, made one big admission. He admitted it was still in the experimental stage. He admitted that expressly. The fact is that easy as it is to justify the principle of disinterested management its advocates have found it exceedingly difficult to put forward a scheme that will stand criticism. Several schemes, I think about. five, have been placed before the house. They have differed in material particulars. Their effects would have varied enormously. One was proposed in Committee of this House. I am not going to discuss—it would take much too long a time and be of very little value—the various differences between the schemes. but there was one point I may mention. The scheme proposed in Committee of this House contained no provision for compensation. There was no compensation in that scheme for dispossessed publicans, though I believe its sponsor expressed willingness to put in compensation in order to obtain support which he certainly would not have got without compensation. It was rejected by the Committee. Another scheme was introduced from the other side of the House on the Report stage. That scheme did contain compensation, and it was rejected by 222 votes to 83. In another place a third and a very different scheme was proposed, containing a system of voting which had one very peculiar feature. It would have been possible to carry a resolution though there was actually a majority of votes against it. That scheme did not commend itself to

99
the House of Lords. It was not approved of, and it was withdrawn.
Lord Salisbury introduced another and entirely different scheme which contained a great deal of compensation and very little or nothing of disinterested management. That scheme naturally was not approved of by the advocates of disinterested management. It was practically worthless to them. It was carried nevertheless at that stage. Then on Report stage, and really the history of these schemes is of considerable relevancy in criticising them, a compromise between two entirely discordant schemes was introduced, and it is this scheme we have now to consider. It is like many other compromises, not a very practicable or businesslike proposition. I believe some advocates of disinterested management do not like it at all. I rather gather my hon. Friend for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) was not very pleased with it, because I see he wrote a letter to the "Pall Mall Gazette" on 10th January, which he entitled "True Temperance."
Mr. HOGGE: That was not my heading.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will not found any argument on this; it was I suppose the ingenuity of the editor. The hon. Member in that letter said:—
The question of dispossession and goodwill would not arise as a subject of compensation. The capital involved would be exceedingly small."
No doubt it would be if there was no compensation.
"The State would be receiving all the profits, less the statutory percentage on this capital, and it would even be easily possible to replace the capital as a first charge on profits, so that that element, too, is eliminated."
I quote that to show this compromise scheme of the House of Lords does not fulfil all that the advocates of disinterested management desire. I think that is a fair inference from the letter. This is one of the most singularly unsatisfactory schemes I ever came across. The publican would never know what he was going to receive ultimately, and the public would never know whether they were going to get disinterested management after they had voted for it. The disinterested management resolution as now proposed is exceedingly sweeping if uncertain in its effects. I do not think a great many Members have really appreciated how sweeping the resolution is. It is to be enacted that for the period during which a disinterested management resolution remains in force in any
100
area no certificate shall be granted therein except to an authorised public company. This is a monopoly with a vengeance. It is a very serious thing to give such a monopoly to anyone. I do not think it is less serious when you propose to give it to companies not yet even created. Not only all the public houses in the area but all the licensed grocers' businesses in drink, and not only that, but all the hotels and restaurants are to be handed over to this new company. Let us look at some of the districts. Look at the district of Glasgow, with which, if the hon. Baronet will allow me to say so, I have a dozen years' acquaintance. There you will sweep away the Central Station Hotel, and you will sweep away a great restaurant on the other side of the street and a number of other restaurants, and give them to a company not yet created. It is a very big and serious proposition. Such a proposition as that has never been accepted by Parliament. I think when it is realised how big the proposition is hon. Members on both sides of the House will hesitate to grant so sweeping a monopoly to the new company, however high minded and estimable the intentions of the promoters may be. I frankly admit the good intentions of the promoters. I am arguing against this scheme. It is an impracticable and un-businesslike and unworkable scheme.
Look at the matter from the point of view of the company. It has to give security for half the value of all the licensed premises in the area, although it probably will not use all those houses. It may not use any of them. If it is to fulfil its function and not be a drinking shop, it will not want the fittings and apparatus of a drink shop; it will want new premises, and yet it has got to pay half compensation. If it cannot make the business pay, it will still have to go on paying compensation. Why that compensation should be halt the value I have never been able to understand, except, I suppose, it was a compromise, the two Noble Lords—one believing that no compensation should be paid, and the other believing that full compensation should be paid—splitting the difference. No other reasonable explanation has been given. Look at it from the point of view of the licence holder. The company has the right to pay the compensation in instalments. There is nothing in the Clause which provides that any authority except the company shall decide what these instalments shall be. They therefore can spread them over a long terms of years.

101
Yet their liability ceases if a vote clears them out of the neighbourhood. No more money for dispossessed publicans! Therefore I am justified in saying that under this scheme the publican who is dispossessed will never know what he will ultimately receive. I should not have thought payment by instalments a very satisfactory business for the publican either, and from that point of view I submit to the House with confidence this is not, and cannot, pretend to be, a business proposition. Look at it again from the point of view of the electors. It is equally bad from that point of view. If they vote for a disinterested management proposal they have no security in the least that it will be carried out. Under this scheme, after the vote is taken, a period of three months is allowed the disinterested management company in which to make up its mind whether it will apply for the monopoly. If no company applies or no company satisfies the local authority that it can give proper security for the payment of compensation, then it is provided that the resolution and the poll at which the resolution was carried shall be void. The reformer must start the whole thing over again, and in a county he cannot begin again for three years. Surely from the point of view of those who want a reduction of licences—and they are a great many more than those who are called extreme temperance reformers—this is a most unsatisfactory proposal.
Objections have been made, and very reasonably made I think, that the money will not be found, that this 4 per cent. philanthropy, with the chance of extinction in three years, will not attract the public, and that the money will not be forthcoming. It has been suggested there is one class of people this sort of proposal will attract who will see an interest in finding money for it, namely, distillers and brewers. Those who promoted this scheme desired to prevent that and to meet that objection, and they put in a provision that no person shall be a director or even a shareholder of a disinterested management company who is debarred under Section 9 of the Licensing Act, 1903, from voting as a member of a Licensing Court, and the penalty for a breach of this provision is £50. That Section excludes from Licensing Courts all persons who have an interest in the wholesale or retail sale of drink, with the one single exception of railway company shareholders, from which it follows that
102
a person who becomes a shareholder in a disinterested management company thereby becomes interested in the retail sale of drink and by his very act of becoming a shareholder he ceases to be qualified for being a shareholder and is liable to a penalty of £50. I admit this might be put right by an Amendment, but it is not very easy or so easy as it looks, and it is an illustration of the incurably sloppy way in which this scheme has been put forward. I even venture respectfully to suggest to those who advocate disinterested management and who regard it as a sort of sacred principle, that when it is inserted in an Act of Parliament it must be reduced to a business proposition. I should be glad to hear someone justify this as a business proposition. I venture to suggest those who advocate disinterested management and who believe sincerely that they see in it a valuable reform will be better off without this impracticable scheme.
Consider one aspect of this case; consider it from the point of view of the advocates of disinterested management. I know these gentlemen are not looking for large profits. They will be content with what is now a low rate of interest. Their object is not gain but social improvement. But there is a business side to the question.. If. a man is willing to sink his money and be content with 4 per cent., he wants safety. Supposing that the advocates of disinterested management. succeed, as they think they will succeed in the vote, in sonic great district, they will then clear out the public-houses, the licensed grocers, the hotel-keepers, and the restaurants. They will want very considerable capital indeed to run all those businesses. Will they get the capital on the terms proposed? I know that money has been found at 5 per cent. up to the present, but that money has been found for the purpose of experiment, and it is a limited amount of money. How different the conditions are in this case. There you pick and choose as licences come into the market or you get one for nothing. I think it was Earl Grey who got a licence for the Public House Trust, and on the same day someone, a member of the licensed trade, offered him £10,000 for it. Consider the experiment of disinterested management on the terms of this scheme. There you have a man who is willing to sell his licence on reasonable terms. But under this scheme you have got to acquire all the public-houses, licensed

103
keepers, and restaurants, and pay them half the declared value of their property and then run the risk of being cleared out by a popular vote. You have got to have a huge capital at 4 per cent., and there is a great risk. Take the case of a ward in a great city; look at the very large capital that would be required there. Take one or two wards in my own Constituency; take one of the wards in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading the opposition. Enormous capital would be required for that purpose. Of course, the object of the disinterested management company is a good one; nobody is going into this business with anything but a good object; they are prepared to take a risk in putting their money into it, but it must be remembered that they do not want to set up and carry on the same number of public-houses in the ward.
Their object is to sell fewer intoxicants, and more of other things. The object is to reduce the more profitable part of the business; but, after all, and I say so respectfully, they are amateurs. Are they going to make as much money in the aggregate as the professionals have done? I doubt it very much, and I think that there is great reason to believe that this scheme, if it were carried out, would be a vast fiasco. I do think the disinterested management people would be deeply disappointed if after they had induced the people to vote for it they could not find a company to come forward and undertake the work. The introduction of this proposal into the Bill has been undoubtedly opposed by all the temperance organisations in Scotland whose services in the cause of sobriety are not disposed of by calling them "extremists," with the exception of one society which lives to advocate this principle. I think the Liberal electors of Scotland, too, are opposed to it, and wish to have the Local Option Bill which was promised by the Government, and that it. should be carried in the form in which it was promised. This scheme is opposed by the majority of the Scottish Members who represent undoubtedly the opinions of the large majority of the Scottish electors, and to whose opinions the English, Irish, and Welsh Members should pay special respect. The objection to it has been supported by a majority on every one of the Scotch Grand Committees, and in this House by a majority of Scotch Members and I think sometimes minorities have.
104
duties and that they should bow to the majority. This scheme is supported by no general popular demand; I am perfectly sure of that. Despite the new system of the proportional vote, which has modified the objection somewhat, it would interfere with the carrying out of the other options. Above all, I object to this scheme because it is full of faults, it bristles with difficulties, and it is an experiment which is very little likely to be successful.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: I moved an Amendment on the Report stage in this House in favour of this principle, and for that reason I will offer a few words in reply. In the first place, this comes to us advocated and supported, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, by a large number of the leading citizens of Scotland and leaders of the churches, and very many other organisations which are more important and have more weight in the counsels of Scotland than any number of temperance societies. All these have urged that the experiment of disinterested management should be tried. The principle was hailed in another place with universal acceptation on both sides of the House. Peers of entirely different political opinions united together in hailing it, if it were practicable, as one of the best experiments that could possibly be tried. It hits precisely the weak point in our present licensing arrangements. We may say what we like about those arrangements, some are for them and some are against, but there is no doubt that every thinking man must recognise that there is this one weak point: the State makes money out of it, and cannot do without that money, and it is profitable for those engaged in it as well as for the State. The weakest point in our arrangement for licensing is that to the man who has put his money into it, and spends his time and labour in the business, it is vital that he should, in his own interests, encourage and increase the habits of drinking so far as possible. This principle of disinterested management gets rid of that weakness, Is it fair for the right hon. Gentleman to argue against this principle by merely finding fault with the particular scheme which is put forward? It is a very intricate matter all of us admit. It may be necessary to alter and adjust the scheme to make it workable, but that does not destroy the principle, and that does not say the scheme is impossible. Are all the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman has used against this particular scheme

105
consistent? Do they tally one with the other? In one part of his speech he made an eloquent and telling attack upon the scheme because it was a monopoly; in the latter part of his speech he seemed to show that the monopoly would be of so little value that practically no man would be found so foolish as to put his money into it. Are not these two arguments mutually destructive? Is it really fair to speak of this scheme as a monopoly, in face of the facts?
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They have got to take it as a monopoly or leave it. If they take it, it is a monopoly.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: We all know what monopoly means; it means some great advantage secured to one trader from which all others are excluded. Is it fair to speak of a monopoly in this case, when the public are to put money into it, and arc not to get more than 4 per cent., and are not to make any profit from the sale of liquor? Is it fair to use that word in its popular interpretation in order to arouse a sentiment of indignation against this scheme? I say it is not fair. In the other part of his speech his argument was absolutely against this view. The scheme, he said, would be so unprofitable that it never would be established, they would never get the money. If we cannot get the money, then it will not be tried and it will not be put forward to the vote. Yet it has been tried elsewhere and there has been no adverse decisions. Everyone knows the general argument in favour of disinterested management. I know many people in Scotland who are engaged in public work and who consider that it would be most. beneficial. They are strongly in favour of it and feel it their duty to advocate it. I do not think that weight of opinion is overborne by merely picking out small points of destructive criticism upon the particular scheme which is now put forward. If the principle is good we will be able to adjust all these difficulties, and it should be put into operation. Let us attempt to put into operation, not in a mare haphazard way, but under the æegis of legislative enactment, this scheme which has worked well in other places, which is supported by a great volume of public feeling in Scotland, and which at all events can be defended as being a moderate and sound means of promoting temperance.
Mr. MUNRO: I am one of those who, whilst recognising the sincerity of those
106
who advocate this scheme, and in particular the sincerity of its real author the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), and whilst admiring the skill with which they state their case, nevertheless profoundly distrust the policy which they propose. I am quite willing to join issue with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last in discussing the principle involved. The scheme has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, and in my opinion he has not been answered so far. Let us consider for a moment what precisely is this policy which is advocated and which has been given effect to in the House of Lords. Its features are four in number. First, there is to be public management of licensed houses. In the second place, there is to be a monopoly for disinterested management in a particular area. I cannot understand what my hon. Friend opposite means when he disputes that proposition. If he. will look at Clause:3, Sub-section (5), he will see that "For the period during which a disinterested management resolution remains in force within the area no certificate can be granted therein except to an authorised public company." If this is not a monopoly, then the word has no meaning. Further, there is to be no local application of the profits; they are to be paid into a central fund which, I understand, it is proposed that the Secretary for Scotland shall manage. Then there are to be contributions paid from the disinterested management scheme for the purpose of compensating the publicans who. have been displaced in favour of the disinterested management scheme. These are the features of this particular policy.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: The hon. Member has not mentioned that the money is to be spent by the Secretary for Scotland upon works of public utility.
Mr. MUNRO: Certainly. My hon. Friend has misapprehended my argument, I pointed out that one of the features of the scheme was that the profits were not to be applied locally, but were to be applied into a central fund. I venture to submit that a very heavy onus lies upon those who advocate this scheme, and that for several reasons. In the first place, this scheme. has never found a place in any Scottish Bill dealing with temperance.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Oh, yes, it has—in the three-fold option Bill backed by the Lord Advocate.
Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Baronet will agree with me that that Bill was not proceeded with, and was dropped.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I was stating the facts.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. MUNRO: So far as the scheme of disinterested management with which we are now dealing is concerned, I think that even the hon. Baronet will not suggest that there is any resemblance between the scheme that was before us then and the scheme now before us. Apart from that fact, we have to remember that in opposition to this scheme you find enlisted in Scotland every temperance organisation, with one exception. That one exception we all frankly recognise. I therefore say that those who advocate this scheme have a heavy onus upon them when they say that it should be put into force in Scotland. They have to show three things; that the scheme is sound in principle, that it has been successful in practice, and that it is desired in Scotland. My submission is that on those three points those who advocate these scheme will fail. As regards its being sound in principle, I am sure they part company at once with the man whom they describe as an extremist, that is the tcetotaler. He says, "I see in the scheme"—I do not say whether rightly or wrongly—"a new complicity on the part of the public with the drink traffic." He sees the drink trade adopted and promoted, and that, in his eyes, is quite sufficient to condemn the scheme in principle. Further, the scheme is condemned in principle not only by the extremists but by the moderate drinker, if I may use a phrase which is often misused. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] There may be some who differ. I am venturing to put before the House the view I have frequently heard expressed, and with which I am in a certain measure f agreement. The moderate man regards the scheme as one which, far from attempting to abridge the influence of public-houses, extends that influence, giving the public-house a certain sanction, trappings and fine livery it did not formerly enjoy, with the-result that persons not previously subject to that. influence, I mean women and children, may be brought under its influence in an undesirable way. I do not say whether that view is right or wrong. There is no doubt at all that the scheme is founded upon the policy of drawing people towards rather than away from the public-house. Whether that is a right view
108
or a wrong view is for this House to judge. I venture to say there is a good deal of sound argument in the view of the moderate man who distrusts the scheme for different reasons from those of the ardent teetotaler.
I pass from the question of principle, and I ask has it been shown that this scheme has been successful in practice—in other words, has it diminished drunkenness where it has been tried? If not, I venture to say that we have no use for it in Scotland. I have endeavoured to read and to master a good deal of literature upon this subject. Possibly my research has been imperfect, and my understanding also, but I am bound to say, as a result of my reading, that I find the figures totally unconvincing and contradictory. The system has been tried in Norway and Sweden, but under conditions very different from those which prevail in Scotland at the present time. I challenge any advocate of the scheme to stand up in this House and say that in any place resembling Scotland in its conditions this scheme has been put into operation, and, as the result of its operation, has brought about a great reform in the matter of temperance. At least, if anyone does get up and say so, I am sure there are arguments on the other side which will be brought forward in answer to that claim. I have endeavoured to read as much as I could upon the subject, and that is the deliberate judgment I have formed. If the onus is upon those who support the scheme to prove it has been successful, it has not been discharged. Lastly, I should like to ask, Is the scheme desired in Scotland? Upon that every man must speak for himself. Speaking from my experience, and that of my Constituents, I am perfectly certain it is not. I have had a variety of requisitions on this subject asking me to vote against disinterested management, but I have not had a single one asking me to vote in its favour. My impression is that there is only a small body of opinion in favour of it.
Mr. WATT: Have you received none of these postcards?
Mr. MUNRO: I have heard of centrally inspired postcards. I have received none from my Constituents. So far as that is concerned, every man must judge from his own experience. I am only venturing to state my experience in regard to the desires of my Constituents. No doubt a

109
small section of people do want it. There is a larger section which is indifferent, and I believe the larger proportion of the people in Scotland are positively hostile to it. It, is said, "You are taking away a fourth option which the Scotch people are entitled to have. Why should they not have an option to vote for this scheme if they want to do so?" That is a very good debating point, but the argument would be just as forcible in favour of giving them an option to vote in favour of an increase in licences if they desire it. I am well aware that there are certain Members of the House who are in favour of that scheme, but I should be surprised to learn that the majority of those who favour disinterested management are also in favour of giving an option to the people of Scotland to vote for either an increase of licences or municipalisation. No such proposal was made in the other House. I submit to the House that this scheme is unsound in principle. unsuccessful in practice, and unwanted, and is one that the House should reject. Therefore I submit that the Lords Amendment should not be approved, but is one with which we should disagree.
Mr. WHYTE: If I propose on this occasion to follow the course of action I adopted on the Report stage, and accept. the decision of the Committee upstairs so far as my vote is concerned on the question of disinterested management, I, for one, as a supporter of that proposal, cannot allow the criticism voiced here this afternoon from the Front Bench and the back bench on this subject to pass without some defence on my part. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a very interesting description of the manner in which one scheme after another, in winch attempts were made to embody the principle of disinterested management, appeared on the Order Paper here and appeared and disappeared in another place. The right hon. Gentleman is a member of a Cabinet. I wonder if he will get up at that box and tell us how often any Government Bill appears in one form or another before it emerges from the Cabinet. The Cabinet consists of twenty individuals, while this House comprises some 600 individuals, and the only form in which any principle can reach proper fruition is that very form of experiment upon which the right hon. Gentleman pours such contempt. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the monopolistic character of the Amendments intro-
110
duced by the Marquess of Salisbury in the House of Lords. It is a monopoly Amendment of a kind, although a monopoly strictly created by the popular will. The right hon. Gentleman himself is disabled from using that argument. He first of all told us that he disliked the scheme because it gave a monopoly, and then he told us that all the experiments based on this principle have not succeeded because they were not a monopoly. If those experiments in Scotland which were conducted on the principles of disinterested management have failed, it is very largely because they have had to meet the competition of public-houses not carried on in any way approaching them in disinterestedness. A further question, and a very large question, has also been raised regarding the experience of other parts of the world in disinterested management. I am not going to occupy the time of the House at large on this subject, but the hon. Member for Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro), in an interesting and cogent speech, has challenged anybody on this side of the House or the other to rise and maintain that the application of the system of disinterested management has assisted the sobriety of the country in which it was established.
Mr. MUNRO: I said under conditions similar to those prevailing in Scotland.
Mr. WHYTE: I accept the hon. Member's addendum. The conditions prevailing in the capital of Norway. Christiania, are very similar to those in many Scottish towns. Christiania, like most other towns, suffered very heavily for many years from the evil of drunkenness. Christiania still lives under an imperfect licensing system. None the less, I defy anyone who knows the city of Christiania, who has passed through it, either in times of public peace or in times of public disorder, to say that that city is not far more sober than any Scottish city. I have seen the capital of Norway under conditions of great public excitement. I was there when the referendum was taken on the separation of Norway from Sweden, a question which aroused public passion to an extent. that few elections in any part of the world have ever done. I was there the day before the election; I was there on the day of the election and on the day after, and, taking the day before and the day after the election, I say I have never seen a city under the influence of political excitement more sober in aspect than the city of Christiania was on those days. My hon. Friend.

111
may ask me why I leave out the day of the election. I leave it out because in Norway they have a very salutary provision of the law that public-houses should be closed on election days. I do not bring that into consideration, but none the less the elements which would lead to the consumption of intoxicating liquor in large quantities in this country would have been in full operation on the day before and the day after the election, yet the operation there was to a very limited extent. That leads me to one further point in regard to the evidence of drunkenness. The hon. Member for Wick Burghs hinted that the evidence drawn from the statistics of drunkenness in Norway were against this scheme. I know, as he knows, that the average statistics of drunkenness in the cities of Norway are higher than they are in this country, some of them very much higher. I have no doubt that the opponents of disinterested management take that as an admission of failure. I should like to point out how these statistics compare and the way in which those heights are reached. These statistics are prepared under a system of far greater stringency than exists anywhere in this country, and under actual provisions of law which give a much stricter definition of drunkenness than is to be found under the English system. As anyone who knows the Scandinavian countries must be aware, the sentiment of the people there has justified a more drastic application of police action than similar sentiments have justified anywhere e]se, and you have had the screw put on by the police force in an absoluely unparalleled way which has resulted in these high statistics of drunkenness.
One further thing is to be remembered, namely, that most of the Norwegian towns are surrounded by prohibition in the rural districts, and that a large proportion of the rural population, especially on market days and other days of public supply and demand, come into these towns and go abnormally to swell the statistics of drunkenness, for the minority of the population who do not desire prohibition in the rural districts take the earliest and every opportunity of coming into the towns in order that they may satisfy their desire for intoxicating liquor, and having done more than satisfy it they appear the next day in the police statistics. But I would raise, if I might, this question of the applicability of disinterested management
112
above that of the mere question of comparative statistics. I would remind the House of the dictum of a famous statistician, Sir Robert Giffen, who said that he believed it was almost impossible to establish the relative drunkenness or sobriety of any country or set of countries by the comparative study of their police. statistics. I believe that was a sound, deliberate judgment, and that anyone who uses statistics ought to use them with that judgment in mind. I want, further, to deal with one more point, in relation to the support which this question arouses. My hon. and learned Friend says that this question of disinterested management arouses the hostility of a large number of the temperance organisations of Scotland. By this time that is a platitude. We all know that and we all accept it. But the temperance organisations of Scotland are not the people for whom this Bill was framed. If the Scottish people were members of such temperance organisations the need for such a Bill as this would vanish utterly. There would be no public-houses and the hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Younger) would have to go out of business.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Not in the least.
Mr. WHYTE: I think this is a point which deserves a good deal of emphasis and attention. We are framing a Bill which in a very peculiar degree will affect the behaviour and the social life of the people of Scotland—not merely the people of Scotland in the general phrase, but of every elector in Scotland and every nonelector—once this Bill reaches the period of its full operation, and I think we are entitled to ask the framers and the supporters of this Bill—and I stand here as a supporter of it—to take that into full consideration and to remember that we are legislating not only for members of temperance organisations, not only for those persons who support my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Munro) and myself politically, but for everyone, for our own electors and for the electors who support hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have to take into account all these factors in framing our legislation, and I hope, though I am afraid it is a little late to express the hope, that even yet, a reconsideration of this question may be given in the light of that extremely important consideration which, it seems to me, ought to govern all legislation, but no legislation more than that which deals with the social habits of the people in relation to temperance.
Sir T. WHITTAKER: I should like, as an English Member, to indicate the reasons which will influence my vote on this particular Clause. The main object of this Bill is to enable the people in their respective localities to prevent public-houses being thrust upon them against their will or continuing there against their judgment. That fundamental principle I heartily approve. It is the test that I personally apply to every proposal which is made on the temperance question. I want to know how at this particular time any particular proposal will affect that ultimate view I have. The problem of large cities and of great industrial areas is a vastly important one in connection with this temperance question. It has never been solved yet in any part of the world. II has been proved again and again in those great centres and areas that where the majority of the people desire to have liquor you cannot effectively prohibit its sale. Another important feature that comes in, particularly in this country, is the great financial interest which the trade has and the great influence which that financial interest gives it. These are two phases of the temperance problem which have got to be faced. Disinterested management largely gets rid of the trade interest. In the second place, I feel very strongly that it would do much to render the carrying out and putting into effect of reforms much more easy. I am told a statement has been circulated to members that you can get these reforms in an Act of Parliament, and the suggestions of the Liverpool justices are referred to. Surely that is a very futile and puerile suggestion to practical politicians. We know the difficulty of carrying Acts of Parliament to enable you to carry out these reforms. But we know that even in great cities like Liverpool, if they had the power to enforce them legally, they would carry many of them into effect. I also am firmly convinced that the system of disinterested management would enormously hasten and facilitate the adoption of prohibition, which I ultimately look for. You cannot effectively enforce prohibition unless you have public opinion with you. But when you try your disinterested management, when you manage the liquor under the most favourable conditions, you would still have evils to deal with, and I think people would be more ready to adopt it because they would feel that under that system prohibition was a right and proper course. But the main advantage in the
114
application of prohibition would be that you would get rid, to a very large extent, of the great trade interest which is now the monopoly in the way. I also, after having studied this question for some years, and given such attention to it as I could, am satisfied that the result of the experience in Norway and Sweden, limited, as it is there, to the sale of spirits—it is not so perfect as it could be made, but such as it is it has demonstrated the enormous advantage of that method of dealing with the liquor traffic over the ordinary system of licensing.
Here I would point out that this question of disinterested management is not, to my mind, at any rate, a choice between veto and management, but a choice between management and ordinary licensing in those districts where you cannot carry your veto. When some of my friends tell me that. they are in favour of prohibition as against management, I agree; so am I, and I want it; but what I want them to face is what are they going to do in a district where they cannot carry their veto, and it is there where I think it would be useful. No one admits more fully than I do that any system of that kind needs very careful safeguards. I think they can be provided. I also fully agree that one of the great requirements of our temperance problem to-day is that we should provide counter attractions to the public-house, but I do not like the idea of providing those counter attractions in a locality out of the profits of the sale of liquor in that locality. I think you would do away with a great part of the value of disinterested management if you put it into operation in a form in which the locality would have any tangible interest in the sale of liquor in that locality. Therefore, while no one is more in favour of counter attractions being provided for the public than I am, I think they should not be provided out of liquor profits, but in other ways.
Coming to this particular scheme at this particular moment, and in this particular Bill—the issue which, as practical temperance reformers, we have to face to-day—this scheme is a great deal better than the previous schemes which have been suggested in the other House, but though I do not agree with all the criticisms of the Secretary for Scotland, I agree that his is an unsatisfactory scheme. In the first place, the arrangement for voting, even with the proportional scheme which is added to it, practically

115
means that the dice are loaded against the operation of the veto. I look upon this Bill as one to give the people power to protect themeslves against the issue of licences and anything that trenches upon that, I look upon with suspicion. The provision here is, that if you do not carry it by a two-third's majority the veto is to go out, though it may have got the largest number of votes of any of the proposals. I should have thought a reasonable arrangement would have been to take out those votes for the options which had the smallest number of votes and then see which way they went and work upwards instead of downwards. Another very serious point is that the company is to be formed after you have voted, and it may not be formed at all. I think it is absolutely essential that if and when you adopt a system of that kind you must have before the electors at the time full particulars of the company. You must know to whom you are going to entrust the management. of your trade in your locality, and to give a vote in the air to some company which has not been formed and may never be formed, seems to me to be a very difficult proposal. Further, to come back to my old point about its effect upon the veto, supposing that you carried the vote for a management company and then one is not formed. The whole vote is null and void. But it is possible that if it had been known that there could not be a company formed, and therefore you could not have had management. you might have got a vote for veto, but you have lost your chance because you gave a vote and no company was formed.
Further, it is a detail, but it is of details that I am speaking for the moment—if you are to be successful you are to have a monopoly. It is essential, and it must be pretty widespread. It is no use having it in a. ward of a city; you must have the whole city. This scheme provides not for a monopoly, but for any number of companies. It does not provide necessarily that you are to give the management to one company in an area; you may give it to two, three, or four companies, and they may be competing with one another, and doing away with one of the advantages you get from disinterested management. The idea that this scheme should only run for three years is absurd. You will never get money put in a scheme, if it is to be properly worked, which is only to run for three years. Then, as the right hon.
116
Gentleman suggested, what about hotels and restaurants? Are you going to get these run by a company in this way?
But the weakest spot of all in this particular scheme is the finance. You have got to raise a lot of money to compensate all the licensees who lose their licences to the amount of half the value of their licences, as ascertained under the Bill. That means that the company has got to start with a considerable amount of capital, and I do consider it essential to the success of the scheme that the amount of capital must be as small as possible—so small that you can speedily wipe it out by the profits. But if you start a scheme under which you undertake to pay half the value of the licences, and also provide a sinking fund—because you have to do that if there is any risk of the company being abolished—they will have to sell as much or more liquor, and to make as much or more profit, as the old licence holders. It seems to me that that is an absolutely fatal objection to a disinterested management scheme. It may be suggested that this scheme can be redrafted and amended. I wish it could, but we are practical politicians. We have been sitting here more or less for twelve months, and no one would suggest that at this period of the Session it is possible for us to start to recast the Bill, It would take a good deal of time, and what has been said already shows clearly enough that it is not at all simply a matter of opinion. However much devoted to the idea are my Scottish Friends and other temperance reformers, and I regret to say some of the Opposition, this proposal is, I think, a narrow and mistaken one. I recognise that it is earnest and honest, but I cannot help feeling that if we attempted to revise and recast the Bill, the result would be that we should kill it and lose it. In fact, I doubt whether the Government would give time for it. Remember that in its origin this is a private Member's Bill. I do not know what the Scottish Members feel, but I feel a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend who introduced it for the way in which he has brought the measure to this stage in the present Parliament.
The alterations made by the Lords are extensive and fundamental, and my feeling is that the veto and the reduction proposals of this Bill are good in themselves. It is perfectly clear, and it has been clear for half a century, that Scotland wants these proposals. It has asked for them long, and it has made many efforts to get

117
them under all the difficulties of private legislation, of which certainly hon. Members from Scotland have had a good deal of experience. Now that we temperance reformers, and Scottish temperance reformers in particular, have a chance to get a Veto and Reduction Bill, I say we Must not miss that chance, although I would have liked to see wider options in the Bill. When the Bill has been put into operation great troubles will still remain in many districts of Scotland. The existence of the Bill will accentuate the present troubles, and I have no doubt temperance reformers will have to face more clearly than they have hitherto clone the difficulty of dealing with the great industrial centres. Disinterested management is not essential to the veto. It is a distinct and separate question. I should have been glad if they could have been combined, but as a practical politician I feel that they cannot be combined here and now. The carrying of the veto will be a great gain. It will establish a principle for which many have worked hard and long, and I want to do what I can to take this opportunity, at any rate, of getting that.
Earl WINTERTON: I cannot help feeling that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir T. Whittaker) is rather unconvincing. He reminds me of a hunter who rode up to a fence, and after looking at it came to the conclusion that instead of jumping it was safer to go round by the gate. He commenced his speech by one of the strongest arguments in favour of disinterested management I have ever heard, and my Friends and I thought he was going to vote for it. But according to the custom which has been adopted by those who speak on this question, he finally found reasons—I think most inadequate reasons—for not supporting the proposal in the Lobby. There was not a single argument used by the right hon. Gentleman against this proposal which was really valid. I would like to deal with one of the arguments used, if not by him, at all events by others who spoke against the proposal. It is an argument which seems to me to be entirely wrong. It is suggested that if you adopt this proposal, you will be adopting something in the form of a monopoly. I suggest that nobody has ever heard of a monopoly which could not net more than 4 per cent. The mere fact that not more than 4 per cent. will go into the pockets of the disinterested company is an argument against the statement that
118
this would be a monopoly. There are no monopolists who would be content with 4 per cent. Those who object to this proposal should decide which horse they are going to ride. They have said, in the first place, that this proposal would make a monopoly, and secondly, that it would be impossible to have disinterested management because they would not be able to form a company. Obviously the one argument destroys the other. Most of us on this side of the House take up the position of believing that the statements made as to the harm done by the licensed trade in Scotland are grossly exaggerated, and are mostly entirely without foundation. We say, without any prejudice to our general views on that question, that we can support this proposal to allow the locality to have disinterested management, if it desires to do so. I venture to say that those who really care for the interests of temperance are in exactly the same position, They can, without any prejudice to their general views on the question of the licensed trade, and on the question of licensing generally give support to the proposal for disinterested management as a practical compromise.
There is one point to which attention has not yet been called in this Debate, and which I should like to mention. It is this: If no veto resolution is carried, you have practically got no half-way houses between ordinary licensed premises and no licensed premises at all. It is clear that in every country—Scotland and everywhere else—the public have got to find some place where they can get rest and refreshments, and the only result of passing the Bill in the form in which the Government wish to pass it will be that the locality will have no option but merely to vote for or against licences. If the option for no licences should be carried, the public will have to find some place to get refreshments, and a number of unlicensed hotels will grow up. I regard the growth of these temperance hotels as extremely undesirable. I desire to say that they are in many towns nothing more nor less than unlicensed brothels. There are streets in London where there are these unlicensed temperance hotels which the police have no control over, and which are used for all sorts of improper purposes. The result of the passing of the Bill in the form the Government seek to pass it would be to encourage the growth of these places. In the course of the Debate one hon. Gentleman who spoke against the

119
Lords Amendment said that there is no place to which you can point for a practical example of disinterested management where that form of management has been sucessful. I do not wish to enter upon the thorny path already traversed at different stages of the Bill in this House, but on the question of disinterested management in Norway I wish to mention one root fact. There is no question that since disinterested management has been generally adopted in that country—it has not been universally adopted, and therefore we cannot get a clear issue—there has resulted a considerable decrease in consumption of liquor per head of the population. It is equally a fact that where you have prohibition, which is the alternative to disinterested management, in Norway and Sweden, the result has been perfectly disastrous.
The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott), in a rather interesting pamphlet published in 1908 on the subject of the licensing system of Norway, Sweden, and Finland, mentions that in Stavanger, with a population of 34,000, the largest town in Norway, drunkenness is 33½ per 1,000 of the population, while in localities where they have disinterested management drunkenness is fifteen per thousand of the population. The hon. Gentleman in his pamphlet describes how he made a tour of investigation in that town. He says it has a reputation for being very religious, and in many respects bears a close resemblance to many Scottish towns. Despite that, there is this enormous amount of drunkenness in the town. Undoubtedly in many other parts of the world where prohibition has been in force the police periodically find a number of unlicensed shops, and the amount paid in fines is very similar to the amount paid in licences in an area where there are licences. I ask the House to consider very carefully before it disregards the proposals for disinterested management put in the Bill by the House of Lords. The Debate carried on by hon. Gentlemen opposite has been carried on on a high plane, with the exception of the speech made by the Secretary for Scotland, who characterised these proposals as sloppy. I do not know whether the right Lou. Gentleman is a good judge of what constitutes sloppiness. I very much doubt if he knows the meaning of the word, but those in another place, like my Noble Friend Lord Grey and others, who have a knowledge of disinterested management
120
possessed by few in this country, are the last to whom the word "sloppy" should be applied when they speak of disinterested management. If there is any sloppiness it is not in the disinterested management proposals, but in the root idea of the Bill.
Those of us who are going to support the House of Lords Amendment in the Lobby do not pledge ourselves to agree to every detail put in, but we do pledge ourselves to vote for the principle, and we can vote for it with a perfectly clear conscience. At the same time, I think the arguments that have been used against the details put. into the Bill are not valid. What the House is asked to vote upon is the principle of disinterested management, and those who believe in that principle and do not vote for it, will not be showing themselves very enthusiastic advocates of disinterested management, nor will they show that they believe in it very deeply. No mutilation of the principle of the Bill will be involved by adopting this Amendment. I quite realise that some extreme advocates of the temperance cause are unable to vote for this Amendment, not so much because of the views they themselves hold on the question, as because they have been driven by the section of public opinion which they are supposed to represent outside, and I can only say of that public opinion and those who represent them in this House, that no one admires more than I the fervour with which they put forward arguments. But I may use the phrase which Junius once used about a very distinguished former Member of this House, and say to them that there is no use in thinking, because their labours have been gigantic, that they can contend with truth and heaven. Every single argument which has been used in the course of debate against disinterested management during the last five years, has been falsified by the march of events. We who believe in disinterested management—and I back my opinion by being a shareholder in a disinterested management company—ask the House to give a vote for or against the principle of disinterested management.
Mr. KING: I want to appeal to hon. and right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench to allow the House to be perfectly free to give a vote on this side. I have been convinced myself that, the principle of disinterested management is not only right, but is certainly good for Scotland, and for this reason. It would give Scotland the opportunity of making an experiment which may

121
lead to the adoption of this great method for the whole of the Empire. The Scotch-men have in other parts of the world shown that they can make a success of businesses of which other men cannot make a success, and therefore the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs, that disinterested management has not proved successful elsewhere, does not appeal to me. I believe that if any man can make a success of it, it is the Scotchman. Moreover, he says it is not desired at all in Scotland. If not, it very soon will be, when they see what profit they can make out of it. I am aware that the scheme put forward in another place was put forward with some haste and without due consideration, and I am quite aware of the objections of a technical and theoretical character that may be brought against it. But we are voting under this Clause on the principle. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] We can very well adopt the principle of this Clause, and then we can leave the proposal over until the 6th of next month, when we are to meet again to consider the Amendments sent up from the other House, and I believe that before that date a proper, practicable, and generally improved scheme could easily be elaborated. In view of that possibility, which is quite obviously a real one, I appeal to right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench not to put on the Government Whips, and to let the good sense and independence of this House have free play, and let us see what the result will be. Last night we had an excellent example of the result of allowing a Government Bill to be decided in certain of its details by the free opinion of the House. We had the Pilotage Bill going through the whole of the Report and Third Reading stage in about an hour and a half. On certain really vital points the President of the Beard of Trade left it to the free decision of the House, with the result that we had a most practical discussion, and when it came to the Third Reading the House passed the Bill unanimously, amid a general chorus of approval. In these circumstances I do sincerely hope that the Government Whips will not be put on. If they are put on, I am afraid that I, for one, will have to vote for the Amendment.
Mr. GRETTON: As regards the licensed trade, they never offered any opposition or objection to the principle of disinterested management. What they do claim is that those who want to make those experiments should pay for the property which they have to acquire for the
122
experiments, and act honestly and honourably in this matter, as every other trade is required to do in the process of trade. I cannot understand philanthropy at 4 per cent., with the addition which the Secretary for Scotland claims for us absolutely safely, unless it is to be established under trading conditions such as I have described. These schemes sent down from another place do propose in some measure, though very inadequately, to pay for the property which it is proposed to acquire. With a ten years' run it was considered in another place, I think wrongly, it would be possible to ensure one-half the value of the licence; the other half is to be found by the disinterested management company which was to take over these licences in the event of a vote being given in the locality. That scheme has been absolutely destroyed by the refusal of this House to agree with the Lords in their previous Amendment, acting under the direction of the Secretary for Scotland. So the whole effect of the proposal in that respect has been already destroyed. I may call attention to the expense upon which the Secretary for Scotland dilates, the enormous capital which would be required to run one of these disinterested management companies. By this description the House can estimate the enormous amount of capital which is going to be swept away if there is to be total prohibition or reduction in the number of licences. I cannot support an impracticable proposal, and I shall vote against it.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: No doubt the particular proposals put forward in this Amendment coming from another place are open to the objection which my right hon. Friend takes, in the very interesting speech which he made. At the same time, I believe that any scheme for disinterested management is better than the existing system, and when he said there is an onus upon those of us who advocate disinterested management to my mind the onus is far greater on those who say they are against it. I do not believe that there is a more intolerable system of legislation in the world than the system under which new licences can be put up like a leg of mutton on a greasy pole before a Licence Court, yet that is the system which those who oppose disinterested management desire to maintain. There is no difficulty in finding a system of disinterested management that would be applicable to Scotland. If you go to Scandinavia you will find various

123
systems working extremely well; all of them better than the system which they supplanted. If it is asked what conditions in Scandinavia will compare with similar conditions in Scotland, I say that the town of Gothenburg can certainly be compared with more than one town in Scotland, and no one in Gothenburg that I ever met there would go back from disinterested management to the system of private management which they had before. That is a tolerably fair answer to some of the manufactured objections which have been raised against this Bill. The Secretary for Scotland asks how did they get the capital for this. Scandinavia is not a very rich country, and they never had any difficulty in raising the necessary capital to work disinterested management there. I cannot conceive a weaker objection to the scheme than that which was taken by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In Scandinavia they only run a spirit shop, and under this system they have not to set up all those other things. In the hotels and restaurants in Scandinavia they are entitled to sell liquor if they like. The analogy is very imperfect.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: In Scandinavia there has not been the slightest difficulty in setting up a great monopoly upon a great scale. That scale has required a great. deal of capital, and what. has been found possible there, certainly would be found possible with us. Those of us who support disinterested management have been described here to-night as a lot of high-minded ignoramuses. But we leave the public to judge from this discussion, and from a comparison of the arguments in theory which have been advanced against disinterested management with the speeches of those who have had some knowledge of it, who have studied it where it has been worked successfully, and I have very little doubt as to what the result of the comparison will be in the public mind.
7.0 P.M.
Sir CHARLES HUNTER: I do not know what the views of the Scottish people may be on this subject, but when it comes to a question of disinterested management, I think the temperance point of view is certainly the right basis upon which to approach it. I have advocated disinterested management both in Committee and on the Report stage of this Bill, and I
124
am very glad indeed that the House of Lords has put into the measure this disinterested management Amendment. My advocacy of disinterested management is based on a great number of years' knowledge and experience of one of those countries where disinterested management has been in force. In that country—I speak particularly of Sweden—you will never find anybody who has studied the temperance question who wishes to go back upon disinterested management. It is a sort of half-way house between the veto and the licensing legislation which has existed up to the present moment. The Secretary for Scotland talks about our trying experiments. It seems to me that for the last six years or so we have done nothing at all but try experiments, and I see no reason why we should not try an experiment, if it can be called an experiment, which certainly has been a success in other countries.
The hon. Member for Wick Burghs challenged anybody on this side of the House, or on his side of the House, to state where disinterested management had been a success. I need only repeat again that throughout Sweden—and I have studied the matter very carefully—you will find that it has been a very great success. I do not believe in penal legislation as regards the licensing question in any way whatever. I believe disinterested management is very much better. If you have penal legislation, which they have in some parts of Sweden, what do you find? You find that where there is no licence a great number of people who ordinarily like to drink in moderation, but who cannot procure it except by going into a licensed area, will go to that area and proceed to drink to excess. What has been the operation of the Act in Sweden, and what do you find there? You will hardly go into a single town or a single parish where you will not find some public benefit which has been derived from money which has accrued from disinterested management. I think from the temperance point of view that disinterested management is really the very best form of temperance for the people, and I most heartily commend to the House the Lords Amendment.
Mr. SHERWELL: I cannot help express-my sincere regret that the discussion which we have had in connection with this Bill has been too greatly characteristic of the proceedings and discussions on temperance Bills by my right hon. and

125
hon. Friends—I mean not in one year but for a whole series of years. I am bound to say, and I believe many on this side of the House share my view, that the history of the dealings of the Liberal party with the licensing problem is not a history which reflects the greatest honour upon the Liberal party. There is no single social or national question which the Liberal party, for a long series of years, has confronted, or has attempted to deal with in a less scientific spirit and a less thorough and impartial manner than has been its treatment of and attitude towards this subject. There are very obvious reasons for this, and I am bound to say the fact of this prolonged attitude, maintained year after year, and in Parliament after Parliament, is the source of grievous disappointment to those of us who believe that the problem of the evil of temperance is a great national problem which should be treated on non-party lines. I very much regret that there have been several suggestions this afternoon, made in the early speeches, and more than a suggestion in the first speech of the Secretary for Scotland, of a disposition to treat the Lords Amendments as if they were inserted for purely party purposes and merely out of revenge taken because of the work of the present Government. I believe that no suggestion could be more fundamentally and essentially unjust than a suggestion of that kind, and I sincerely regret that Amendments which, on their merits, have powerful reasons behind them, should be prejudiced simply by the fact that they come from another place with which I and my colleagues have had quarrels in times past. I am one of the Members of this House who attended systematically the whole of the Debates in the other House on this particular Bill.
I am bound to say that at no time during the Debates did there prevail other than a spirit of sincere seriousness, and, as far as I can judge, a desire to make an unworkable Bill into a workable Bill in the interests of the Scottish people. We have had a good many minute criticisms on small points of detail levelled against this Amendment by the Secretary for Scotland this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman actually charged the authors of this scheme with having given another illustration of what he called the "incurable sloppiness of methods" pursued by those who have long advocated disinterested management. The Secretary for Scotland is almost the last man, judging by the technical inaccuracies of his speech, to make such a
126
charge. In what the right hon. Gentleman said he showed clearly that he had not even read the principal details, and had not grasped some of the most elementary facts of the scheme on the Order Paper. He told us there had been great changes in the proposed disinterested management scheme during the various stages of the history of this Bill. But what illustrations did he give? He told us, for instance, there was one alteration under which Lord Balfour of Burleigh in another place inserted a Schedule which allowed a Resolution against which there was an actual majority to pass into law. I very much doubt that interpretation of the Schedule; but, apart from that question, it so happens that the particular Schedule was taken en bloc from a threefold option Bill introduced into this House in 1898 and 1899 and backed by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, and other Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman told us, and there, I think, his memory betrayed him, that I myself had withdrawn a proposal in Grand Committee because it had been objected that it contained no proposal or compensation, and that I had then assented to the introduction of the principle of compensation in deference to the wishes of sonic of my supporters.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I never made that statement. What I said was that the hon. Member introduced the scheme, and there was no compensation in it, and, as I understood, in order to secure the support of people who otherwise would not have supported him, he expressed his willingness to agree to some scheme of compensation.
Mr. SHERWELL: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the proceedings in Grand Committee upstairs he is entirely misrepresenting the facts. No suggestion of the kind was made to me at any time, and I never consented to accept the principle of compensation in order to win the support of some who might not otherwise have afforded me support. The House is perfectly well aware that I have frankly from the very beginning of the time I have taken an interest in this question, avowed my personal willingness to grant compensation to any reasonable extent even if it were to be out of public funds, in order to get back for the community that complete control over all its licences which it seems to me the highest interests of national and social life require. The right hon. Gentleman did

127
challenge my scheme because it contained no proposal of compensation. I immediately rose in Grand Committee and asked the right hon. Gentleman the meaning of Clause 1. If it were open to the objection that I had not included the principle of compensation in my Amendment the right hon. Gentleman was the last man in the world who should have taunted me with that. The right hon. Gentleman himself does not admit the principle of compensation, for, after all, despite the contention in debate this afternoon, a time limit is not compensation for a man who employs his own capital and his own labour. What I asked the right hon. Gentleman to answer, and what he has never answered from that day to this, is: "What becomes of his theory of the annual tenure of a licence if compensation be required, as he aserts it is required, in connection with disinterested management?" If compensation be not required for losing a licence under local veto, how can the right. hon. Gentleman logically argue that it is required in connection with the disinterested management scheme? The right hon. Gentleman is the first Liberal Minister to deliberately give up the theory of the annual tenure of a licence.
Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: I really must correct the hon. Gentleman. What I objected to was, that while he conceded to the Committee that compensation should be inserted, there was not a single word about it in his scheme, and I said it was not fair to put a scheme before the Committee and advocate it on the ground that it was going to be very profitable to the public, and then to say, "I am going to spend the money in the way of compensation." I never insisted upon the principle of compensation, but I said that it should be either one thing or the other.
Mr. SHERWELL: I never proposed to introduce compensation. I have always assumed since it was propounded in 1908 on the Front Bench, and insisted upon year after year, that annual tenure was decisive in the estimation of those right hon. Gentlemen. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman's memory betrays him, because, if he reflects for a moment, he will remember that when he was dealing with my Amendment and his suggestion of compensation, he quoted with great unction a letter which he had received from a Scottish publican, in which I and my hon. Friends were referred to as carrion crows, because of our line of action.
128
The right hon. Gentleman says that this scheme is ineffectual and unworkable. Why? Because he says it would require a considerable amount of capital, and that objection was enforced in another form by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir Thomas Whittaker). I would like to ask where does this need for considerable capital come in? There is no sum to be paid for the licence, and under the Amendment inserted in another place the disinterested management company is liable to the extent of one half only of the certified compensation value of the licence handed over to it. But the right hon. Gentleman has failed to notice that there is a definite basis for compensation value in the scheme inserted in another place. In no case is the compensation value of a licence, even of the most prosperous licence, to be higher than seven years' purchase of the net average profits, and each case is to be dealt with on its merits. But, says the right hon. Gentleman, suppose an adverse vote should be taken three years afterwards, the company will be destroyed, and the company may not have discharged its liability in respect of the dispossessed licensees. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in assuring the House that the company is to decide what are the instalments by which it is to discharge its liabilities. If he had read the scheme adopted in the other place he would know that that provision is left absolutely to the discretion of the Licensing Court, and that it is not open to the company to say how it is to pay the instalments. The right hon. Gentleman has also entirely overlooked the fact that under the scheme every disinterested management company will be required to become members of the compulsory insurance scheme, so that when they, in turn, lose their licences under an adverse popular vote, they will have their claim on the compensation fund in precisely the same way as a private licensee. So that there are actuarial compensations in the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman has entirely overlooked.
Let me turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro), and I do so because that speech most admirably represents and sums up the ordinary arguments which are current against any proposal of disinterested management. My hon. Friend, in his admirable, succinct speech, summed up the case against disinterested management under three heads. He told us, first of all,

129
that disinterested management was objected to by the temperance party on the ground of principle. He suggested that it involved a complicity with the liquor traffic which does not exist under present. circumstances. I wish my hon. Friend had gone further and tried to justify that suggestion. I would like to ask wherein is there greater complicity with the liquor traffic under disinterested management than there is under our present system? Let me take the instance of a town in which, for the sake of argument, I will assume that 100 licences are required to meet the legitimate needs of the inhabitants. There are three ways in which, supposing disinterested management option were carried, those 100 licences could be issued. They might be granted to 100 separate individuals as private publicans, trading for their own profit; or they might. be distributed among, say, ten brewers under some tied-house system; or they might be handed over to a company of private citizens, to be operated in the interests of the sobriety and moral good of the community. I want to ask my hon. Friend, and those for whom he speaks, wherein is there any essential difference of principle in any of those three courses? The fundamental principle in each case is precisely the same. You are handing over the licences, not to the community in any organised form, but in every one of those cases to private citizens, without a shadow of more complicity in one case than in the other.
My hon. Friend went further and said that under disinterested management you would extended the influence of public-houses. He suggested that you would draw in women and children who do not now go there. I wonder has he ever read the history of the experience of disinterested management in those countries that have tried it? Does he not know that probably the greatest triumph of the Gothenburg system in Norway and Sweden and elsewhere has been the fact that it has restricted the drinking facilities for women and very considerably the drinking facilities for children? In Norway and in Sweden the statutory age for selling drink to children is fifteen years, but the disinterested management companies have from the beginning raised the age limit to eighteen years, and yet my hon. Friend suggests that under disinterested management you are going to present greater attractions to women and to children and to make them more potential customers than they are under the present
130
system. He says also that the system of disinterested management will have the effect of drawing men nearer to the public-houses rather than, as we would wish, away from the public-houses. Here, again, I should like to ask what sort of evidence he has for that suggestion. Is not the evidence—the actual, indisputable, historic evidence—entirely contrary
to that assumption? There is nothing esoteric or abstract about the Gothenburg system. One sometimes hears it discussed in this House and outside of it, as if it were some abstract thing which was evil in itself, because of its abstract nature. The Gothenburg system is a concrete system of rules, regulations, and restrictions, and every one of those rules, regulations, and restrictions travels along the same line as the British temperance movement has been working along for the last thirty or forty years. Then my hon. Friend says he objects to the system of disinterested management because it has been unsuccessful in practice.
I would like, with the indulgence of the House, to examine this, which is one of the commonest suggestions brought against disinterested management, and I venture to say, with all respect, it is probably the most ignorant objection. The test by which the hon. Member proposed to judge it was, has it diminished drunkenness? What does he mean by drunkenness? He seemed to have in his view, I think, the arithmetical test, the statistical test of drunkenness. Is he prepared to abide by that test? I have asked others who take the same view as he does a similar question, and I have never yet got a direct answer. Is he prepared to make the statistical test of drunkenness the real test of this question? If he is I shall be very glad to examine it. What are the facts? He mentioned or hinted at the comparatively high ratio of statistical arrests for drunkenness in Norwegian and Swedish towns. Let me pursue that suggestion. Scotland as a nation drinks less per head of the population than England or Wales, but the other side of the story is that the arrests for drunkenness are very much higher in Scotland than in England or in Wales. Is my hon. Friend prepared to say that the smaller consumption per capita in Scotland is responsible for the greater statistical measure of drunkenness? Let me quote a case from the United States; let me take the great city of Portland-in-Maine, which has been under prohibition for sixty years. The arrests for drunkenness there

131
year by year are enormously greater than anything you can find in the whole of England and Wales. The arrests for drunkenness in Portland are very much higher than in Scandinavian towns. Does the hon. Gentleman say that that. proves the condemnation of prohibition in Portland-in-Maine. Let me take two Norwegian towns, Bergen and Stavanger. Bergen is under the system of disinterested management, while Stavanger has been under a system of prohibition, and since it has been prohibitionist the arrests for drunkenness have constantly and most substantially increased. How does he account for the fact that under the prohibition system in Stavanger you have a far higher ratio of drunkenness than under a system of disinterested management in Bergen?
My hon. Friend and his colleagues must be logical. If they are going to use this argument, and if they are to appeal to statistical tests, let them appeal to them all round, and not drop the statistical tests when they happen to be inconvenient to their own views. I can only say I challenge my hon. Friend or any of his colleagues to go to Norway or to Sweden, where this system has been successfully practised for a long period of years, and produce any representative temperance worker, however advanced a prohibitionist he may be, who will agree that he would be prepared, failing prohibition, to go back to the old system of private licences. The most emphatic testimony, if possible, to disinterested management is the fact which cannot be disputed, that the overwhelming temperance sentiment of Norway and of Sweden is favourable to the Gothenburg system as opposed to the system of private licences. The third and last objection of my hon. Friend was that the system of disinterested management was unwanted in Scotland. He referred to the resolutions and postcards in favour of disinterested management as centrally inspired resolutions and postcards. I wonder, has he traced the origin of the letters and resolutions in favour of the Bill as it stands? I wonder if he would like to know more about the confidential memorandum dispatched from one of the great prohibitionist organisations giving a pro forma resolution, and giving the most detailed and most minute instructions as to its being required to be copied out in neat handwriting and sent on to the Prime Minister and the local Member of Parliament? It does not lie with my hon. Friend
132
or his colleagues to speak about centrally inspired action, but I agree with one of my hon. Friends that it is perfectly true that the prohibitionist organisations of Scotland are opposed to disinterested management, but the prohibitionist organisations, either there or in this country, represent a very small fraction of the total population, and are trying to impose the will of the prohibitionists upon the personal habits of the average citizen.
Let the prohibitionist carry forth his crusade with all the ardour imaginable, and, so long as he travels by legitimate roads, we will all support him; but do not let us readily admit the claim that the small minority who are members of prohibitionist organisations are entitled to speak for the whole Scottish nation and the whole British people. Have we not had within the last few months very tangible evidence of the will of Scotland in this matter? The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Lord Pentland, had last January a memorial and deputation representing very varied interests in Scotland, which asked for the inclusion of the option of disinterested management. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the remarkably influential deputation which last November waited on the Prime Minister, a deputation representing all the great interests, trade unionists, the clergy, lawyers, professional men of all kinds? It was the most representative memorial that was ever presented to a British Minister by the Scottish people, and yet we are told there is no demand for this option. It has been my lot during the last fifteen years to address probably more representative gatherings in Scotland on this particular question than any of my colleagues from Scotland, I do not say temperance meetings, but conferences of representative citizens. I have never yet held a conference in Scotland where the overwhelming feeling of that conference has not been favourable to the principle of disinterested management. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of it as if it were something being foisted on us by the House of Lords without any mandate. What are the facts? When the question was being debated in the other place there was not a single peer who took part in that discussion, but was careful to make plain at the very outset that he personally was favourable to the principle of disinterested management. When the Division was taken forty-six voted for disinterested management and twenty against. The twenty in the Government Lobby against disinterested man-

133
agement included fifteen peers who were Members of the present Administration, and of the remaining five, four were recent creations of the present Government.
When my hon. Friends around me suggest that this is, after all, only a party and political dodge, I would ask them to study the record of the House of Lords in connection with this particular question. They have forgotten that the House of Lords Committee on Intemperance, which sat from 1877 to 1879, and produced one of the most remarkable reports, brief though it was, on this evil that has ever been presented to the British Parliament,—that Committee in their report, after hearing a considerable amount of evidence from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and many other advocates and opponents of disinterested management, gave most explicit and clear recommendations to Parliament that great communities who were anxious to try the experiment of disinterested management should be freed by Parliament to do so, and that the way should be made open by which such experiments might be made. It is no captious action on the part of the House of Lords to support disinterested management at the present time. For thirty or forty years they have consistently supported the principle. I mention these facts only because there has been too much open suggestion this afternoon from hon. Members on this side that the House of Lords are not sincere in the Amendments which they have proposed to this Bill. My right hon. Friend (the Member for Spen Valley), in his very powerful speech, which I gladly recognise is consistent with many public utterances of his on this question, after avowing his sympathy with the principle of disinterested management, said that this was not the Bill and the present was not the time. He said that disinterested management was not essential to a Veto Bill. I would remind the House that this particular Bill is not a Veto Bill. It is introduced as a Temperance Bill, and the whole ground of its defence, from first to last, has been the plea that the people should be allowed to control this traffic in their own way. "Free the hands of the community and give them local self-government" has been the cry. It is because we believe firmly and determinedly in the principle of local self-government that we plead for the inclusion of disinterested management in this Bill.
134
The measure is described as "Local Option." To free one hand of the community and say, "You shall be free to veto the traffic if you so desire; you shall have local government so long as you are willing to do what we want you to do; but, on the other hand, you shall be tied, and you shall not have freedom to do that which you might prefer to do rather than that which we personally would wish you to do"—there is no local self-government and no principle of local option in an alternative of that kind. I am prepared once I recognise the principle of local self-government, to give it a very wide sphere for its operation. I am prepared to trust the people. My quarrel with my hon. Friends is that they are not. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker), that you will not have solved this problem when you have enacted disinterested management. For, after all, what is the problem? The problem is not merely to shut up the public-house. It is rather to go down to fundamental facts and diagnose the inducement and attraction which lead people to the public-house. The public-house, to a very large extent, and until very recent days, has been almost the only expression of a desire to meet the recreative needs of the people, and it is due to that simple historic fact that the public-house has won its great hold on the masses of the workers of the country. You must supplement restrictive effort with constructive effort. Whilst I gladly support every just proposal of a restrictive character, I frankly admit to myself that, after all, the sphere of possible success of restrictive legislation is very limited, and it will not be until this House, in reference to the temperance question, as in reference to other questions, falls back on positive lines of progress, that we here and those outside may hope for some material improvement in the social habits of the people.
Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot for one moment attempt to rival the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sherwell) in his exposition of the case for disinterested management. He speaks on that subject with a knowledge and an authority which cannot be rivalled either in this House or out of it by any of the large number of social reformers who have steadily and persistently advocated disinterested management as in any case a partial solution of the problem of alcoholic

135
consumption. But if I cannot rival the hon. Gentleman in his knowledge and grasp of this subject, I can, I think, rival him, at any rate, in my desire to treat this as a question wholly outside party discussion. As the hon. Gentleman has shown conclusively, I hope and believe to the majority of the House, the action of the other House with regard to this Bill requires no defence. But if it did require defence, that defence was given adequately, completely, and unanswerably by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He from first to last listened to all the Debates which took place in the other House upon this subject, and his opinion will be taken, I believe, by those who may have come down to the House this afternoon prepared to look with some prejudice at the course taken by the other House in dealing with a Government measure.
But I put the question of the House of Lords entirely on one side. I have risen to ask the Government a question and to make an appeal to them. The question I wish to ask is whether they really think, after the Debate of this afternoon, that they can adhere without qualification or change to the position they took up at the beginning of our discussion? There have been very few speeches on this side, but there have spoken from behind the Government a number of Gentlemen whose ardour in the cause of temperance reform is beyond doubt or question, and who have spoken with an ability which I have seldom heard surpassed in our debates. Those Gentlemen, let the Government believe me, do not merely represent their own personal private opinions; they speak for, I believe, the very best opinion in Scotland. I do not say that Scottish temperance or social reformers are unanimous. They are not. But I do say, without doubt, that the hon. Member for Perth and others who have spoken represent an immense mass and body of enlightened opinion—the opinion of people in no sense bound by political ties or prejudices, who look upon this question entirely apart from the Debates and controversies of this House, who are under the influence of no trade or interest, but who have elected to face the enormous difficulties of this question, and have come to the not immoderate conclusion that, whether disinterested management be or be not the remedy for this subject, or the best way of treating it, it is at any rate a remedy which Scottish localities should have the right
136
to adopt if they wish. That is all that this Amendment requires. Those who vote for this Amendment do not say that they think disinterested management. is the solution of the temperance problem; they do not assert that the restricted licence system may not be better; they do not assert that total prohibition may not be better; they rule out no method, be it extreme on the one side or on the other, of dealing with this question. All they say is, that when you are throwing upon the locality the duty of determining what course shall be taken in regard to the consumption of alcohol in that particular district, you shall give them some freedom of choice, and in that freedom of choice include that which of all systems other than the ordinary licensing system has had the largest trial in Europe and, in the opinion of all who have steadily investigated it, has produced the best results.
Do the Government really think that it is possible to adhere to the position they have taken up? You are making an enormous change, good or bad, in the responsibility which you are throwing upon the localities in Scotland. The magnitude of that change is very great. Some people may think it dangerously great. But if you adopt it, if you throw upon the people the responsibility of managing their own system, surely you ought to allow them to adopt the plan which has behind it perhaps a larger Measure, not merely of speculative approval, but of actual success than any other scheme which could be put forward. T. need not tell the House how anxious I am not to drag in anything which could be twisted into a party appeal. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how, if this matter comes up on the platform, it can be dragged into a question as between the two Houses. How will he and his Friends look when the subject is debated? I have seen lists of the wonderful things that would have been done by this or that Bill if the House of Lords had not interfered. We all know the kind of argument that is used. It may be a good or a bad one. But if it is a good argument against the House of Lords, I presume that it is not a bad one against the House of Commons. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would consider how he is going to meet the argument that, when this Bill went up to the other House, when it was discussed there in no polemical spirit, when it was discussed obviously and openly with no desire to make party capital, but simply and solely to improve.

137
the scheme, the general lines of which that House were prepared to accept, and when they sent down Amendments supported by a mass of the best opinion in Scotland, and by admirable speeches by Scottish Members sitting behind the Government, they nevertheless said, not merely that they did not like the scheme, but that they thought the scheme so bad in itself that Scottish localities ought not to be free to adopt it if they wished. It is an impossible argument to sustain. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to vote it down, but if he does I think he will do a great deal of good to the House of Lords and a great deal of harm to the cause of temperance.
But let us put the House of Lords out of account and think only of temperance. The right hon. Gentleman raised in his speech a large number of relatively small points. I defy anybody in this Debate to say that on this point the House of Commons can afford to quarrel with the House of Lords. It is impossible. All the arguments are on one side. Perhaps I am putting that too strongly, because I have heard able speeches to-night on the other side; but I venture to say that the whole balance of argument is on one side. When you remember that the appeal to the Government is not in the least to accept this as a solution, and that it only gives a range of freedom to Scottish localities to try it if they like—when that is thought out, really it is, if I may say so, with a long experience of this House, an appeal that I do not think any Government or Minister ought to resist. I have often seen this kind of Parliamentary position before, with Governments on those benches belonging to one party or the other, and all Ministers—if I may say so, without disrespect, who know their business—know when to give way. We have all had to do it. There is no discredit in it. It argues no weakness. All it argues is that the Government, after debate, as is right, have a perception of the wave of feeling and of the best feeling of the House, have an appreciation of the situation.
I am sure, if the right hon. Gentleman, who has not so long an experience, had beside him Ministers who had been placed in what I think is a difficult position—in the position of having to give way to the general sense of the House—if he had beside him Ministers who had had that experience—I am sure they would agree with what I have said. They would feel, as l feel most strongly, that the Government
138
have no choice but to take the course I have suggested. They would feel that that choice carries with it no discredit, no suggestion of weakness, no feeling of defeat. But if the current of opinion in the House is deliberately resisted and rejected, whatever be the immediate results, the result in the future, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, will be not merely bad for the cause which the whole House and he and I want to help—the cause of temperance reform, but extremely bad for the Administration concerned, and for the credit that is ultimately derived from public opinion against which in the rush of the moment they have attempted to break. I give this advice in no hostile spirit. I am advising, I know, the right hon. Gentleman in his own interest, as Well as in the interests of the Bill, and I earnestly hope he will adopt the suggestion.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have exhausted my right to speak, but perhaps the House will allow me to reply. The right hon. Gentlman has made a moving and persuasive speech, even above the ordinary of his specehes, and it has lost nothing from his splendid art, and from the large assumption which he has made, and which I am not at all prepared to admit. At least the right hon. Gentleman would concede that for past months I have been in somewhat close touch with opinion in Scotland. I have been in constant communication with people whom this side of the House represents. I can assure him that if he thinks the introduction of this scheme of disinterested management into this Bill would be approved by a majority of the people of Scotland he is entirely mistaken. He made another assumption, and that was that the majority in this House was in favour of it: that an appeal absolutely irresistible in its unanimity had been made to the Government. This unanimity is purely imaginary. My hon. Friends behind me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take off the Government Whips."] That challenge is quite irrelevant. We have had the matter discussed in the place where Whips are not put on, and where the influence of the Whips notoriously does not run. We have discussed this matter in previous years in the Scottish Grand Committee. There has been invariably a large majority of Scottish Liberal Members against the proposal, as well as a considerable majority of the representatives of Scotland on both sides of the House.

139
How did the right hon. Gentleman create the atmosphere of eloquent appeal? He did it by the usual device of dealing with the matter in the most general terms, and never condescending to particulars! It is a rhetorical art of which the right hon. Gentleman is one of the greatest masters in the country—the art of avoiding the issue. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] I say that deliberately, and I challenge contradiction from anybody who has read this scheme that the right hon. Gentleman did not entirely avoid the issue. What is it? Not that disinterested management experiments should be tried. Disinterested management can be tried. But the proposal under this Amendment is that you should take away every licence in the locality, all the big hotels, all the restaurants, as well as the public-houses, and the grocers' licences, and hand them over to a new company that does not even exist at the present time. Is that a proposal which commends itself to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side? [An HON. MEMBER "It has not been answered."] I know it has never been answered. It is a curious thing.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the kind of speech you make by leave of the House!
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I can only say that my point is this—and I am quite satisfied to leave it there: What we have to do when we are dealing with an Amendment is to deal with the practical position, and not with a general proposition. This is a practical proposition in this Bill. I really do not think if the right hon. Gentleman had, if I may say so, studied this proposition he would have supported it. The proposition has been five times proposed in different forms. It is absolutely unworkable and un-businesslike. General principles have been appealed to, but really the relevant consideration is whether the Amendment should be accepted or not. I can only leave the matter at that stage, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite thinks I ought not to enter into argument when speaking by leave of the House.
Mr. PRINGLE: [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] This is not the occasion to divide. I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but I have been an attentive listener to the speeches and the arguments, and I think it is regrettable
140
that, apart from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, no other Member of the Government has been here to listen. After all, Scotland has the honour to be represented by Members of the Cabinet, and I think that on an occasion of this kind, when an important question touching social reform in Scotland is under discussion, that we might have had the assistance of those Members of the Government in our deliberations.
Mr. PIRIE: It is the same thing with every Scottish question?
Mr. PRINGLE: It is idle, and it seems to me to be beside the point, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland to say that the majority of the people of Scotland do not want this option. If this option were introduced into the Bill it would not force disinterested management upon anybody in Scotland. Even if a minority of the localities in Scotland desired the option, I think we are bound as democrats to consider their wishes, and to give the opportunity to that minority of localities to take up the option if they so desired. Consequently, I say that my right hon. Friend's argument as to the majority is beside the point. I do not think that it is altogether proved by any of the facts or figures that are in the possession of anybody in this House. We all know that many organisations are strongly against this option; but the number of organisations that are arrayed against it does not prove that the majority of the people of Scotland are against it. Many of these organisations consist of the same persons with different officials. If you multiply names you do not correspondingly increase the strength and force of public opinion that is behind the movement. There is a large amount of opinion in Scotland not organised, not necessarily of a strong political character, but nevertheless composed of a strong body of opinion that desires this option to have a chance. My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, in days when he had greater freedom—if that were possible—and less responsibility—that is the stereotyped expression—backed a Bill in favour of this proposal. The Prime Minister has always been most sympathetic: he expressed himself in the most sympathetic terms to a deputation on the question. I am not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not always spoken in favour of it. I do not know whether or not the matter has been discussed in the Cabinet.

141
These things are always secret. But I should very much like to know the result of a division in the Cabinet on the question. All these seem to me to be very important considerations. We have had a most weighty discussion in this House this afternoon on this question—I think the most weighty discussion on this question that has ever taken place in the House of Commons. That is a consideration to which the Government is bound to give due weight, and in these circumstances I feel bound, before resuming my seat, to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
Mr. PIRIE: I beg to second the Motion, because I would like to see some progress made with the question of compromise which has been expressed this afternoon by hon. Members. I think we are entitled to know whether the Government are going to meet the views so generally expressed in the House, so that the opportunity shall be taken to try and carry the Bill into law this Session. I think it is a very important suggestion on the part of my hon. Friend to suggest a way out of the difficulty by the suggestion that the Debate should be adjourned. It gives to the Leader of the House an opportunity, if he wishes, to review the situation, and to realise the great feeling that there is for a settlement or a compromise on this question—whether it is the time limit, or disinterested management, or compulsory insurance, there is scope for opportunity for a settlement once and for all on this question.
8.0 P.M.
Mr. WHYTE: In view of the suggestion of my hon. Friend, I think we are entitled to some answer. It is a well-known observation in this House that Motions for Adjournment of Debate are deliberately dilatory, but in this case that charge cannot be made with honesty. We have had a Debate almost more remarkable than any I have listened to throughout the whole of this Session—a Debate in which for the moment it seemed as though party divisions were obliterated, and that we were really coming to the consideration of an important question with something like freedom of judgment. I only rose, when I saw that the Question was about to be put, in order to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the most friendly spirit possible, as representing the collective views of the Government on this point, and, apart from the expression of opinion
142
we have already heard this afternoon, to tell us whether there is to be any opportunity for that settlement by consent which so many speakers with great weight have advocated from both sides this afternoon. I say that all the more earnestly, because I emphatically desire that this Bill should pass, and pass into law as quickly as possible, and I would very much rather see this Bill somewhat amended pass into law even I would say at the sacrifice of disinterested management than to have it pass into law in exactly the same form in which it originally passed this House. I take this opportunity of saying, whatever we thought of the House of Lords in the past, it seems to me that the Leaders in that House have stated to the liquor trade, "You must stand aside in such a case as this." I thoroughly believe these were the motives that actuated the Marquess of Salisbury and Lord Lansdowne, and I repudiate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield repudiated, the idea that they were actuated by party motives. I confess I was amazed when the House of Lords first accepted the principle of the Bill, as it did, and, secondly, when it framed Amendments, I will not say every Amendment, but most of its Amendments, deliberately within the four corners of the Bill. I most earnestly ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at least to consider whether there is not some point for reconsideration.
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I should like to say a few words, although I have hitherto rigorously abstained from taking part in the Debate, which I felt was primarily one for Scotchmen, but what has happened this afternoon is what generally happens on occasions of this kind. Those who are in favour of the Bill know perfectly well that the only chance of getting the Bill through is by refraining from speaking. They have to sit silent, though very often the temptation to speak is great, while views they do not agree with are expressed and while things are asserted as facts which they contest very strongly, but that is the only condition by which the Bill can be got through. What has happened on our side? Two or three Members who are very well known advocates of what is called disinterested management have got up and expressed their views, and we have been assured that the House of Lords has had no motive in suggesting this ingenious Amendment, but they have succeeded in dividing us as to

143
that, and those few Members among the Scottish ranks who are in favour of disinterested management, and who are known to be in favour of it, have made a great appeal that this question should now be conceded and that the Government should adopt the views they hold. These views were defeated after a full discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee, after they had been discussed two or three times. This Bill has, as usual, a Parliamentary history behind it. When it was originally proposed there was a great desire to get agreement between the advanced and the more moderate section. The concession of five years was made on condition that disinterested management was not inserted in the Bill. I admit that is not an argument which appeals to hon. Members opposite. It is only an argument that appeals to my hon. Friends here, and they got their concession of five years.
Mr. J. M. HOGGE: We were not all in that bargain.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: I admit some Members were not, but most of them were, and they got their concession. I say the place where this ought to have been discussed and was discussed was the Scottish Grand Committee; and it was discussed without the Whips being put on, without any Closure, and without any guillotine, and it was decided by a very large majority. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield said, at the end of his very eloquent speech, that we are to trust the people. What he really meant was that we are to trust the House of Lords. At all events, the representatives of the Scottish people decided the matter, and now he wishes the House of Lords to force their wishes upon the House of Commons, and, if he was to do that, he would do what. I think the astute managers of the Opposition have fully seen, namely, he would succeed in wreeking the Bill. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley was absolutely right upon that point. I do not agree with some of his arguments, and I am afraid it would be out of order for me to deal with them now.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in renewing the general Debate. The question is whether the Debate should be adjourned.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir, but the Adjournment was moved in order that an agreement might be come to, and, as I understand from my hon. Friend, we are to adjourn the Debate in order to get a non-party agreement on the subject, and it is only to that point that I wish to address myself. We are at this stage of the Session to try and make a non-party agreement on the question of disinterested management and a compensation scheme when it will be simply impossible to make a workable scheme in time. That is an argument against adjourning the Debate. Hon. Members upon the other side know perfectly well what is the gain to them. If we adjourn with that object we adjourn to smash the Bill for this Session. Supposing I am wrong, suppose disinterested management is not, as I think, a mere fad of the Intellectuals, who are always travelling off in history into some by-path, who robe themselves in a sort of eighteenth-century cloak of philanthropy and assume a title which I think they have not much right to appropriate—suppose I am all wrong and that this scheme ought to be reconstructed, I say the argument of the right hon. Member the Secretary for Scotland is absolutely right and has never been answered in this Debate at all. This scheme is unworkable. It is utterly impossible to reconstruct this scheme in the time. No doubt hon. Members opposite, who want to wreck the scheme, will take advantage of this diversion among hon. Members upon this side, some of whom, I think, never even voted for the Second Reading of the Bill; but those who are the friends of the Bill, and know how sincerely and earnestly and passionately this Bill is asked for by the many friends of temperance will resist the snare laid before them. I believe the only thing we can do at this stage is to stand for the Bill in the form in which it went up to the House of Lords, and that is the course I ask the friends of temperance in this House to adopt.
Mr. T. E. HARVEY: As one who voted for the Second Reading of this Bill and who is very anxious to see it passed, I appeal most earnestly to the Government to accept this Motion for Adjournment. The Secretary for Scotland brought most weighty objections to bear against the particular scheme of disinterested management proposed in the later Clauses of the Bill. These objections do not hold against disinterested management as an option. The right hon. Gentleman himself showed

145
that the House of Lords modified on several occasions the scheme of disinterested management put into the Bill. If it was possible to do that, surely it is not yet too late to modify the scheme proposed under Clause 3, and to allow this option. If it is impossible to do that, then at least I hope the Government will pay tribute to the arguments put forward this afternoon to consider the question carefully. If it is only possible to consider it for a couple of days, let them give that consideration to the provision of the option of disinterested management. There are a very large number of Members on this side of the House who earnestly support this Bill and who desire to see this option inserted in some form, not in the form it may be suggested by the House of Lords. Of course there are difficulties, but I most earnestly beg the Government to accept the Motion for Adjournment.
Mr. EUGENE WASON: I earnestly hope the Government will not accept this Motion for Adjournment. I think it would be absolutely fatal, and would mean the loss of the Bill. While I give every credit for sincerity to hon. Members who are so eloquent in their advocacy of disinterested management, I know that the vast majority of unofficial Scotch Liberal Members are opposed to this scheme entirely, and are expressing the views of their constituents who dislike that scheme, and wish to have nothing to do with it. I do not argue whether it is a good or a bad scheme. What we want is that this Bill should pass in the shape in which it passed the Grand Committee on three separate occasions, and in which it left this House. I beg of my Scotch Friends to support the Government in this matter, and not to vote for the Adjournment and to resist this disinterested management by every means in their power.
Captain MURRAYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That. the Question be now put," but. Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCJEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The Motion before the House has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of disinterested management. The question is whether it is desirable that we should come to a determinaion to-night or adjourn the question to a later date. I have made some inquiries, and I find, from information given me by my hon. Friend who
146
advises the Prime Minister as to the time at the disposal of the Government, that it would be almost impossible to find time for any further discussion upon this matter this Session. We have had a very interesting Debate upon disinterested management, in which the Member for Huddersfield made one or two very important and powerful arguments upon the subject. The question was debated at great length, and the subject was quite, exhausted. We have had another very good Debate to-night, and I want to put it to the Scottish Members that it is not their desire to imperil the fate of this Bill. If there is a further adjournment leading to a further prolonged Debate upon the same subject it does put the Bill in serious jeopardy. Therefore, I appeal to my hon. Friends. I am not going to say a word upon the merits and demerits of this Amendment, but whatever conclusion is come to I hope it will be arrived at to-night. It is not as if this was a perfectly new question in reference to this Bill, because it is quite the reverse. Everybody knew that it was going to be discussed to-night, and I do not think any new facts in the situation have been placed before the House. I therefore hope that we shall be able to come to a conclusion now with reference to this Bill, otherwise I am advised that the Bill will be in serious jeopardy if there is any further adjournment.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: After all this is rather an important matter, and some of my hon. Friends and myself know more about it than those who are crying "Divide! I regret that my right hon. Friend was not in the House more during the Debate, for it might have facilitated an understanding which it is now impossible to arrive at. I admit that it is difficult to postpone this discussion, but if it, is impossible to take the Railways Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman has already suggested to-day, rather later, I think this Bill is as important as the Railways Bill, and if time could be found for one Bill why not another? Personally I would rather see this Bill pass in a way in which it is likely to work than in the way it is being carried this afternoon. The Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Eugene Wason) spoke of the views of the majority of Scotch Members, but the question under discussion is not a matter to be decided either by the majority or minority of Scotch Members, but it is a question to be decided by the people of Scotland themselves. We desire that they should have

147
the option, but this is not the only question. We advanced reasons on the first Clause for giving a longer time. That has been treated in Scotland in the same manner as the Clause now under discussion. That kind of treatment is not possible if this Bill is going to succeed. These suggestions have been put forward with a perfectly earnest desire to improve this Bill, and they have not been met in that spirit. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman was not present during the discussion in order to see this matter through.
Sir JOHN M'CALLUM: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said upstairs fourteen days ago, in the presence of the rest of the Members for Scotland, that he thought this question of disinterested management had been sufficiently discussed in this House, and that while he had strong views regarding—
Mr. J. M. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to repeat a remark made at a private meeting of Scottish Members upstairs?
Sir J. M'CALLUM: If I am not in order, then I withdraw it. We have reason to know that Scotland wants this Bill without disinterested management. By three to one upstairs the Members for Scotland have decided against disinterested management, and it is quite unnecessary for us to go on debating the subject to-night. On this question many Scotch Members were silent simply for the purpose of getting this Bill through, and under these circumstances I hope the Government will proceed as they have indicated, and that we shall come to a decision to-night.
Mr. J. M. HOGGE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said there were no new facts in the situation which required further consideration. Obviously one of the new facts is that the House of Lords are prepared to accept an option of disinterested management. That is obviously a new fact which was not in the situation previously. What we want to know from the Government is not whether they are going to deny to the majority of the people of Scotland the right to have the veto, but whether or not they are going to allow the minority in Scotland, who wish to have this option, to get it without interfering with the wishes of the majority. That is a perfectly simple question, and I suggest that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take off the party Whips and leave this to
148
the judgment of the House, and not put the life of the Government into jeopardy, the course which the Government is supporting has not a frog's chance of winning.
Mr. MOLTENO: I desire to urge upon the House that the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be followed. I should like to remind hon. Members that this matter has been the subject of discussion in Grand Committee on several occasions. It has been discussed in all its bearings, and, after all that, it has been rejected by a very large majority of the Scottish Members.
Sir G. YOUNGER: By a majority of ten.
Mr. MOLTENO: It was a very much larger majority. [An HON. MEMBER "It was sixteen."] An attempt is being made to-day to bring in to the decision of this question hon. Members who have not heard the discussions in Committee. No adequate discussion of this question has been possible to-night, because if those who are opposed to disinterested management had occupied as much time as those who have spoken in favour of it, it would not have been possible to come to any decision to-night. We contend this is not the opportunity for discussing the principle. Some hon. Members who have supported it say this is merely a vote in favour of the principle. It is nothing of the kind. If it were accepted, it would mean the rejection and destruction of the Bill. Hon. Members who are in favour of disinterested management would not for a moment contend that Scotland desires the destruction of the Bill, and I would ask them to consider what they are doing in joining with hon. Gentlemen opposite in an attempt to move the Adjournment on this Bill. It has been placed before Scotland at more than one General Election. It has been endorsed by the people of Scotland, and it would be entirely against all the views, hopes, and wishes of the people of Scotland if this principle of disinterested management were now used, not for the purpose of getting disinterested management put into the Bill, because that cannot be done to-day, but solely and purely for the purpose of wrecking the Bill, over which so much time has been spent. I therefore ask the hon. Member who moved the Adjournment to withdraw his Motion, and not to persist in a course which must mean the wrecking of the Bill.
Mr. BARNES: I think the proceedings to-day are the natural and logical corollary of what took place upstairs. There were many of us who felt strongly on this and other Amendments that were proposed to the Bill, and, as all hon. Members who were upstairs know, we were simply steam-rolled. I want the Bill to pass, and I believe all Scotch Members on this side of the House, and probably a great many on that side of the House, want the Bill to pass, but why should we stand in the way of the Scotch people having an additional option in the. Bill? Why should not the Government have some regard to the opinions held and so strenuously advocated by many on this side of the House, and come to some sort of a deal? Do not let, us be too virtuous about it. I heard somebody this afternoon repudiate the idea of a deal as if we were all above a deal. I think it was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger).
Sir G. YOUNGER: I am quite open to deal myself.
Mr. BARNES: I have come to the conclusion that if we are going to get this Bill we have got to have a deal. I should have liked to have seen a deal made on the last point. I think it is fair to the House and to the Scotch Members who feel very strongly on this question that the Government should give us some additional chance of having the matter considered once more, and, if they will do so, I for my part think my hon. Friend behind me would be well advised in withdrawing his Motion.
Mr. AINSWORTH: Perhaps I may be allowed as representing one of the largest constituencies in Scotland to say one word. I feel perfectly certain the policy embodied in this Bill, which has been before the House now on several occasions, represents practically the unanimous wish of the people of Scotland. The wish of the people of Scotland is more easily arrived at than the wish of the people in any other part of the United Kingdom, because Scotland is essentially an educated nation. The people of Scotland read the newspapers—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are now discussing whether or not the debate should be adjourned, and not the merits of the question.
Mr. AINSWORTH: I will confine myself to that point. The people of Scotland
150
are an educated people, a right-thinking people, and a Christian people, and everybody who knows anything about Scotland knows that public opinion is very strongly expressed and felt. It would be disgraceful on the part of Scotch Members to allow this question which has been before Scotland for many years to be withdrawn. Let us have a settlement, and let those hon. Members who have taken this opportunity—I can suggest reasons, but I do not want to do so—for reasons of their own to create a most dangerous divergence in the ranks of Scottish Members representing the Scotch people remember—I warn those hon. Gentlemen that, young and ambitious as they may be, we none of us are incapable error, not even the youngest—that the people of Scotland are a thinking people and form their own opinions and act on them. We have heard a great deal about democracy. What is there in this proposal of disinterested management which causes such a direct appeal to the advocates of democracy? Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, and especially those who are owners of large property—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is again getting back to the question of the principle.
Mr. PRINGLE: I can only speak with the permission of the House, but, in view of what has been said—
Mr. BALFOUR: On a point of Order. Has not the hon. Member who moved the Motion the right to speak again?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That applies to the Mover of an Amendment, but I am not quite sure it applies to the Mover of a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. I understand, however, the hon. Member was rising to make some explanation.
Mr. PRINGLE: I have considered with my hon. Friends what has been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he has made it clear that if I and those who think with me persist in this Motion the onus for losing this Bill will be placed upon us. Personally, I do not think that onus would rest upon us, but in face of the declaration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer we do not think it right to take upon ourselves the responsibility which he seeks to cast upon us. At the same time I think we are entitled, after what has happened this afternoon to two things: First of all, to a statement from the Government

151
that even this Session the door is not closed to some settlement of this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh!"] I think we are entitled to ask for it at least. And in the second place, if the door should happen to be closed this Session, that when this Bill is revived, as we expect it will be revived, next Session, the question we have been discussing this afternoon will be considered by the Government and careful
consideration given to all the relative arguments that have been put forward on this side of the House. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 104.

Division No. 579.]

AYES.

[8.35 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Field, William

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fitzgibbon, John

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Alden, Percy

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Meagher, Michael

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leirim, N.)

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Glanville, Harold James

Millar, James Duncan

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Goldstone, Frank

Molloy, M.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mooney, J. J.

Barton, W.

Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

Morgan, George Hay

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Morrell, Philip

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Gulland, John William

Morison, Hector

Bentham, G, J.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Boland, John Plus

Hackett, J.

Muidoon, John

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hancock, John George

Munro. R.

Bowerman, C. W.

Harcourt, Robert V. Montrose)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Needham, Christopher T.

Brady, P. J.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Nolan, Joseph

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Brunner, John F. L.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Bryce, J. Annan

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hazleton. Richard

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

O'Doherty, Philip

Burns. Rt. Hon. John

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

O'Dowd, John

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

O'Malley. William

Carr-Gomm. H. W.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh. S.)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Hinds, John

O'Shaughnessy. P. J.

Chancellor, H. G.

Hogg, David C.

O'Shee, James John

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Holmes, Daniel Turner

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Outhwaite, R. L.

Clancy, John Joseph

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

parker, James (Halifax)

Clough, William

Hudson, Walter

Parry, Thomas H.

Clynes, John R.

Hughes, S. L.

Pearce. Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

John, Edward Thomas

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cotton. William Francis

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydyil)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarhen, East)

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Crooks, William

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Crumley, Patrick

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Cuilinan, J.

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

Reddy, M.

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, William (Clare, E)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Keating, Matthew

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Rendall, Atheistan

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

Kelly, Edward

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Dawes, James Arthur

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

De Forest, Baron

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Delany, William

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Denman, Hon. R, D.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Robinson, Sidney

Dickinson. W. H.

Law, Hugh, A. (Donegal, West)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Donelan, Captain A

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Doris, W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rowlands, James

Duffy, William J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

London, Thomas

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Lynch, A. A.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Scanlan, Thomas

Elverston, Sir Harold

McGhee, Richard

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Seely, Col, Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Sheehy, David

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macpherson, James Ian

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Falconer, J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Snowden, Philip

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Ffrench, Peter.

M'Laren, Non. H. D. (Leics.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Sutherland, John E.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Sutton, John E.

Wardie, George J.

Williams, Penry (Middlesrough)

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Tennant, Harold John

Webb, H.

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Thomas, J. H.

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Toulmin, Sir George

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Trevelyan, Charles

Philips Whitehouse, John Howard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Wadsworth, J.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Wiles, Thomas

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Falle, B. G.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond)

Fletcher, John Samuel

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Rothschild, Lionel de

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Gardner, Ernest

Rowntree, Arnold

Barrie, H. T.

Gilmour, Captain John

Sanders, Robert A.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Beckett, Hon, Gervase

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Sherwell, Arhur James

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Blair, Reginald

Hewts, William Albert Samuel

Stanier, Beville

Boscawen, Sir Arhtur S. T. Griffith-

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Stewart, Gershom

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Talbot, Lord E.

Boyton, James

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Touche. George Alexander

Butcher, J. G.

Hunt, Rowland

Valentia, Viscount

Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Watt, Henry A.

Cassel, Felix

Larmor, Sir J.

White, Major J. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Cautley, H. S.

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Whyte, A, F. (Perth)

Cave, George

Long. Rt. Hon. Walter

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S.Geo., Han. S.)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc' r.)

Mackinder, H. J.

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Mount, William Arthur

Winterton, Earl

Clyde, J. Avon

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Newdegate, F. A.

Wood. John (Stalybridge)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B, (Antrim, Mid)

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G.

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Dalrymple, Viscount

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Yerburgh, Robert A.

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Perkins, Walter F.

Younger, Sir George

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Peto, Basil Edward

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Pointer, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Henry Craik and Mr. King,

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Lords Amendment: In paragraph (a) leave out "three-fifths," and insert "two-thirds."
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." I think there is absolutely no argument in favour of this Amendment. The concession that was made by the promoters of this Bill in accepting a majority of three-fifths puts those who are in favour of no-licence in this position, that for every two persons who vote against the proposal they will have to find three persons in its favour. What the Lords Amendment means is that two must be found in its favour for every person against. I think that is loading the dice most unfairly. As this is a simple matter, about which hon. Members have made up their minds, and seeing that the discussion has taken up a great deal of time, I propose to leave the matter to the House to decide without dwelling on what, after all, is a simple
154
point, whether the majority for a no licence resolution should be 50 per cent. or two to one.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I think the right hon. Gentleman puts the case rather high. It is only a difference of one-fifteenth in the voting. I proposed that as a sort of compromise. It was suggested in Committee that for a no-licence resolution a 50 per cent. majority was required. There was a subsequent proposal that it should be 40 per cent. The House of Lords, in considering these Amendments, decided that by taking the Government's own proposal of two-thirds in the English Licensing Bill of 1908, they were making a reasonable compromise. Personally, I would rather have seen three-fifths and 40 per cent, inserted instead of 30 per cent. In that way we should have got a more reasonable opinion from the reasonable majority of the people, and should not have an option carried by apparently only a small percentage of the voters. It may be remembered that in

155
Lord Peel's own Report he suggested that 75 per cent. of the voters on the roll ought to vote for a no-license resolution before it should be carried. There is a great deal of difference between 30 per cent, and 75 per cent. There was a sort of arrangement, so far as this House was concerned, that these Amendments should be dealt with by this time. It is no fault of ours
that the discussion has been prolonged; the time has been taken up by the right hon. Gentleman's own Friends, entirely owing to his own action in the matter.
Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 66.

Division No.580.]

AYES.

8.50 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Acland, Francis Dyke

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Mooney, John J.

Alden, Percy

Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

Morrell, Philip

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Morison, Hector

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Hackett, J.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Hancock, John George

Muldoon, John

Barton, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Munro, Robert

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Needham. Christopher T.

Bentham, George Jackson

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Nolan, Joseph

Boland, John Pius

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hayden, John Patrick

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Bowerman, Charles W.

Hazleton, Richard

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Brady, P. J.

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

O'Doherty, Philip

Brocklehurst, William B.

Helm, Sir Norval Watson

O'Dowd, John

Brunner, John F. L.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Bryce, John Annan

Higham, John Sharp

O'Malley, William

Burke, E. Haviland

Hinds, John

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hogg, David C.,

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hogge, James Myles

O'Shee, James John

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Outhwaite, R. L.

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Parker, James (Halifax)

Chancellor, H. G.

Hudson, Walter

Parry, Thomas H.

Chapple, Dr. William Aen

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Clancy, John Joseph

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Clough, William

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Clynes, J. R.

John, Edward Thomas

Pointer, Joseph

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Pringle, William M. R.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Cotton, William Francis

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Crooks, William

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

Reddy, Michael

Crumley, Patrick

Jowett, Frederick William

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Cullinan, John

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Dalziei, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Keating, Matthew

Rendall, Athelstan

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Keliaway, Frederick George

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kelly, Edward

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dawes, James Arthur

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

De Forest, Baron

King, J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Delany, William

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Robinson, Sidney

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Dickinson, W. H.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Donelan, Captain A.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Rowlands, James

Doris, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rowntree, Arnold

Duffy, William J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

Lundon, Thomas

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Scan an, Thomas

Elverston, Sir Harold

McGhee, Richard

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Sheehy, David

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macpherson, James Ian

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Falconer, James

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Snowden, Philip

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Field, William

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Sutton, John E.

Fitzgibbon, John

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Thomas, James Henry

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Meagher, Michael

Toulmin, Sir George

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Glanville, H. J.

Millar, James Duncan

Wadsworth, J.

Goldstone, Frank

Molloy, Michael

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

White, Patrick (Meath, North),

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Wardle, George J.

Whitehouse, John Howard

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Young, William (Perth, East)

Watt, Henry A.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Webb, H.

Wiles, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wilkie, Alexander

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

NOES.

Agg,-Gardner, James Tynte

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Falle, B. G.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Rutherford, Watson, (L'pool, W. Derby)

Barrie, Hugh T.

Fletcher, John Samuel

Sanders, Robert A.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc.)

Gardner, Ernest

Sanderson, Lanceiot

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gilmour, Captain John

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Goldman, C. S.

Spear, Sir John Ward

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Stanler, Beville

Blair, Reginald

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Stewart, Gershom

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Herbert, Hon. A.(Somerset, S.)

Talbot, Lord E.

Boyton, J.

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hill-Wood, Samuel

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport).

Butcher, J. G.

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Cassel, Felix

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Larmor, Sir J.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Worthington-Evans, L.

Clyde. James Avon

Mackinder, H. J.

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Mount, William Arthur

Younger, Sir George

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Newdegate, F. A.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Perkins, Walter F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Peto, Basil Edward

Dairymple and Mr. Wright.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In paragraph (b), after the word "resolution" ["in favour of a limiting resolution"], insert the words "or of a disinterested management resolution, as the case may be."
Lords Amendment: In sub-section (4), leave out the words "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."
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I beg to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Clause is naturally restored, if we get rid of the disinterested management option, as the House has decided to do. It will not be too much to say that the scheme of proportional voting which was introduced by an Amendment in another place was really introduced to provide for the addition of that option.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I disagree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. There is no matter of course about it. This Amendment takes out words which gave a double value to the prohibitionist vote. If the vote for prohibition was sufficiently large to carry that particular option, those
158
votes would be added to the votes for limitation in order to make sure, if possible, that that should be carried. There are many people who think prohibition a good thing but who, like Mr. Gladstone, regard limitation as a fraud.
Mr. LEIF JONES: Mr. Gladstone never said that.
Sir G. YOUNGER: Yes, he did. "Little better than an imposture" was the expression. That is the reason why we moved in Committee to have these words taken out. We did not see why there should be double effect given to one particular option when the voter whose vote was added did not want it. There is nothing in the Amendment affected at all by the elimination of the disinterested management option. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about proportional voting. It is an impossible scheme, and it would never have got any kind of definite settlement of any sort or kind. But we protest against disagreement, because we think these words ought not to reappear in the Bill.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have spoken in most elliptical language. No doubt they understood one another, but so far as the rest of the House is concerned, I do not see how they possibly could. Four very important lines have been removed from the Bill by the House

159
of Lords. I should imagine that anyone dealing with it a priori would imagine their omission is correct, because the effect of them is that if a certain voter votes for prohibition and prohibition is lost, his votes are to be counted for something else, namely, limitation. It is an absolutely unprecedented method of voting, and I think it requires much clearer defence than that given by the right hon. Gentleman, because he defended the rejection on the ground that something has been moved by Lord Courtney in another place. What it was I do not know.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It was put in for the sake of putting in disinterested management.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not know how that may be, but I hope we shall have some better defence as to why this extraordinary system of voting should exist, and though it began by saying, "that an elector shall not vote for more than one resolution, yet, if this resolution was lost, his vote is to be counted in favour of another resolution." I feel sure the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) will concede that if Mr. Gladstone did not say it was an imposture, it is quite conceivable that a sensible elector might take that view, and that is quite sufficient for my purpose. There may be a considerable number of sensible electors who are in favour of total prohibition and who may yet look upon restriction as a mistake, and of no advantage, and they would not vote for it if they had a free hand. For that reason I submit that the Lords are right, and
that we ought not to reject it in the curt way that the right hon. Gentleman proposes.
Mr. WATT: This Sub-section says that an elector shall not be entitled to vote for more than one of the resolutions submitted, 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. The House of Lords have omitted the last words, "but if a no-licence resolution be not carried, the votes recorded in favour of such resolution shall be added in favour of the limiting resolution." I ask is that a fair form of election? The enthusiast for teetotal reform comes up to the poll. He lodges his vote in favour of no licence. If that vote is not carried, his vote passes on to the limitation resolution. The voter who desires that the status quo ante may hold has no option. He has just the one choice, and I think the electors who go to the poll should be on equal terms. The voter for the trade has only one vote and one option, but the temperance faddist has two options. If he does not get the extreme measure, his vote passes to the second. I think that is an unfair way of taking a poll. All men should be the same, and should have one vote, and one vote only, and it should not pass on. I think the Lords were right in deleting this, and giving each vote the same value.
Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 62.

Division No. 581.]

AYES.

[9.6 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Chancellor, H. G.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Alden, Percy

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Elverston, Sir Harold

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Clancy, John Joseph

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Clough, William

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Clynes, John R.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Barnes, G. N.

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Falconer, J.

Barton, W.

Collins. Stephen (Lambeth)

Farrell, James Patrick

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Cotton, William Francis

Ffrench, Peter

Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

Crooks, William

Field, William

Bentham, G. J.

Crumley, Patrick

Fitzgibbon., John

Boland, John Pius

Cullinan, J.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Booth, Frederick Handel

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Bowerman, C. W.

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Glanville, Harold James

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Goldstone, Frank

Brady, P. J.

Dawes, James Arthur

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

De Forest, Baron

Greig, Col. J. W.

Brunner, J. F. L.

Delany, William

Griffith, Ellis J.

Bryce, J. Annan

Denman, Hon, R. D.

Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Dickinson, W. H.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Donelan. Captain A,

Hackett, J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Doris, William

Hancock, John George

Buxton, Noel, (Norfolk, North)

Duffy, William J.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire-N.E.)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Hayden, John Patrick

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Roberts, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Robinson, Sidney

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Meagher, Michael

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Millar, James Duncan

Rowlands, James

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Molloy, M.

Rowntree, Arnold

Higham, John Sharp

Molteno, Percy Allport

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter

Hinds, John

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Hogg, David C.

Morrell, Philip

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Hogge, James Myles

Morison, Hector

Scanlan, Thomas

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Muldoon, John

Sheehy, David

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Munro, R.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitherce)

Hudson, Waiter

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon, R. D.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Hughes, S. L.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Snowden, Philip

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Needham, Christopher

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

John, Edward Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Sutherland, J. E.

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Sutton, John E.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thomas, J. H.

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

O'Doherty, Philip

Toulmin, Sir George

Jowett, Frederick William

O'Duwd, John

Wadsworth, J.

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Keating, Matthew

O'Malley, William

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Kellaway, Frederick George

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Wardle, George J.

Kelly, Edward

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wason, Rt. Hon, E. (Clackmannan)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Shee, James John

Webb, H.

Kilbride, Denis

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

King, J.

Outhwaite, R. L.

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Parry, Thomas H.

Whitehouse, John Howard

Law, Hugh, A, (Donegal, West)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wiles, Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Pointer, Joseph

Wilkie, Alexander

Lundon, Thomas

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lynch, A. A.

Pringle, William M. R.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

McGhee, Richard

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Reddy, M.

Young, William (Perth, East)

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Macpherson, James Ian

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Rendall, Atheistan

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Barrie, H. T.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Sanders, Robert A.

Bathurst, Hon, A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Gardner, Ernest

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gilmour, Captain John

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Bannett-Goldney, Francis

Goldman, C. S.

Spear, Sir John Ward

Bentinck, Lord H. (Cavendish-

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Stewart, Gershom

Blair, Reginald

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Talbot, Lord E.

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. (Griffith-

Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Boyton, James

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Cassel, Felix

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Worthington-Evans, L.

Chaloner, Col, R. G. W.

Larmor, Sir J.

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Clyde, J. Avon

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Mackinder, H. J.

Younger, Sir George

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Mount, William Arthur

Dairymple, Viscount

Newdegate, F. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Rawlinson and Mr. Stanler.

Eyres-Mansell, B. M.

Perkins, Walter F.

Question put, and agreed to.

[While the Division was taking place, an interruption occurred in the Strangers' Gallery.]
Lords Amendment: At end of Subsection (4) to insert—
"An elector in giving his vote:
(a) must place on his ballot paper the figure (1) in the space opposite the resolution for which he votes; but.
(b) may in addition place on his ballot paper the figure (2) or the figures - (2) and (3), or the figures (2), (3), and
(4) in the spaces opposite the other resolutions in the order of his preference.
If on a scrutiny it is found that no resolution has been carried in accordance with the conditions above prescribed, the no-licence resolution shall be deemed to have been negatived and the papers marked (1) against such resolution shall be examined and transferred in accordance with the preferences, if any, expressed upon them to the new resolution or resolutions marked (2) on such papers; and if after this transfer no one of the three remaining resolutions is found to have been carried, the resolution in favour of disinterested management shall be deemed to have been negatived, and the voting papers which either originally or by transference support this resolution shall be examined and transferred in accordance with the preferences, if any, expressed upon them. If the limiting resolution is then found not to have been carried, the no-change resolution shall be deemed to be carried."
Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. This is a consequential Amendment, which is necessarily out of order, owing to the decision at which the House has already arrived. Is it, therefore, necessary that we should vote upon it?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is necessary for the House to deal by agreeing or disagreeing with all the Lords Amendments.

CLAUSE 3.—(Effect of Resolutions if Carried.)
Lords Amendment agreed to: In Subsection (1) leave out "a certificate" ["grant a certificate for an inn and hotel"], and insert "one or more certificates."]
Lords Amendment: After Sub-section (4) insert the following new Sub-section:—
"(5) For the period during which a disinterested management resolution remains in force in any area no certificate shall be granted therein except to an authorised public company: Provided that a certificate shall not be so granted unless the company has given such security, either by way of deposit or otherwise as the Licensing Court requires, for the payment by the company, by way of annual or other periodical instalments to the
164
Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board established under this Act, of one-half of the total declared value of the certificates in the area, as insured in accordance with the Third Schedule to this Act, which have been withdrawn in pursuance of the disinterested management resolution; or where applications for certificates within the area are entertained from more than one authorised public company, security for the payment of such proportion of half the total declared value aforesaid as may be fixed by the Licensing Court. The liability imposed upon any authorised public company in pursuance of the foregoing provision shall cease and determine if and when the disinterested management resolution, in pursuance of which the liability was imposed, ceases to be in force.
(6) The Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board shall apply the sums received in pursuance of the provisions of the immediately preceding Sub-section towards the payment of the claims of the licence holders in the area in respect of the withdrawal of whose certificates such sums are payable.
(7) An authorised public company means a company registered under the Companies (Consolidated) Act, 1908, one of whose objects shall be the sale of exciseable liquors and whose memorandum and articles of association shall have been approved by the Secretary for Scotland. The memorandum and articles of association shall make provisions for such matters as the Secretary for Scotland may prescribe either generally or with reference to any particular authorised public company and shall provide, among other things—

(a) that, subject to the payment of all sums required in pursuance of this section to be paid by the company to the Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board, the whole of the profits, after payment of interest at not more than four per centum on the paid-up capital, and after making provision for the formation of a reserve fund equal in amount to the paid-up capital upon such terms as may be fixed by the memorandum and articles of association, shall be paid to the Secretary for Scotland, and shall be applied by him in making grants to local authorities to be expended upon such works of public utility as he may in each case prescribe;

165

(b) that no profit or advantage from the sale of exciseable liquors shall accrue to the shareholders or directors of the said company, beyond the aforesaid dividend, and the salary or remuneration of the managers or employees of the company shall not be dependent on, and shall not be subject to increase or decrease in proportion to, the sale of intoxicating liquors in any licensed house under the control of the company;

(c) that the accounts of the company shall be submitted to an annual audit by an auditor to be approved by the Secretary for Scotland, and that the report of such auditor, with an abstract of the accounts, shall be published in a newspaper circulating in each area in which the company holds a certificate. The auditor so appointed shall disallow and surcharge upon the interest on capital all unreasonable payments for rent, salaries and liquor, and any use of the profits otherwise than as herein-before provided. The Licensing Court shall also have power to appoint an auditor who shall have the right to inspect the books of the company at any reasonable time;

(d) that no person who, under Section nine of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, is debarred from acting as a member of a Licensing Court shall be eligible to be a member or director or shareholder of an authorised public company within the meaning of this Act, and every person who shall knowingly or wilfully offend against any of the provisions aforesaid shall forfeit and pay the sum of fifty pounds, to be recovered before the sheriff within six calendar months next after the offence has been committed; and

(e) that it shall be competent for such authorised company to apply to the Licensing Court for the provisional grant of one or more such certificates without stating in the statutory application where the premises are severally situated or the proprietor's or factor's name and designation, and the Licensing Court shall make such provisional grants accordingly, but such provisional grants shall not be valid until declared to be final by the order of the Licensing Court to be made whenever the court is satisfied that the
166
premises selected by the authorised company are suitable.

(8) Nothing in this Act shall entitle an authorised public company to apply for or to obtain a greater number of such certificates in any area than the number of certificates in force in such area at the date on which this Act came into operation; but it shall be competent for such authorised public company to apply for and to obtain a smaller number of such certificates than the number in force as aforesaid.
(9) Before any grant is made by the Secretary for Scotland to a local authority under this Section, a draft scheme shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament during the Session of Parliament specifying the local authority to whom the grant is proposed to be made, the amount of the grant and the works of public utility upon which the grant is to be expended, and if within the next thirty days upon which that House has sat either House passes a resolution against the scheme or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft scheme.
(10) The Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, as amended by this Act, shall apply to any application by an authorised public company for the grant or renewal of a certificate and in addition to any terms or conditions imposed under the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, as amended by this Act, a certificate granted to an authorised public company shall be granted and held subject to the conditions specified in this Section, and to such provisions in the memorandum and articles of association of the company as may have been required by the Secretary for Scotland to have been inserted therein and those conditions and provisions shall be taken to be within the terms and provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act., 1903, and any breach of those conditions or provisions shall be an offence within the meaning of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, against the terms and conditions contained in the said certificate.
(11) Unless within three months after a disinterested management resolution is carried an authorised public company has made an application in writing to the Licensing Court of the area stating that the company is desirous of carrying on business in the area in accordance with the provisions of this Section, and has satisfied the Licensing Court that the company is able and willing to undertake the

167
liability for payments to the Scottish Licence Holders' Central Insurance Board imposed by this Section, the disinterested management resolution and the poll at which the resolution was carried shall be void."
Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "or reducing."
Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "or of a limiting resolution," and insert instead thereof the words "or except where the grant of a certificate is refused to an authorised public company in pursuance of a disinterested management resolution."
Lords Amendment: After Sub-section (5), insert the words "but where any certificate has been withdrawn to give effect to a limiting resolution an appeal shall lie from such decision as in the case of the refusal of the renewal of a certificate under the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903: Provided always that if the result of any appeal or appeals under this provision is to render the certificates in existence in the area in excess of the number allowed by the limiting resolution, the Licensing Court shall, before the next general half-yearly meeting of the Licensing Court, prepare a scheme for the reduction of the certificates to the aforesaid number, and shall notify the same in manner similar to that prescribed in respect of the original scheme and shall proceed to give effect thereto."
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a matter of some substance on which I think I should say something. This is a proposal that, if there is a limiting resolution and if the Licensing Court decides that licences are not to be renewed for the purpose of giving effect to the resolution reducing the total number of licences, there should be the right of appeal. On the face of it that looks reasonable, but I do not think I exaggerate when
168
I say that it would give rise to insuperable practical difficulties, and it has been thought better that the Licensing Court, being better acquainted with the local circumstances, should be the Court to deal with this matter. The point is this: Suppose the Licensing Court has to take away five licences, they decide which five licences they are to take away. Of course, when they decided, not only have they to advertise which licences they take away and the persons interested are advised to appear before the Court, and everybody is heard, but suppose there is an appeal, the Court of Appeal might decide that some of the five licences should not be taken away. If that was decided, the whole matter would be thrown into a state of chaos. The licences would go on, the decision of the vote would not be carried out, and they might decide later on that three other licences should be taken away. This process might go on ad infinitum. It would be very disadvantageous to the Licensing Court. It would be better for them to have a decision than be kept in a state of uncertainty perhaps for a very long period of a year or two. If the thing is decided on the whole, it is better, and will cause less anxiety and expense and trouble not to have this appeal. If you had this appeal you would have the whole trade in a state of turmoil for a long time, and I do not think it would benefit either the licence holder or anybody else.
Mr. RAWLINSON: The speech which we have just heard is absolutely unconvincing. The licence committee decide that a certain number of licences can be taken away. They take out, we will say, five particular licences. When you are before committees of that kind big brewers have very great power and very often small people go to the wall. The effect of this Amendment. is to give one of these men the right of appeal so that he may be able to say, "I am not the person who should be taken. One of the big brewers' houses should be taken and not my small house." It is a right of appeal which invariably exists. No license can be taken away at present without a right of appeal, and in common justice such a right should be given to any particular license-holder who is picked out. The House of Lords Amendment seems to me most reasonable and necessary for the protection of interests which might be very severely injured by a mistake committed under this Bill.
Sir G. YOUNGER: The difficulty arises here from the absurdity of the Bill itself which specifies that 25 per cent. of the licenses of the district under all circumstances must be taken away if a resolution is carried, although there may be only two in the district. The Secretary for Scotland is in this case dealing with a matter which everyone saw during the Committee would be a difficulty and which we all felt would be very difficult to deal with. I may tell my hon. and learned Friend that we have not brewers' houses in Scotland. The licensing system in Scotland is quite different from that with which he is accustomed to deal and all licences are the property of individuals. There may be a small loan here and there from some brewery, but there is no system such as exists in England, nor are there any breweries owning houses. My firm is a very considerable firm and does not own a house. There might, however, be favouritism or unfairness in dealing with this very important question and responsibility would be thrown upon the Licensing Court which I should not like to have to discharge and which, as the right hon. Gentleman would find, there would be very great objection to discharging unless you very largely extend your time limit and give some reasonable notice to those interested in the decision.
The House disagreed with further Lords (consequential) Amendments.

CLAUSE 5.—(Supplementa1 Provisions.)
Lords Amendment: Leave out Subsection (1), and insert instead thereof, the following:—
"(1) The requisition for a poll shall be made upon a requisition paper which shall be in the form set out in Schedule I. of this Act, and shall be signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area. On the written demand of ten electors made not earlier than the fifteenth day of August or later than the twenty-fifth day of August next preceding the date on which a poll can be taken under this Act a requisition paper shall be prepared by the clerk to the local authority who shall forthwith insert in not less than two newspapers circulating in the district a notice that such paper is being publicly exhibited at his office, or at such fit and convenient place within the area to which the requisition applies as he shall in such notice specify for signature and inspection until
170
the thirtieth day of the next following month of September when it will be removed. If the requisition paper shall be found by the local authority to have been duly signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area, the clerk to the local authority shall thereupon insert in not less than two newspapers circulating in the area a notice that such requisition has been duly signed."
Mr. MCKINNON WOOD:I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is an Amendment providing that the requisition should be signed at the Public Office or at some convenient place. If the Public Office might. not be within the area, and it might be a considerable distance from the area which was to vote, I do not think it at all necessary that the electors, merely to sign a requisition, should have to go to the office or some other place. It must be remembered that the elector is not affected by the requisition, which only indicates that there is a demand for a poll, and before he can make his opinion effective in any way, he has to go to the poll in the usual way. The Government does not think it necessary that there should be such elaborate and difficult machinery, and certainly could not consent to having a notice exhibited at the office of the local authority which, in a rural district, might be a very long way from the actual area in which a vote is to be taken.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept this Amendment, because it is intended to prevent polls from being taken unnecessarily and redundantly. The idea is that the people who are really and sincerely desirous of taking the trouble to vote, should have a requisition promoted asking that a poll should be taken. I think it is a very great pity that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this proposal which is an immense improvement.
The House agreed with certain verbal Amendments of the Lords.
The House disagreed with further Lords (Consequential) Amendments.
Lords Amendment: After Clause insert the following new Clause:—

NEW CLAUSE—A.—(Insurance of Certificates.)
(1) There shall be established in accordance with the provisions. of the Third.

171
Schedule to this Act a Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board and also a Scottish Licence Holders Mutual Insurance association or associations, and every holder of a certificate shall insure in such an association in respect of each certificate held by him.
(2) The insurance of certificates shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions set out in the Third Schedule to this Act.
(3) A person from whom a certificate is withdrawn in pursuance of a Resolution under this Act may, in accordance with the scheme set forth in the Third Schedule to this Act, recover the moneys payable to him thereunder: Provided always, and it is hereby expressly declared, that any claim in respect of the declared value of the certificate shall be enforceable only if, and in so far as, moneys for the payment of such claims are available under the said scheme.
(4) No Excise licence for the sale by retail of exciseable liquor shall be granted by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise except upon the production by the person authorised to hold the licence of a receipt for the insurance of his certificate for the year to which the licence relates and for any levy under the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act.
(5) This Section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the second most important proposal inserted by the Lords in this Bill, and I suppose the House desires that I should express the views of the Government upon it. I think there are very strong reasons why the Government cannot adopt this scheme of which the Lord Chancellor said he had "never seen anything like it in an Act of Parliament." I think the Lord Chancellor completely expressed the views of the Government when he said:—
"We object to it because we think it is a thoroughly unworkable proposition, and as wholly unprecedented a thing to introduce into a Bill of this kind as ever came within our experience."
That completely expresses the view of the Government, that it is an entirely unworkable proposition and entirely unprecedented. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed," "Agreed."] I am afraid everybody is not agreed; if they were, I should be very
172
glad to conclude my remarks and take a vote. This is a proposal to impose a compulsory contribution—and I call the attention of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) to it, because it is one of those schemes which I imagine his financial mind will not accept—this is a proposal to impose a compulsory contribution upon all licence holders, present or future in Scotland, at a flat rate, which takes no account of different circumstances and prospects. On the other hand, it is the intention that the Insurance Board shall be obliged to accept everyone who comes to it, whether they think it to be to the interest of their existing body of members or not. Otherwise, under this scheme, the man will not be able to receive his Excise licence or begin to practise his business. This is a very novel plan of insurance to compel an unwilling man to come in whatever the risk to the insurance company. I venture to say the hon. Baronet never heard of a scheme like this.
Sir F. BANBURY: The Insurance Act.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is a very ingenuous interruption, but no one knows better than the hon. Baronet that it is not very relevant; it is quite different from the Insurance Act. It is clear that there are different classes of licensed premises—an hotel, or a solitary country inn, or a country grocer's licence—and there must be a very great difference between them and a public-house in a town ward, where there may be a public-house at every street corner. It is not surprising that many licence holders object to this principle of compulsion. I cannot help thinking that it is quite idle to say, as has been said in another place, that if the Government accepts this Amendment they will have no responsibility. The Government cannot wash its hands of responsibility for what it places in one of its own Bills; yet I believe that if we accepted this scheme, as soon as it was understood, we. should have such a howl of indignation from the licence holders in Scotland that no Government could resist it, and this scheme would not be a settlement of the case. Lord Camperdown, in another place, declared that the scheme he introduced, and which was rejected on a Committee stage, was, "the joint production of the Scottish Licence Holders' Mutual Insurance Association and of the Scottish Licensed Trade Defence Association." The former he described as a voluntary association which

173
really conducts at the present time the whole voluntary insurance of the licensed trade in Scotland. He attached great importance to the fact that the scheme was set up by the licence holders themselves, and that was really the reason why the Government could not accept the scheme without being responsible. I would like to inform the House that this Mutual Insurance Company have reconsidered this scheme. They are strongly opposed to it. For one thing, they object to disinterested management being mixed up with it.
While I am referring to the speech of the Noble Lord, I should like to comment on another statement he made. He said that the Government would have very little to do with this scheme, and only in one instance—that is when the Secretary for Scotland approves of the rules. I cannot help thinking that that would be a very considerable Government interference and control of the scheme. There is another point he did not mention, and that is that the Excise authorities are brought in. The Excise authorities are not to give the certificate unless the man produces a receipt for the payment of his premium and levy. The Excise authorities very strongly object to being brought in, and they give very sound reasons. As a matter of fact the Government would be brought in to a very considerable extent. and would have to bear the odium of the whole business.
There have been six or seven schemes submitted to me during the progress of this Bill with all sorts of features. One scheme provided that the local authority should buy up all the stock of spirits, and I suppose sell it or drink it or put it down the gutter. I think they had the choice. We had all sorts of fanciful proposals. There was a scheme rejected by 39 to 19 in Scottish Grand Committee, and the scheme rejected by this House by 249 to 08. Then there was Lord Camperdown's scheme, which was discussed at some length and very severely criticised in the House of Lords, and finally defeated and thrown out in that House in the Committee stage. Now we have this scheme introduced on Report and altered again on Third Reading. This scheme is open to all the more important objections that have been urged against the others. It certainly has not been placed before the licence holders of Scotland in its present form. One licence holder wrote a letter to the "Glasgow Herald" with a criticism that has never been answered. His view
174
was that this was a scheme in favour of the wholesaler, and I have had many representations made to me to that effect.
He said take the case of a licence holder who is working on borrowed capital, and you call upon him to pay what may be a very large proportion of his income. He may have to pay in premium and levy as much as 2 per cent. on the value of his licence, and yet all the compensation or the greater part of it will go, not to him, but to the man who has lent the money. I daresay it will be said that that is quite fair and that he ought to pay his debts, but that is not a satisfactory answer, because the man who lends the licence holder the money in a case like this is not an ordinary mortgagor who lends money for the sake of 5 per cent., but lends it to get the trade of the house and is a partner in the profits. That is recognised by the framers of this scheme, and they tried to meet that objection that the licence holder is called upon to pay for somebody else's benefit. They have done it in a Clause which is entirely illusory. They provide that if there is a covenant or agreement or undertaking for the purchase of liquor by a licence holder that in the case of a person who holds that covenant he shall pay a portion of the premium in accordance with the proportion of his interest compared with that of the licence holder. That looks very fair, but it is not worth twopence in Scotland. I am told by the trade and I was told it only yesterday by the Mutual Insurance Company that there are no tied houses in Scotland and those covenants do not exist. The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) I notice agrees. Then what is the value of the Clause. All the lender has to do is to take short bills and he has only to say, "You are not giving me trade and it is not worth while lending you money, and I would rather have my money back," so that he really has the publican under his control. No way has been devised to make him pay his share of the premium
I think the publican's complaint is really well founded. But, it is urged that with all its faults a majority of the trade are in favour of the scheme. There really is not sufficent evidence of that. They have never expressed an opinion about this particular. scheme as it was only introduced by Lord Salisbury on the 21st January, and even on the first scheme about which they did have a postcard plebiscite the result was not very conclusive, as only 38 per cent.

175
of the licence holders voted for it. The great majority did not trouble to reply. Of course, that plan presented the difficulties of the referendum, the perennial difficulty of the referendum, that nothing is put but a general proposition, and the men did not know what was in the scheme, except in the vaguest form. You could not possibly on a postcard give a satisfactory idea of what the scheme was. The present scheme has not been before them at all in any form. I should like to say a word about the position of voluntary insurance in Scotland, because after all it is not very clear that you want anything but voluntary insurance. This Mutual Insurance Society, to which Lord Camperdown referred, informed me yesterday that their calculation was that they were on-licences of the value of £7,000,000, and that they insured three-fourths of them, or about 5½ millions in value. In Glasgow alone they have between 1,000 and 1,100 insurances out of 1,200 licences. I do not know the figures for any other company, but this undoubtedly is the greatest, and those figures do not indicate the failure of voluntary effort. Therefore I submit that after many attempts no workable or fair scheme has been placed before Parliament, and that we have not had any adequate insurance that the trade is in favour of this scheme, while we know that it is opposed by many licence holders, and in itself is a scheme which Parliament ought not to take the responsibility of inserting in the Bill.
Sir G. YOUNGER: We have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman before, and I do not think he has added anything to what he said on a previous occasion. He still harps on old strings, although some of those I thought had been destroyed. He did so particularly towards the end of his speech when he suggested that nothing was wanted but a voluntary system of insurance. We have been told over and over and over again of those figures, which are all very well and very right and proper so long as your existing system continues, when you have your licensing system administered by a competent and careful body under a strictly judicial system. When you transfer the administration or the granting of licences to a popular democratic vote then the right hon. Gentleman is beating the air and wasting the time of this House in telling us that the same system of voluntary in-
176
surance is possible. He knows perfectly well it was nothing of the kind. How would it be possible to insure a licence which may be taken away at the end of the third year by veto or a limiting resolution? It is a very different matter when each case is considered on its merits and evidence for and against is heard. What comparison is there between that system and the system of popular vote—and heaven only knows how the popular vote will go? Democracy is all very well, but democracy speaking for itself in a matter. of this kind is a very different thing from democracy speaking through its recognised and elected authority, which is the proper way for democracy to give effect to its opinion and to control its own action. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman was beating the air when he brought forward that statement.
I am ready to make an admission on the subject of insurance. In the first place, the House will clearly understand that this is not a complete scheme of insurance. It never professed to be that. It is a mere palliative of the great loss which will be entailed upon those licence holders who lose their licences. It will depend upon the time limit and the number of districts in which one or the other of these options is adopted, how far the funds accumulated for the purpose of paying these licence values will meet the demand upon them. Various estimates have been made in regard to that subject, but it is perfectly impossible to make any estimate that is worth anything. No one knows in the least degree what the effect of the measure will be if it was passed. No one knows how the various areas will vote. But the scheme is not even a palliative if five years is to be the time limit. Insurance with a five years' time limit is absolutely no use at all. If the right hon. Gentleman had given that as a reason for rejecting the proposal, I should not have contradicted him. But I live in hope, after the Debate of this afternoon, and the expressions of opinion by so many Members behind the Government Bench, that there may yet be a ten years' limit. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about a flat rate. What is a flat rate? A flat rate is the rate you have in the Insurance Act—fourpence to every man, irrespective of age or anything else. It is not a flat rate in this case at all. I have pointed that out before, but the right hon. Gentleman seems a little slow in picking up any corrections.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not always agree with t hem.
Sir G. YOUNGER: No; I am surprised if the right hon. Gentleman ever agrees with me. We are built on quite different lines, and I am rather thankful that we are.
Mr. McKiNNON WOOD:I agree there.
Sir G. YOUNGER: It is true that this is a. rate of 30s. per cent. upon the licence value of the premises, which varies according to the various conditions which have been mentioned—locality, risk, quality, and so forth—and the amount has to be declared beforehand. The right hon. Gentleman says that the insurance companies will have to accept all of them. Of course they will have to do that, or the scheme is no use at all. It is equally true that unwilling people will be compelled to insure. That is an awkward feature of the scheme. We know that there are a certain number of people who object. They think, and no doubt they are perfectly right, that their licensed premises are in places where there is no sort of chance of a limitation or prohibition Motion being carried, and that therefore they are perfectly safe in running the risk without any insurance, and in sitting tight to reap the benefit of any prohibition or limitation Resolution that may be carried in a neighbouring area. Therefore it seems fair that, as in the case of the English Licensing Act, the fund should be a national fund, and there Should be a compulsory payment. As to the claim of the right hon. Gentleman that if this were put into the Bill it would involve a grave Government responsibility I quite disagree. There is no intention whatever of placing any responsbility upon the Government. The scheme has been most carefully drawn up, so that it shall not interfere with the operations of the Bill or place any responsibility on the Government. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government would be responsible if these payments were not forthcoming, I would remind him that even in their own scheme of insurance the Government do not guarantee the approved societies. Are they, because they put these obligations of insurance upon the people, going to be held responsible if one of these societies fails to pay? They have deliberately said that they are not. What is the difference between the two? No one seeks to place any responsibility upon the Government in this case any more than they accepted responsibility in the other. The right hon. Gentleman talks as
178
if there was no precedent for a scheme of this kind or something approaching it being put into an Act of Parliament. It is in the Act passed last year, and many people thought it a very strong order indeed for the Government to refuse to, accept responsibility when compulsory obligations were placed upon the people at the Government's desire.
The last point put by the right hon. Gentleman was that the Excise Authorities would object to be in any kind of way dragged into this scheme. At the present Authorities are not in any kind of way dragged into this scheme At the present moment they issue licences on the production of the magistrate's certificate. In this matter they are simply instructed that along with the magistrate's certificate. there must be a receipt for the insurance; therefore they will be no more dragged into it in the future than they are at present. But what have the Excise Authorities got to do with it? They are the servants of the public. What right have they to say that they object to undertake this responsibility? It is for the House to place upon them any responsibility it pleases. They are the servants of this House and of the public. I should be very much surprised to find that they raised anything beyond a technical objection. Every Government Department raises a technical objection to any fresh duties being placed upon it, but I do not think there would be any substantial objection. The insurance scheme, however, is of no use if the time limit is not increased beyond five years, because no sufficient funds could be gathered together in five years to make any sensible payment to the people whose licences were refused. I would far rather have an extension to ten years and no insurance scheme at all, than a period of five years with an insurance scheme. The best thing would be to have both the ten years and the insurance scheme, but that I do not suppose we shall get. In the meantime we must divide in favour of the Lords Amendment in this matter, as we consider it one of great importance.
Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The objections. which the Secretary for Scotland brought forward on the ground that the scheme is not accepted by members of the licensed trade ought to weigh with the House in dealing with the Amendment. We have. no evidence whatever that the trade are united. On the contrary, there are evidences that the trade knows that this scheme was only inserted in the House of

179
Lords in opposition to the wishes of many members of the trade. That fact was duly recognised at a meeting of representatives of the licensed trade in the West of Scotland at Glasgow last month. It would be most undesirable that the Government should be asked to charge themselves with the carrying out of a scheme of this character unless they had some further indication that the trade were united, and in that case it would be entirely unnecessary for a compulsory scheme to be introduced at all. If the trade is united they have the means of dealing with the matter themselves. If they are not united the Gevernment ought not under any circumstances be asked to insert this scheme in the Bill. It is asking the Government to take far too great a responsibility upon their shoulders. Hon. Members should also keep in view the fact that the scheme has been entirely altered, the disinterested management proposals having been taken out of the Bill. What do the members of the licensing trade say to the loss of the payments that disinterested management houses were expected to make towards the compensation fund? It also affects the situation very materially if you take into account that this proposal substantially, though not in quite the same form, was defeated in Committee of the House of Lords. I think that this House ought to regard with considerable suspicion a scheme which could only be introduced on Report stage, and which is, I believe, the seventh different scheme proposed to be introduced into the Bill.
Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The whole of the speeches to which we have listened from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill seem to me to be levelled against this particular scheme of compulsory insurance, which is suggested by another place to deal with the case, on the basis of the existing law of licensing. He seems entirely to forget that this scheme was to be incorporated in the Bill, and is to give an entirely altered system of licensing under which, instead of licences being dealt with in the ordinary judicial manner as they have been for many years, whether the licence was to be renewed or not, that now the object of this Bill is to leave it to the electors either to abolish licences in given districts altogether or to make very drastic reductions. It must be obvious to the House that that is a new state of affairs from that contemplated by
180
the Bill. If this Bill ever comes into operation at all it will establish a state of affairs for which we have got no precedent at present. We really do not know what the effect upon licences as a whole will be. Therefore, it really is impossible to deliver oneself, as the right hon. Gentleman did, of a series of argument founded on certain procedure being followed which it is obvious will not apply in the future. It is perfectly obvious that the other House has very carefully considered the whole of these provisions, and we have been face to face to-night with a series of carefully considered Amendments which have dealt with a number of most important points.
10.0 P.M.
The other House in passing the Bill and adopting the principle have made it clear, by putting this new Clause in, and also this very elaborate Schedule to which it refers, that they were only prepared to pass the Bill, I take it, on the footing of there being a fund for compulsory insurance, so that anybody who might lose his licence under the Bill would at all events get some reasonable compensation. The only really effective criticism that we have listened to is certainly very important. It weighs with me to a very considerable extent, and it is this: That when you come to look at the Schedule you will find that only a half per cent. on the declared value of the house is to be the maximum amount paid to this insurance fund in order to provide funds for compensating any licensee who loses his licence. The criticism is fairly well founded that the amount you will get from the mere contribution of half per cent. on the declared value might, if this Act were to be operated very drastically in many districts, very soon sweep away altogether all the money, and there would be none left to carry out the principles of the Clause. There is an answer to that criticism, and it is this: That at all events the fund would be established, and if the Act did not come into operation in the respect mentioned for some time, or to any great extent, the fund would be accumulating, and it might he possible to rearrange the amounts for compensation if found necessary to do so. There is one very important fact which seems to have been left out of calculation in the discussion on this Amendment, and that is that, for the first time in Scotland, if this Act passes, it would be possible for a large number of licences to be swept away without any preliminary notice of any importance, without any misconduct whatever

181
on the part of the licensee, or any suggestion of it, and without any failure on his part to carry out the law. That being the case, surely it is a reasonable thing, if such an Act is on the Statute Book, that there should be some fund out of which those innocent people who have invested their money in this business should get something from. I take it that is the principle Clause. I take the view in regard to licensed houses that it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the general community that every licence holder should know that his property is safe, and that he cannot lose it at the mere will of a body of electors, certainly without some compensation.
If there is a trade in the whole world that demands money being spent to do justice to the common people, to provide reasonable accommodation, sanitary, convenient, clean, and well kept, so that the trade may be properly conducted, it is the licensed trade. If you are going to have the welfare of the public well looked after, you must make it worth the while of the people concerned to spend money. You cannot expect decent, respectable people to spend their money and to cater for the public in a proper manner if their property can be swept away at the mere whim of a body of electors and without a penny of compensation. The other House have taken the precaution, having approved the principle of the Bill, to study this question of compensation for the licence holder, and they have studied it carefully and elaborately, and these points ought not to be swept away by the right hon. Gentleman reading out an old speech that he has to my knowledge delivered three or four times before. He seems to think that it is a complete reply, whereas it has nothing on earth to do with the subject of the present Bill. I take a very strong view on this matter. I have not a halfpenny interest, directly or indirectly, in the business either in England or Scotland, but I think that t is one of those things which have not been adequately considered. The main principle and the alteration which the other House have made in this Bill and which are embodied in this Amendment ought not to be brushed aside without adequate discussion. When we look at this Third suggested Schedule, it will be found that every detail of this proposed scheme of insurance has been carefully thought out.
We have had no criticism from the Government Bench of any of the details of the
182
scheme. We have simply had some observations, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it was a fatal objection to the whole scheme that it would give some of his Excise men in Scotland a little bit of extra work. He pointed out that this extra work would involve responsibility for the Government in connection with this scheme. What is the amount of this extra work and responsibility? It is this: That before issuing the licences the authorities should take care to see that the magistrate granted a receipt for the premium. What a terrible amount of extra work there is in having to see that there was a receipt! And what a fearful amount of responsibility to see that the receipt was signed by someone who had to sign it. Of all the frivolous and, if I may say so, stupid suggestions ever Made to this House, it seems to me that that was about the most extraordinary. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that other Departments of the Government were asked to accept serious responsibility in connection with this insurance. I have taken the trouble to read the scheme from one end to the other, and there is no suggestion of any Government Department taking responsibility. It is a carefully designed scheme to enable the licence holder of Scotland to make some small expenditure so that, if their licences are swept away under this peculiar Bill, they would be able, at all events amongst themselves—for the payment comes out of their own pockets—to get some little security and return for the money they spent on their business, and of which otherwise they would be entirely deprived. I do not think the scheme has met with the attention at the hands of the Government which such an important scheme should receive.
Mr. MUNRO: I desire to point out that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has based his argument on what I respectfully consider to be a fallacy. He has forgotten to distinguish between the licensing system in England and in Scotland, and he has repeatedly referred to this scheme as a scheme of compensation. It is a scheme of insurance, or it is nothing at all. He has forgotten entirely that in Scotland the Licensing Court has absolute and unfettered discretion to grant or refuse as many licences as it may think fit, and he has also forgotten that in Scotland no licence holder has a vested interest in his licence. It is perfectly certain and

183
well-ascertained law, that. the licence holder receives his licence for a year and no more, and therefore this scheme, so far from being one of compensation, is a scheme of insurance. Viewing it as such, I venture to say it has not been shown why this scheme should be a compulsory scheme, and it is not shown in the second place that it is desired in Scotland.
We heard a great deal some time ago about fun in the Cabinet in connection with a recent measure. I think that that humour would be as nothing compared with the fun that has taken place behind the scenes when this very scheme was considered by the trade in Scotland. On these two grounds I think the House should reject it. Further, it has been shown that the scheme is financially unsound. There is no doubt it is not a business proposition; it does not pay 20s. in the £. There is a flat rate suggested for risks varying in their character and quality. In addition, I venture to say it is not insurance; it is a misnomer to call this an insurance scheme. The House well knows what insurance means; that in respect of a particular payment you receive in a certain event a specific sum. It has not been shown that a specific sum would
be forthcoming under this scheme. What would be forthcoming would be something in the nature of an eleemosynary dole. I can well imagine the speech which would be made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) five or six years hence, if this scheme was inserted in the Bill, if a no-licence resolution were carried and the till was empty. He would say that this was a Government Bill. He would say you compelled every licence holder in Scotland to contribute to this scheme, and, now you are trying to escape from your liability on a miserable and technical plea that the Government was not responsible for it. I can well imagine him saying in his most rhetorical style that the scheme was put into the Bill by the Government, and that they are responsible for the soundness and the sufficiency of it. On the grounds that the scheme has not been shown to he an insurance scheme worthy of the name, and that it has been shown to be financially unsound, I venture to oppose its insertion in the Bill.
Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 75.

Division No. 582.]

AYES.

[10.14 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Harvey. W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Dawes. James Arthur

Hayden, John Patrick

Alden, Percy

De Forest, Baron

Hazleton, Richard

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Delany, William

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury. E.)

Dickinson, W. H.

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Donelan, Captain A,

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Barton, William

Doris, W.

Higham, John Sharp

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Duffy, William J.

Hinds, John

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hogge, James Myles

Bentham, G. J.

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Boland, John Pius

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Elverston, Sir Harold

Hudson, Walter

Bowerman, C. W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Illingworth, Percy H.

Brady, P. J.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Falconer, James

John, Edward Thomas

Brunner, John F. L.

Farrell, James Patrick

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Bryce, J. Annan

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Ffrench, Peter

Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Field, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Fitzgibbon, John

Jones, W. S. Glyn.- (T. H'mts., Stepney),

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Jowett, Frederick William

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Joyce, Michael

Chancellor, H. G.

Glanville. H. J.

Keating, Matthew

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Goldstone, Frank

Kellaway, Frederick George

Clancy, John Joseph

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Kelly, Edward

Clough, William

Greig, Col. J. W.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Clynes, John R.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Kilbride, Denis

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

King, J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gulland, John William

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Criclade)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Cotton, William Francis

Hackett. J.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Crooks, William

Hancock, J. G.

Lawson, Sir W, (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

Crumley, Patrick

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Cullinan, J.

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Lewis, John Herbert

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Lundon, Thomas

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Harvey, A, G. C. (Rochdale)

Lynch, A. A.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

McGhee, Richard

O'Shee, James John

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Outhwaite, R. L.

Sutherland, J. E.

Macpherson, James Ian

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sutton, John E.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Parry, Thomas H.

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Tennant, Harold John

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Thomas, J. H.

M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Toulmln, Sir George

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Pointer, Joseph

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Pringle, William M. R.

Verney, Sir Harry

Meagher, Michael

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Wadsworth, J.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Millar, James Duncan

Reddy, Michael

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Molloy, M.

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Wardle, George J.

Malteno, Percy Alpert

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rendall, Athelstan

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Morrell, Philip

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Watt, Henry A.

Morison, Hector

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Muldoon, John

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Munro, R.

Robinson, Sidney

Whitehouse, John Howard

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R, C.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Wiles, Thomas

Needham, Christopher

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wilkie, Alexander

Nolan, Joseph

Rowlands, James

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Rowntree, Arnold

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

O'Doherty, Philip

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

O'Dowd, John

Scanlan, Thomas

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

O'Malley, William

Sheehy, David

Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Webb.

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Eyres-Monsell, R. M.

Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Falle, B. G.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Fletcher, John Samuel

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barrie, H. T.

Gardner, Ernest

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gilmour. Captain John

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bennett-Goldney. Francis

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

Sanders, Robert A.

Bentinck, Lard Henry Cavendish-

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Stanler, Beville

Boyton, James

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Stewart, Gershom

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Talbot, Lord E.

Butcher, John George

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Carlile, Sir Edward Hiidred

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Cassel, Felix

Ingleby, Holcombe

Williams, Col. R. Dorset, W.)

Chaloner, Col, R. G. W.

Larmor, Sir J.

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Clyde, James Avon

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Mackinder, H. J.

Yate, Col. C. E.

Craik, Sir Henry

Mount, William Arthur

Younger, Sir George

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Dairymple, Viscount

O'Grady, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Dewar, Sir J. A.

O'Neill, Hon, A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Watson Rutherford and Mr. Rawlinson.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Structural Alterations.)
As from the passing of this Act, and until the first day of June, nineteen hundred and seventeen, it shall not be competent for a Licensing Court to order any structural alterations of licensed premises under Section forty-two, Sub-section (3), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.
Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "the first day of June, nineteen hundred and seventeen," and insert "earliest date when resolutions under the provisions of this Act can come into operation."

CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of Law Relating to Clubs.)
(1) Section seventy-eight, Sub-section (1), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903 (hereinafter in this Section referred to as "the Act of 1903"), shall be amended (a) by substituting the words "and the names and addresses of the members" for the words "and the names of the members";
(b) by substituting the words "two justices of the peace who for the time being are members of the Court of Appeal for the county within which such premises are situate, or, where such premises are situate within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace who for the time being are members of the Court of Appeal from the Burgh Licensing Court, or by two magistrates of the burgh, or by one justice, as aforesaid, and one magistrate," for the words "two justices of the peace for the county within which such premises are situate, or, where such premises are situate within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace, as aforesaid, or by two magistrates of the burgh, or by one justice and one magistrate"; and (c) by adding the words "(1) any such justice of the peace or magistrate may, within ten days from the date on which he signed the certificate, withdraw his name from the certificate granted by him; and (2)," after the words "Provided that."
(4) Any person or council competent under the Act of 1903 to lodge objections to the grant or renewal of a certificate of registration may, within twenty-one days of the receipt of the notice of application for the grant or renewal of a certificate, lodge with the registrar objections to such grant or renewal of the certificate on one or more of the following grounds, and that in addition to the grounds specified in Section eighty-one of the Act of 1903:—

(a) That the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable or convenient for the purpose of a club; or

(b) That the club is to be used mainly as a drinking club; or

(e) That the officials and committee of management, or governing body, or the manager, or a servant employed in or by the club have, or has, or will have, a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the club of exciseable liquors, or in the profits arising therefrom; or

(d) That persons are habitually admitted or supplied as members without an interval of at least two weeks between their nomination and election as ordinary members; or

(e) That the officials and committee of management or governing body or the members are persons of bad character or who follow no lawful occupation and have no lawful means of subsistence; or

188

(f) That the club has been or will be used as the resort of criminals or persons of bad character; or

(y) That men or women of bad fame assemble in or frequent the club.

(5) Section eighty-nine of the Act of 1903 shall be read as if the words "an application with the accompanying documents specified in Section seventy-eight, Sub-section (1), of the Act of 1903, any one of" were substituted for the words "an application for registration."
(6) This Section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act.
Lords Amendments agreed to: In Subsection (1), leave out "justices of the peace who for the time being are" ["(b) by substituting the words 'two justices of the peace who for the time being are members of the Court of Appeal.'"]
After the word "members" ["(b) by substituting the words two justices who for the time being are members of the Court of Appeal'"], insert "either of the Licensing Court or."
After the word "situate" ["(b) by substituting the words 'two justices of the peace who for the time being are members of the Court of Appeal for the county within which such premises are situate'"] insert "or one member of each of such Courts not being the same member."
Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (4) paragraph (a) after "club" insert "or that there is a drinking bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of exciseable liquors."
Mr. McK1NNON WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is one of a series of Amendments for increasing the control of clubs. There is some doubt about the policy of passing some of the Amendments, as, for example, that the subscription should not be of a nominal amount. There is considerable difficulty in fixing an amount, because the circumstances of different clubs in different places vary so much, and I think it would be safer to leave the matter with the magistrates; but on the whole I move that we agree with the Lords Amendments.
Lords further Amendments agreed to: In paragraph (c), after the word "That"

189
insert "the owner of the promises, when the same are not owned by the club, or the immediate lessor of the premises or. In paragraph (d), after the word "members" ["election as ordinary members"], insert the words "or for a subscription of a merely nominal amount."
CLAUSE 9.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section sixteen of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, it shall be lawful for the Licensing Court and the Licensing Appeal Court, in any case where there are more than one application for a certificate for the same premises, to hear and consider the said applications together.

(2) Section thirty-one, Sub-section (2), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, shall be amended by substituting the words "until the twenty-eighth day of May or the twenty-eighth day of November following, as the case may be," for the words "until the next general half-yearly meeting of the Licensing Court."

(3) This Sction shall take effect as from the passing of this Act.

Lords Amendment agreed to: At the beginning of Clause insert the following new Sub-section:
(1) Section five, Sub-section (9) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, shall be amended by the insertion at the end thereof of the words "provided that in the absence of a quorum the chairman of the court or, in his absence, the clerk, may call a further meeting in lieu of the meeting not held."

CLAUSE 11.—(Sales on Order of Officials.)
(1) Section fifty-five of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, shall be amended by inserting after "officer of police," the words "including any constable in charge of any police station," and after "medical official" the words "or in case of sickness, accident, or emergency by a qualified medical practitioner."
(2) This Section shall take effect upon the passing of this Act.
Lords Amendment agreed to: To leave out in (a) the word "upon" and insert the words "as from."

CLAUSE 12.—(Power to Close Certificated Premises in Case of Riot.)
(1) Where any riot or tumult happens, or is expected to happen, the sheriff may order every holder of a certificate for the
190
seable liquors in or near the place where the riot or tumult happens, or is expected to happen, to close his premises during such time as the order shall require.
(2) If any person keeps open his premises for the sale of exciseable liquor during any time at which in pursuance of this Section they are ordered to be closed, he shall be liable in respect of each offence to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) This Section shall take effect upon the passing of this Act.
Lords Amendment agreed to: Leave out in (3) the word "upon" and insert the words "as from."

CLAUSE 13.—(Drunken Persons Entering Public-House.)
Any person who is in a state of intoxication, and found attempting to enter any public-house, shall be subject to the same powers and procedure and penalty as provided in Section seventy of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.
Lords Amendments agreed to: After the word "be" insert "thereby guilty of an offence and shall be"
After "in" insert ("the first paragraph of Sub-section (1) of").
New Sub-section: After 1903, insert the new Sub-section, "This Section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act."

CLAUSE 15.—(Definitions)
The several words and expressions used in this Act shall unless otherwise provided or unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction have the same respective meaning as in the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903: Provided that in this Act:—
"Area" means:—

(a) in the case of a burgh divided into wards the population of which burgh within the police boundaries thereof, according to the census for the time being last taken, is not less than ten thousand, any ward of such burgh, and in the case of other burghs, the whole burgh; and

(b) in the case of a county, the parish, as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein, and where a parish is situated within two counties, the portion in each county shall, for the purposes of

191
this Act, be deemed a sepa parish:

"Burgh" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh:
"County" means a county exclusive of any burgh or part of a burgh comprised therein:
"Certificate" means any certificate for the sale by retail of exciseable liquors granted in terms of or under the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903: Provided that for the period during which a no-licence resolution is in force in any area, no dealer's licence for the sale of exciseable liquor by wholesale shall be granted therein by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise, except to brewers of beer for sale, distillers, rectifiers, or compounders of spirits, makers of sweets, or wholesale dealers in spirits, wine, beer, or sweets for premises for which similar licences have been taken out for twelve months before the date of the poll, without the production of a certificate authorising such sale from the Licensing Court; which certificate shall be applied for, granted, confirmed, transferred, and renewed in the same manner as though it were a certificate authorising such sale by retail:
"Elector" means, in the case of—

(a) a burgh, any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of town councillors for that burgh, and when used in relation to any area in a burgh means a person so registered as entitled to vote at an election for that area; and in the case of—

(b) a parish (excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein), any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of parish councillors for that parish, excluding as aforesaid: Provided that the supplementary register made up in the year nineteen hundred and sixteen under Section twenty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall continue in operation for the purposes of a poll under this Act in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen, and provided further that for the purposes of a requisition in the year of a triennial election of county councillors before the register of parish council electors is made up "elector" means any rate-
192
the parish, excluding as aforesaid:

The expression "grant" when used in relation to a certificate includes the grant of a certificate by way of renewal:
"Local authority" means in the case of—

(a) a burgh, the town council thereof; and

(b) a county, the county council thereof;

"No-change resolution" means a resolution that the powers and discretion of the Licensing Court in regard to the grant of certificates or otherwise shall remain unchanged, and in Section two as applied to a further poll in any area where a limiting resolution is in force means a continuance resolution.
Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "a burgh divided into wards, the population of which burgh within the police boundaries thereof, according to the census for the time being taken, is not less than ten thousand, any ward of such burgh, and in the case of other burghs, the whole burgh, and," in order to insert in place thereof the words:—
("which is not divided into wards, or of a burgh the population of which within the police boundaries thereof according to the census for the time being last taken is less than twenty-five thousand, the whole burgh and in the case of any other burgh, any ward or combination of wards or parts of wards, proposed by the town council and approved by the Secretary for Scotland, of which the population shall not be less than twelve thousand.")
Government Amendment: To leave out the words "any ward or combination of wards or part of wards, proposed by the town council, and approved by the Secretary for Scotland, of which the population shall not be less than twelve thousand," in order to insert the word "thereof."
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This is an Amendment with which we partly agree and partly disagree. So far as the Lords Amendment proposes to increase the size of the urban areas from 10,000 to 25,000, I propose that we agree with it. That automatically increases the size of the wards. I strongly object to the proposal to manufacture new ad hoc areas. The objection on administrative grounds will be readily understood by those who have

193
had to do with local government areas. When you have to do with a ward you have a convenient, well known, familiar, and natural electoral area. You have an electoral roll which can be conveniently handled. If you set up new ad hoc areas for specific purposes like this you create great difficulty, and it is quite unnecessary. It may be considered to be to the interests of licence holders on the one hand or temperance people on the other to get one area or the other. One of the objects of this Bill is to remove the pressure of the trade from the Licensing Court, to make the town council independent of that kind. of pressure or pressure from temperance reformers if you like, and put the thing under popular control. It is quite unnecessary to create artificial areas for this purpose, and it would cause a good deal of difficulty and trouble. I shall, therefore, move as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out from "ward" in line five, to the end of the Amendment, and insert "thereof."
Mr. CLYDE: The question involved in this Amendment of the Lords is purely a practical matter. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite put to the House the real substance of the point with which this Amendment deals. Originally as the Bill emerged from Committee, the proposal was to deal with boroughs of not less than 10,000 population, and in the case of boroughs which had less than 10,000 population, then the area was the whole borough. In other words, the 10,000 population limit was applied as being the standard of the area. If the borough were bigger than such as contained a population of 10,000, then the ward was taken. The right hon. Gentleman, and I thank him so far for what he has done, has conceded the view which I think was contended for by some of us, that an area with a population of 10,000 only was really too small to make this principle apply to it as an area by itself. He has raised the minimum from 10,000 to 25,000, which is a much more workable area, and so far as I am concerned I am well pleased. But what has the right hon. Gentleman refused to do? While he has conceded the proposition that a burgh of 10,000 is rather small to take as a single area and that a burgh of 25,000 is a fair population to treat as forming an area by itself he says, "I reject that part of the Lords Amendment which, dealing with burghs which have more than 25,000 population, provides that the area in that case is to have not less
194
than 12,000 population." It is a very fair proposition, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to it. He says a ward is a very convenient area because you have got it already, and you have the means of getting hold of all the electorate within that area. Although that is quite true, it is just as true of two wards as it is of one, and it is just as true of three as it is of two. If what he wants to do is to get an area of a reasonable size, and I see that he wants that, why does he not accept an Amendment which enables him to do the same thing in the case of all areas, and get, within the limits of a big burgh, a workable and reasonable area? The right hon. Gentleman suggested that one of the difficulties was that in the Lords Amendment the proposal was to make up the area containing less than 12,000 population by, if necessary, adding together two wards. Does he really think that would be done in cases where it was not necessary, or where serious difficulties would result? You could easily do it by confining it to two wards in place of three. There is nothing insuperable, unreasonable, or impracticable about it.
It is an important matter from a practical point of view. Suppose you have a large burgh divided, as all large burghs like Glasgow and Edinburgh are, into a great many wards, many of them containing but a small population, does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate as a practical possibility the absurdity which will ensue if within only certain of these comparatively small areas a particular kind of resolution is adopted, while in the rest of the areas the same resolution is rejected? You might conceivably—I am putting an extreme case—make a chess-board of a burgh, with prohibition areas, free areas, restricted licence areas, and if the right hon. Gentleman had given them a chance, disinterested management areas. It will mean chaos. The right hon. Gentleman says that would be a most interesting experiment. If that is the spirit in which the practical operation of this Bill is approached, I venture to say it will not only leave the area of the operation of this Bill a field of contest, but will make it worse, a field of ridicule. The right hon. Gentleman does not want that, and neither do I. If the experiment is to be tried at all, it must be tried under fair conditions. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, having accepted the Amendment to the extent he has, to consider gravely whether he will not take it all.

195
He has conceded the enlargement of the area from 10,000 to 25,000 population in the case of a borough. I ask him to accept the very moderate application of that to wards within the borough which the Lords have adopted, namely, to insist that a ward or wards combined shall not contain less than 12,000 population. His own limit was 10,000 for a borough area as the Bill left the House. What is there unreasonable in asking for 12,000—less than half the borough population—as the limit of a ward? Having regard to the practical prospects of this Bill—a Bill to which everyone knows I am not a friend as it stands, but a Bill which, if it is to be passed, I want to see fairly tried, as every other Member for Scotland does—I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to take up this attitude of constant negation. I admit in the last few instances, where there were drafting Amendments, he has accepted some, but in this matter, which is a practical one, he might consider whether he will not go the whole way in the right direction in which he has already gone half way.
Mr. WATT: I much regret that the Secretary for Scotland has not seen his way to accept this Amendment. By rejecting half of it he has landed himself in a maze of inconsistency. He takes as his unit of a borough a population of 25,000, and he says that this Bill will not apply to any borough of less size than 25,000. But when he comes to deal with the larger cities he then takes the area of a ward,
and he forgets the difficulties which will arise in the large cities of Scotland, particularly in the Central Division of Glasgow where there is a residential population of about 2,500 people, but a daily population of between 200,000 and 300,000. The 2,500 voters there will have the power of saying whether these 200,000 or 300,000 people will be allowed intoxicating liquors or not. They will have the power of moving a no-licence resolution and depriving 250,000 business men of any refreshment. That is rather hard on the 250,000. If we had adopted the last Amendment the town council would have had the power of clubbing together two, three, or four of these wards and making them a single area. If the right hon. Gentleman had contented himself with leaving out the words "or parts of wards," he would have got over the difficulty which he has put before the House—the difficulty of an ad hoc area as he graphically described it—but so long as he adheres to the well-known wards of the City and permits the clubbing together of these various wards no difficulty of that sort will arise. The limitation of these wards are well known, and the putting of them together into a single area would be agreed upon. I therefore think he should have agreed to the Lords Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Lords Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 214.

Division No. 583.]

AYES.

[10.42 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Goldman, C. S.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

Sanders, Robert A.

Barlow, Montague (Salford)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Sandys, G. J.

Barrie, H. T.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

Smith, Harold(Warrington)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Spear, Sir John Ward

Bird, A.

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Stanier, Bevilie

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Hogge, James Myles

Stewart, Gershom

Boyton, J.

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Talbot, Lord E.

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Butcher, John George

Larmor, Sir J.

Thynne, Lord A.

Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Touche, George Alexander

Campion, W. R.

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Carlile, Sir Hildred

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Watt, Henry A.

Cassel, Felix

Mount, William Arthur

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Wills, Sir Gilbert

Clyde, J. Avon

O'Grady, James

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Wood, John(Stalybridge)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Craik, Sir Henry

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Dairymple, Viscount

Perkins, Walter Frank

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Peto, Basil Edward

Fletcher, John Samuel

Pollock, Ernest Murray

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Gardner, Ernest

Pringle, William M. R.

Rawlinson and Mr. Mackinder.

Gilmour, Captain J.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

O'Connor, T. P.(Liverpool)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hackett, John

O'Doherty, Philip

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Hancock, J. G.

O'Dowd, John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow)

Alden, Percy

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

O'Malley, William

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

O'Shee, James John

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

Hayden, John Patrick

Outhwaite, R. L.

Barton, William

Hazleton, Richard

Parker, James (Halifax)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Parry, Thomas H.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Bentham, G. J.

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Boland, John Pius

Higham, John Sharp

Pirie, Duncan V.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Hinds, John

Pointer, Joseph

Bowerman, C. W.

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Brady, P. J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hudson, Walter

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Brunner, J. F. L.

Hughes, S. L.

Reddy, M.

Bryce, J. Annan

Illingworth, Percy H.

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Rendall, Atheistan

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

John, Edward Thomas

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Chancellor, H. G.

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Robinson, Sidney

Clancy, John Joseph

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

Roch, Walter F.

Clough, William

Jowett, F. W.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Clynes, J. R.

Joyce, Michael

Rowlands, James

Collins, G. P. (Greenock

Keating, Matthew

Rowntree, Arnold

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Runciman, Rt. Hon Walter

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kelly, Edward

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Cotton, William Francis

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kilbride, Denis

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Crooks, William

King, Joseph

Scanlan, Thomas

Crumley, Patrick

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Cullinan, John

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Sheehy, David

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Sutherland, J. E.

Dawes, J. A.

London, T.

Sutton, John E.

De Forest, Baron

Lynch, A. A.

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

Delany, William

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Tennant, Harold John

Dickinson, W. H.

McGhee, Richard

Thomas, J. H.

Donelan, Captain A.

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Toulmin, Sir George

Doris, W.

MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macpherson, James Ian

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Verney, Sir Harry

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Elverston, Sir Harold

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Wardle, George J.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Farrell, James Patrick

Meagher, Michael

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Ftrench, Peter

Millar, James Duncan

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Field, William

Molloy, M.

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Fitzgibbon, John

Morrell, Philip

Wiles, Thomas

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morison, Hector

Wilkie, Alexander

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Muldoon, John

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Glanville, H. J.

Munro, R.

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Goldstone, Frank

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Greig, Colonel James William

Needham, Christopher T.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Nolan, Joseph

Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Webb.

Gulland, John William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Lords further Amendment agreed to: In paragraph beginning "certificate," after the word "poll," insert the words
198
"including any reconstruction of, addition to, or extension of such premises on the same or an adjoining site, and any premises in substitution for such premises from which the holder of the licence removes."
At end of paragraph commencing "certificate" insert the words "and provided, further, that subject to the variation of conditions prescribed by this Act the form of certificate for an inn and hotel or for a restaurant granted under Section three of this Act shall be, respectively, the first and second form prescribed by the Sixth Schedule of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903."
Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (b), of paragraph commencing "Elector," after the word "the" ["the supplementary register"], insert the words "last preceding."
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "in the year nineteen hundred and sixteen."
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Lords Admendment: In paragraph (b), leave out the words "under this Act in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen."
Lords Amendment: After "renewal" ["by way of renewal"], insert "or transfer."
Lords Amendment: In Schedule II., leave out 1, 2, 3 in the first column.
Lords Amendment: After "unchanged" ["shall remain unchanged"], insert the following:—

DISINTERESTED MANAGEMENT RESOLUTION
(means that certificates for the sale of exciseable liquors shall only be granted to an authorised public company, and that the surplus profits of such company, after the payment of specified charges, are to
200
be paid to a fund for use for public purposes throughout Scotland in accordance with the provisions of this Act).
Lords Amendment: After "granted" ["liquors shall be granted"], insert "except for inns and hotels or restaurants in special cases in accordance with the provisions of the Act."
The House disagreed with further Lords verbal Amendments.
Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
Committee nominated of,—The Lord Advocate, Mr. Scott Dickson, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. McKinnon Wood, and Sir George Younger.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.—(Class II.)

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £63,572, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."

  SATURDAY SITTING.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I rise to make a serious appeal to His Majesty's Government. I may remind the Government, although there was not what I would call an arrangement, there was a clear understanding, I think in all quarters of the House, when we met this afternoon,

  201
  that this Debate would begin somewhere about Half-past Seven o'clock. My hon. Friends on this side of the House, in order to facilitate that arrangement and to contribute so far as they could to its fulfilment, carefully abstained from taking part in the very interesting Debate to which we have listened, although many of them would have been very glad to have addressed the House on the new points which arose. I may say that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was anxious to take part in the Debate, but understanding that it was for the general convenience that the Debate should terminate, and that this one should begin at a reasonable hour, my right hon. Friend abstained. May I also remind the Government that that great Debate, and I entirely agree with hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have referred to it as one of the most interesting and best-conducted Debates to which we have listened, has been very largely conducted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. At that part which carried us over the time, half-past seven, speaker after speaker rose from the other side, and no part whatever was taken in the Debate after a certain hour by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. I am making no complaint. I think it would have been a great misfortune if we had not had the Debate which we have had to-night. I think it will have lasting effects on the future of this House and of legislation, and I am therefore making no complaint. I do respectfully submit to the Government and to the Committee that it is taking an undue advantage of your position to force by a majority the Opposition to begin at this hour a Debate of the importance of the one which we are now anxious to enter upon. I think that anybody if he were to look at this question, not as a party man, not as a partisan, but as a practical common sense individual, would agree that this House since we began at four o'clock, has done enough solid business to satisfy any reasonable person. I think most people would agree that a sufficient tax has been made on the strength and energy of Members to make it not reasonable to call on them to enter on a totally new subject and one which is of the greatest importance. The question which is raised by this Supplementary Estimate is one which affects the greatest and oldest of our industries more seriously than any other question at the present time. The day was when agriculture was
  202
  very largely an industry, dealing with the production of cereals, but to a large extent that has been changed, and to-day what we call the agriculture of the United Kingdom is mainly dependent on the rearing and breeding of cattle and the fattening and export of stock. There is no question connected with this industry so important as maintaining the health of the cattle of this country and securing for this country a clean bill of health. This year we have had for the first time for many years an invasion of a very serious character, bearing many novel aspects. I think it is quite unreasonable at this hour to ask us to discuss what we have not been able to Debate this Session, and to which we have only been able to refer by way of question and answer, and to ask us to Debate a subject of this magnitude, with the bearing it has on the agricultural industry, and remembering that at this hour the Debate will only have a very scanty account rendered of it in the Press of the country. On the contrary, I think it is reasonable and fair I should ask the Government not to press us to commence this Debate now, and to allow us to report progress and give us a fairer and better opportunity to raise this great question before the attention of the House and the country.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I rise not so much to resist the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman as to make an appeal to him. I quite realise the force of the arguments he has addressed to the Committee, and I fully assent to his statement that the Opposition are not responsible for any delay which may have occurred in bringing to a termination the discussion on the Scottish Temperance Bill. Undoubtedly the notion—I will not call it an understanding—was that the proceedings on that Bill would come to an end at half-past seven. We also fully recognise that the business the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss is
  of first-class importance to the most important industry in the country. It is, therefore, exceedingly desirable that it should be debated at a time of day when the country would be fully apprised of everything that took place. What I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is really by way of submission rather than by way of argument or contention against anything he has said. Unless some alternative arrangement is made, it necessarily involves a
  Saturday sitting, we cannot get out of it.

  203
  I am perfectly certain the right hon. Gentleman is much too good-natured to force others to come here on Saturday if it can be avoided. I have an alternative suggestion. He wants a discussion on the Agricultural Vote. I think that is important. I really cannot resist his argument on the point. My suggestion is that that should be taken first on the Report stage on Tuesday. In that case there would be a Debate starting at a quarter to four, which would be the very best time to have a discussion of that kind, for the newspapers as well as for Members. There were certain Votes agreed to be taken tonight. I do not want to put it too high. There were certain Votes which we hoped with some reason that we should get to-night. That was on the assumption that the Debate on the other Order would come to an end at half-past seven; therefore the Opposition are certainly not bound in any sense by the conversation which occurred. I suggest that the Vote, in which a considerable number of Members and the country at large are keenly interested, should come first on the Report stage on Tuesday. I shall be glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's views on that. I hope he will not press this Motion, and thus avoid the catastrophe of a Saturday sitting.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Vote to be discussed is not merely an English Vote; it is an Irish Vote, and it has attained exceptional importance because of the action of Ministers who, without reference to Parliament, and refusing Parliamentary Papers, have maintained an attitude such as I have never known before. They say that they are advised by experts, whom we have never seen and know nothing about. In my opinion we are entitled to a full discussion upon this question, and in Committee. The Report stage is not a suitable medium for a discussion of this kind. You cannot hammer a Minister on Report! That is what Ministers are for. They run the country on their own for twelve months, and it is not too much to expect that one day out of that twelvemonths they should be open to the criticism of Parliament. I quite agree that there was one day perhaps in which we had something of a discussion on the general Estimates. We got no satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman. It is since then that he has put on this new system of quarantine—if I may say so. It is since then that he has had to acknowledge that this system
  204
  of experts has not proved quite as infallible as one might have expected coming from the quarter that it did. I should be sorry that the House and, indeed the Ministers, should not have their holiday. But this must be remembered; that apart from shipping and the linen trade this is Ireland's only industry. There is the contamination of English flocks and herds as well as the whole question of the admission of hay and straw in the form of packing that has brought us this disease in, and our relations with France. There has been no hesitation at shutting out. Irish stuff. But we want French stuff shut out. We want a discussion on these questions. What happens on Report stage? Somebody gets up and makes an arrangement with the Ministry, and the Minister, according to the modern system, gets up and goes out, and we have to talk to empty Benches. In Mr. Gladstone's time no Minister would have dared to go out. The whole thing becomes unreal. What suggest is this, and I think the Government will see that I make the suggestion in the interests of the time of the House—that instead of pretermitting the Committee stage we should pretermit the Report stage. Let there be an understanding that we will not discuss matters on Report, but in Committee. The time consumption will be practically the same, and we will have the advantage that the Gentlemen—a few at least from Ireland who take an interest in such questions as these—will get a chance. The modem method of dealing with Ireland is to go and see Ministers in their rooms, but I am rather too old a bird to favour that form of settling questions. Therefore my suggestion is that we should insist upon debate in Committee, and that we should give up the Report stage.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I entirely agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will also agree that the Report stage is by no manner of means an equivalent for the Committee stage. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion is a very good one. May I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was no objection taken by this side of the House to taking the Pilotage Bill last night? We were very good; we sat up till one a.m. It is hard to keep us up again at the end of a thirteen months' Session to one o'clock through no fault of ours or of hon. Members opposite, but owing to the

  205
  exigencies of Debate. I suggest that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Heady) be accepted. I have in my hand a paper which says that the Government might get, if the Debate came to an end at 7.30, "the Agricultural, the Friendly Societies, the County Courts, the Public Trustees, and the Dundrum Asylum Votes." I suggest that we should give the Government the Friendly Societies and the County Courts' Votes—I am not quite certain about the Dundrum Asylum—I think that is a generous offer, and would enable the Government to get half the votes they put down, and I trust they will accept that solution which I suggest.
  Mr. LONG: It seems to me that the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend who has just spoken is a practical and reasonable one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his most persuasive mode a few moments ago, asked us to abandon the Committee stage, but, as was pointed out, the Committee stage is the proper and constitutional occasion on which to raise questions of expenditure. In regard to this expenditure we wish to raise questions as to whether it might not have been avoided. I say that in no contentious or controversial spirit, but these are the questions which have to be answered, and I do not think the Report stage is the proper place to ask us to discuss these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has made a suggestion. I know nothing about the Votes to which he referred, and if the Government accept his suggestion I shall heartily endorse it. I am quite willing to assent to the suggestion that so far as the Agricultural Vote is concerned that we might have a proper occasion for discussing it on Tuesday, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested, in Committee, and that then we should not take advantage of the Report stage to renew that discussion. Therefore the Report stage would be necessarily a formal one, as we would have had our Debate in Committee. The Chancellor made his name in his early days in these Committees, and I am convinced if the suggestion was made to him by a Conservative Government to drop the Committee stage, he would have raised the roof. I hope the memory of those days will appeal to him now, and that he will, in justice to us, and in view of our concessions, see that we have a proper opportunity for these discussions.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My experience of those days made me feel it was very little use raising these objections late in the Session, and I still think the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend is not fair to us. I think with his Parliamentary experience, he will see at once that unless we get the Report of the Votes by Tuesday next, it is impossible to get away next week without a Saturday Sitting.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Take the Report on Monday.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Monday has been hypothecated for Army Estimates and for Somaliland. Otherwise I agree that something might be done on Monday. I do not see why a late Debate on Monday would be better than a late Debate on Tuesday. What I am trying to do is to arrange a Debate at reasonable hours. There are only three alternatives. One I have already suggested; the other two are a Saturday Sitting, or else to prolong the Session to the week after next. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends can see their way to assent to the first proposition I made, with the knowledge that there is a Debate possible on the Second and Third Readings of the Appropriation Bill. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) complained that there would be no opportunity on the Report stage for attacking Ministers, but I have never known the hon. and learned Member fail to make the best of that opportunity, and I am perfectly certain he can present his case on the Irish Vote. Perhaps the Irish Agricultural Vote might be taken to-night, and the other Vote might be taken on Tuesday. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to withdraw his Motion I shall not resist it, but I am afraid we shall have to have a Saturday Sitting, and the Motion will be put down on Saturday. I suggest next Saturday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not see any other way except that which I have indicated. I would have readily accepted the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend had it not been for the fact that unless we get the Report stage by the time I have stated it will be too late.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: So far as my hon. Friends are concerned we are quite willing to come here next Saturday and have a real discussion and an opportunity

  207
  of having it properly recorded in the newspapers. So far as we are concerned we are entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: On this occasion, and probably only on this occasion, the demand on the time of the House for the Irish Vote will be very small indeed. I think all Irish Members have united in asking that full time should be given for dealing with the Vote for the English Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest we should proceed with the Irish Vote to-night? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: As far as I am concerned, my quarrel is not with the Irish Department, but with the English Minister, and I have no objection whatever to the Irish Vote being taken to-night if other Irish Members are willing. The question I want to raise is that with regard to the quarantine and, if the right hon. Gentleman says there is no alternative, I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should get up and say that after his experience he finds the quarantine no longer necessary.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman would prefer the other suggestion, but I should like to ask his view with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury).
  Sir F. BANBURY: My suggestion was that we should have a Saturday sitting.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government must really ask the House to take to-night some of the small Votes which are purely non-contentious.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I make a suggestion. Some of my hon. Friends have a fancy for the Vote for the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland. It cannot take very long. I think, however, if we gave the right hon. Gentleman two Votes, the Friendly Societies Registry and County Courts, that ought to meet him.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think we may come to an understanding. I understand the hon. Baronet suggests that we might take to-night the Votes for the Friendly Societies' Registry, Stationery, and Printing.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, no! That is the question of insurance.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is the Public Trustee Vote, the County Courts, and—
  Sir F. BANBURY: I only said two Votes, and the right hon. Gentleman is going through the whole list. My original proposal included the Dundrum Asylum, but I took that off, though if it pleases the right hon. Gentleman I will give him the asylum.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Very well, if we are to get those three Votes, I will close with that offer.
  Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES REGISTRY.—(Class II.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £2,136, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the salaries and expenses of the Registrar of Friendly Societies."
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give some explanation of the amount required on this Vote. Perhaps he will be able to tell us why there should be any increase at all. There have been more friendly societies wound up last year, I believe, than in any year for the last three or four years. I have not got the figures, but I am told that three times as many friendly societies have been wound up since the National Insurance Act came into operation, compared with the previous years. If that is so, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say how it is that more money is required by the Friendly Society Registrar when there will be a smaller number of societies to be dealt with. A very important question that arises on this Vote is the position of the schemes under Section 72 of the National Insurance Act which are referred to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. I presume that a large part of this expenditure is due to the extra assistance given to the Registrar of Friendly Societies in considering various schemes under Section 72. We have from time to time tried to find out by question and answer in the House what is the position of the various schemes which have got to be lodged under Section 72. Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury

  209
  will now take the opportunity of telling us. There is another point, and that is, what provision is being made by the Registrar to protect the existing members of friendly societies; those who are over sixty-five and have been in the past subscribing for medical benefit, and who find now that the National Insurance Act has come into operation that they are deprived of the medical benefit for which they have previously been subscribing? That is a liability of the friendly societies which they have undertaken towards their members.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a question of policy, and I do not see how it arises on the salary for the staff. The hon. Member might ask for what this increase is required.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was asking whether this increase was due to the schemes under Section 72, and then I was referring to the schemes with the view of asking a question as to what the Registrar was doing in connection with the particular matter which will have to be included in the schemes. If the Chairman will allow me to complete my argument, which will not take more than a minute, he will see whether I was in order or not. We have very few opportunities of raising this matter. If we cannot ask the question now, we have only the battledore and shuttlecock business at question time to rely upon, and that is very unsatisfactory. May I now ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can inform the House what is being done in regard to these schemes in connection with the contract rights of the existing members of friendly societies, which ought to be protected by these schemes which are coming before the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and for which we are now asked to make a grant? That is a plain question, and we ought to obtain an answer. If you rule that is not in order, Sir, I can sit down, because I have put my question.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is very persuasive, but I ought not to be dissuaded from obeying the Rules of Order. It is distinctly a question of policy, which does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate, and I am obliged to prevent the answer.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The only answer I can give under the Rules of Order is to say why this Supplementary Estimate is required. The answer is a simple one.
  210
  Two reasons have thrown more or less unexpected, and therefore unestimated, work upon the Registrar of Friendly Societies. One is the Insurance Act itself, which has resulted in a general stirring up of friendly society activity, and a large number of questions have been referred to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, such as the question suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans), which I should very much like to answer if it had not been against the Rules of Order for me to say a word about it. The other thing is co-incident with the business of the Insurance Act. There was a change in the personnel and in the work of the Registry of Friendly Societies. There was a general reconstruction of the office that resulted in an increase of the staff, which was inadequate to do the work for some time. I think we shall have to work overtime for some time to come. That is the simple explanation, and I think the Committee will agree it is a good one, so far as this Supplementary Estimate is concerned.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is not part of this increase due to the fact that the Registry Office has to scrutinise the quinquennial valuations of friendly societies? Since the Insurance Act was passed into law they have had to make that scrutiny. In the old days they did not do it. Some of the expenses in this Estimate must be due to the extra clerical work which has been thrown upon the office in connection with that scrutiny. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that fact. There are two questions I should like to ask him. Would it not be a good plan if the Registrar would give his opinion to the House of Commons and to the public generally, whether from the actuarial reports which are being sent in he believes that the friendly societies in the future will be able to work the voluntary side of their schemes?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: On a point of Order. It is unfair to ask questions which obviously I cannot answer owing to the ruling you, Sir, have given. That is a question as to future policy.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, it is, not.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am asked to make a statement as to what may be the future policy of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. It has nothing whatever to do with the Supplementary Estimate.
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot pretend to be as well acquainted as the right hon. Gentleman with these things. Therefore I am bound to listen with some patience to a question before I can say whether or not it raises a question of policy. I think the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) knows the rules fairly well.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. I understand that at the present moment the Registrar is making out a statement in regard to the possibility of friendly societies not being able to work the voluntary side of the Act during the next few years. What I want to know is whether the Registrar is in possession at the present moment of sufficient material to enable him to say from the actuarial reports whether the friendly societies in the future will be able to work the Insurance Act successfully, so far as the voluntary side of their work is concerned, but after all he is being paid very largely with that object.
  But there is another question I want to ask. From information which I have received from one of the most eminent actuaries in the country, accounts are continually being sent in to the Registrar of Friendly Societies by auditors; they are signed by the auditors, none of the columns are filled in by the secretaries, and it is done because the secretaries have sent their accounts in to the auditors asking them to put their signatures to them and send them back for the secretaries to put their figures in, and the auditors have forgotten to send them back to the secretaries but have sent them on to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. When the Registrar receives accounts of that sort does he make it his business to approach the Insurance Commissioners with the object of getting the withdrawal of approval for such societies? If that sort of thing goes on it merely means that in the next few years these societies will become insolvent and the burden will fall upon existing members. The Registrar is being paid out of public funds for the purpose of looking after these accounts, and if he finds that accounts are being sent in by auditors not filled in by the secretaries of friendly societies at all, it is his business to approach the Commissioners with the object of getting their accounts put right or having approval withdrawn from them. I should like to ask whether it is the case that this happens, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not know, will he kindly
  212
  inquire and make it his business to instruct the Registrar in the future to approach the Insurance Commissioners when they find this sort of thing is going on?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has not quite appreciated the point. If this was a Vote for the salary of the Registrar, there might be something in that, but this is only a Supplemental Vote for an increase of staff, and the only question that arises is why there is need for this increase of staff and not the policy under which the Registrar and the office generally acts. That comes on the main Estimate for the year.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The contention is that the work of friendly society registry has been very largely increased as the result of the National Insurance Act. My hon. Friend is contending that this increased staff is not doing the increased work in a proper way and, therefore, I submit that his criticism is in point.
  The CHAIRMAN: The increased staff, of course, is under the control and guidance of the Chief Registrar. I thought at first that the hon. Member was pointing out some way in which it was not necessary, but he was developing into a question of policy and clearly suggesting that the Registrar ought to do certain things. That is a matter for the main Vote.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will not press the point. I will put one or two questions on the Paper.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I really think the right hon. Gentleman might give us some further information as to the amount of this increase. It is not as if it were merely a nominal increase. The original Estimate was £10,000, and there is an increase on that of £2,000. It is twenty per cent. We might have some Further explanation as to this gross under-estimate. It does not appear to be the case in Scotland or in Ireland. In Scotland the increase is £56, in Ireland £28, and in England £2,000. Merely to say there is extra work thrown on the Registrar owing to the National Insurance Act seems to me a very inadequate explanation because there has also been an increase of work in Scotland and Ireland, and the extra amount asked for there is small. The right hon. Gentleman should be able to give some further explanation. He must have known beforehand that there would be more work thrown on the Registrar's Department.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I agree that the cost was substantially under-estimated The hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in the Insurance Act, and he must be aware that when a gigantic new service like this is set up it is very difficult to obtain exast estimates of the amount of clerical work that will be required. I agree that the bulk of the work of the Registrar is registration in England, and especially in dealing with what are called international societies. If the hon. Member takes into account all the circumstances, and especially the fact that there are 14,000,000 insured persons, I do not think he will consider that £2,000 a year is an unfair demand to make.

  COUNTY COURTS.—(Class III.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the salaries and expenses connected with the County Courts."
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100. The particular part of the Vote to which my Amendment refers is the charge for the conveyance of prisoners committed to prison. Although it shows a reduction on the original Vote, I claim that a very considerable additional expense has been incurred. That additional expense is directly chargeable on the Estimates on account of the action taken by the late Home Secretary in closing the prison at Devizes. The reduction ought to have been very considerable had it not been for the administrative action of the late Home Secretary who closed the prison in January, 1911, except in respect of prisoners committed for trial, and those only of the male sex. I am bound to take this opportunity to point out what are the disadvantages as regards the public interest of an arrangement which, I presume, was entered upon with the view to economy and convenience in the administration of the law. I am informed that it is greatly to the disadvantage of prisoners, and particularly poor prisoners, to have that prison closed. The small saving supposed to have been effected is really no saving at all, because there is immense cost, besides inconvenience which sometimes amounts to the holding up of the County Court altogether, if prisoners have
  214
  to be brought from Shepton Mallet or Winchester by special messengers. Sometimes the chief warder has to give evidence with regard to the mental state of a prisoner. Prisoners are placed at immense disadvantage by not being able to consult their legal representatives or to get counsel to defend them owing to distances they are sent. In the case of female prisoners that is a serious obstacle in the administration of the law. It is obvious that if we are to have the smaller prisons in the rural districts closed on the sole authority of the Home Secretary, and if such questions cannot be raised in the House, hon. Members interested in the poorer class of the population will have no opportunity—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is calling attention to the action of the late Home Secretary. It is not in order to deal with that on the Supplementary Estimate as it did not arise in the current financial year at all.
  Mr. PETO: I am bound to say the question could not be raised at the time because nobody could tell what the effect of the order would be upon the cost of conveyance of prisoners until it had been a certain time in operation. It was a mere question of detail exactly how long ago this prison was closed. This is the first opportunity of raising the question. It would not have been reasonable to raise the question unless I was prepared to bring substantial evidence that the cost had increased, and therefore it was a mistake to close the prison at all. It is universally agreed, not only in the district itself, but in the surrounding country, that it is a grave disadvantage from almost every point of view. I very much question from the evidence before me whether there is any real economy. Certainly it is a great disadvantage in the administration of the law. So unless I can receive a satisfactory assurance from the Home Department that very considerable economy has been effected I shall feel obliged to press this matter.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not at all sure that the hon. Gentleman has substantiated his statement as to whether this sum was a saving, and that in the original estimate for this year £900 is included as a saving in respect of the closing of the prison at Devizes. I am not at all sure when it was closed.
  Mr. PETO: In January, 1911.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In that case I should think that no part of the saving could be included in the Estimate for 1912–13, and, therefore, it is totally out of order to discuss it on the Supplementary Estimate for this year. But if the hon. Member wishes to go into the matter bonâ fide I am reluctant to interfere with him. He did not tell me that he was going to raise it, and I have no particulars on the subject. I will convey the statements which he has made to my right hon. Friend and see that the question is looked into in the light of the criticism which has been given us to-night.
  Mr. PETO: On that assurance of the right hon. Gentleman I will withdraw my Motion, and it will give me pleasure to afford substantial information on the point, without occupying the time of the Committee now.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  DUNDRUM CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM.— (Class III.)
  Resolved, "That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £180, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1913, for the maintenance of criminal lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Friday).
  The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  CASTLEDAWSON DISTURBANCE.
  Captain CRAIG: I wish to raise a question of very great interest at the present moment, especially in Ireland, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President (Mr. Russell) for attending to answer the question I am about to put to him. As the House is aware, for some time past considerable disturbances have taken place in Ulster, especially at Belfast—in the shipyards and other large works. In every instance those disturbances were traced to the resentment felt by the work-
  216
  men in the large shipyards of Belfast at the treatment meted out to some school
  children who were on a trip, and travelling from Whitehouse to Castledawson. On that occasion some twenty-three prisoners were arrested and tried at the Assizes, and were ordered to be imprisoned for three months—a sentence which I am quite sure every Member of this House, in the circumstances will consider extremely lenient. I do not wish to enter to-night into all the particulars of the cases tried before the learned judge, but one particular outstanding fact of that trial makes it all the more extraordinary that these prisoners should have now been released after undergoing only about five weeks of their sentence. I may be wrong as to that; I think it is five weeks, or perhaps six, but the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. The point to which I wish to refer is that while the trial was being conducted the Crown Prosecutor would not allow any reference to be made throughout the case to the injuries which were inflicted by members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians when they attacked the Sunday school procession. He would not allow any evidence to be produced in any way to show the injuries actually inflicted upon small children and the school mistress. The whole case was perhaps better explained by the clergyman, I think a Scotch clergyman, who happened to be in Whitehouse at the time, and who attended this excursion. The Rev. Mr. Barron wrote to the Press a few days ago, I think on 31st January, as follows:—
  "Sir,—As the subject of the Castledawson outrage has been revived by the recent trial in Dublin, and by the speech of the Rev. Dr. MacDermott, it may be expected that I should make some statement. At present I only wish to point out that the attack on our Sabbath school excursion party has never yet been investigated. There has been a trial of twenty-three Hibernians for riot, and those men have been found guilty and sentenced to three months imprisonment with hard labour. Tint at the trial of those Hibernians no evidence was given, nor permitted to be given, of injuries received by any member of the Sabbath school party. None of the teachers, none of the parents, and none of the children were examined by the Crown."
  And this is the gravamen of our charge: none of those people were examined by the Crown to establish the fact of the injuries to those Sunday school children.
  "When I was examined I tried to give evidence that many men, women, and children were injured, and I desired to enter into particulars and explain the nature of the injuries inflicted on each, but my evidence on this point was objected to by the counsel for the prisoners, and it was not received. Thus the truth with regard to the injuries to the men, and the women, and to the children has been kept back. I do not wish at present to go into the particulars on this point, or to give a list of the injured, though I can do so."

  217
  I have got this evening, after I gave notice to raise this question, a telegram from the Rev. Robert Barron, the clergyman at Whitehouse, which says:—
  "Rev. Mr. Barron sends list of children injured at Castledawson. Amongst them are the following:—Pearl McKelvey, of Whitehouse, aged 12, struck with stone and seriously injured; Maggie Birney, Greencastle, aged 16, struck with a stone and injured; Sarah L. Brennan, Whitehouse, aged 16, knocked down and kicked, severely injured; Margaret Humphreys, Whitehouse, knocked down and fainted; Lizzie Chancellor, Whitehouse, struck on the head; Annie Lamour, Whitehouse, aged 16, knocked down and severely injured; Mary Brennan, aged 5, knocked down; her hat was covered with blood."
  Those are a few of the names, and since then I had a telegram confirming those names from a local paper to whom the clergyman had also supplied the names in order to substantiate any statement I might make to-night. Those are some of the cases in black and white which I ask this House to bear in mind when they consider that these twenty-three men were found guilty of riotous conduct or whatever the exact charge was. At all events, that is what happened. They were sentenced to three months imprisonment, and we all know it shocked everybody to see in the "Freeman's Journal" a few days ago a statement as follows. This is not from the "Freeman's Journal," but another paper had this paragraph:—
  "Two days ago 'The Freeman's Journal' informed its readers that Mr. Joseph Devlin, M.P., had been 'actively interesting himself' on behalf of the members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians convicted at the Ulster Assizes in connection with the Castledawson outrage, and that it was understood that as the result the Lord Lieutenant was about to exercise his prerogative of clemency in their favour."
  12.0 M.
  That appeared in the "Freeman's Journal," and was copied into other papers to show that although these men had served only a short part of their sentence they were at the instigation of the president of the Ancient Order of Hibernians to be permitted to go out of prison. I would be just as severe in my condemnation if any other class of person was concerned. Until this attack by the Hibernians the peace in Belfast and Ulster was practically unbroken, and good feeling prevailed. It has set on foot retaliatory methods by the other side. The gravamen of my charge is that you are reviving the old spirit, because you show that if men are caught red-handed and convicted before the tribunes of the country all that is necessary is that the president of the Ancient Order of Hibernians should say to the Lord Lieutenant and his advisers, "You must let these men out of gaol," and they are let out. Where is this to
  218
  stop? It is not an isolated case. A man convicted in another part of Ireland, belonging to the other branch of the Hibernian Order also received a pardon a few days before. It is most regrettable that the authorities of Dublin Castle should have done this. I shall not refer to the reports that the Derry election had the effect of bringing pressure to bear. It is far more serious. It simply means that you encourage men to break the law. You say to every vagabond and ruffian, no matter who he may be, "Do not hesitate to go on and do whatever mischief you like. You may cause great harm, throw stones at little children in a Sunday school procession, take the Union Jack and trample upon it, and do what you like, because if subsequently you are convicted, it does not matter, for your friends have the key of the gaol and will let you out." Whilst party feeling in Ireland is such as it is, while it is running higher now than in the memory of living man, while the situation is grave in the extreme, I say that the Government are deliberately lending themselves to keeping the feeling of distrust in the authorities at such a pitch that everybody now says it is only giving us what is called a touch of Home Rule. It is regrettable that the Government should have lent themselves to aiding and abetting those who ought to know better. I can only say that if this goes on, and in the case of persons convicted by the judges simply for the Government to take the part of a strong party man, and the president of the order to get them out, is bringing justice in Ireland to a very low ebb.
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is correct in stating that the disturbances that affected Belfast quite recently were due, or almost entirely due, to this Castledawson affair, then I do not know any disturbance had ever a smaller basis to rest upon. The Chief Secretary is unable to be present, for, as everyone knows, he is elsewhere. I will try and explain to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the real facts of the case, which appear to be as follows: A Sunday school excursion party went from Whitehouse, Belfast, to Castledawson on 2nd June. They numbered about 500, of whom two-thirds were children under sixteen years of age. About five p.m. they set out for the station to get their train home. On their way they met a large party of the Ancient Order of

  219
  Hibernians, consisting of four contingents, with a band. Ten or twelve men with pikes accompanied each contingent—[Interruption]—The hon. and gallant Gentleman was listened to without interruption—
  Captain CRAIG: We have no chance of answering.
  Mr. RUSSELL: Half the time has already been occupied, and I hope I may continue without further interruption. The women and children were terrified and ran away. Some of the adults of the Sunday school party received injuries, mostly from the pikes. Several of the members of the Hibernians were also injured. Justice Wright, in his charge to the jury, said, "he was glad to know that the women and children had not been struck by the pikes. What was absolutely proved in Court was that no injuries had been inflicted on the women and children: he was glad to hear that proved. He was glad to think that nothing so dastardly or so unmanly had taken place." Now I think after a statement like that made by the judge who tried the case, really we ought to have heard the last of these attacks upon women and children.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Does the right hon. Gentleman doubt the letter read by my hon. Friend, from a minister of religion?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am quoting a statement, not challenged by anyone, made by Mr. Justice Wright, a judge of the High Court, who tried the case, and who was quite familiar with the whole of the facts.
  Captain CRAIG: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent us, but is he aware of the fact that the Crown prosecutor was not allowed to go into these things?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am not a lawyer, but I think it would be a most extraordinary trial I ever heard of where a riot took place if the prosecutor was not allowed to prove the injuries. Really the House of Commons has not come to such a pass that a statement like that should affect it in any way whatever. Mr. Barron, who is a minister of my own Church, admitted at the Assize Court that he was greatly excited, and that his evidence given before the magistrates might differ somewhat from the evidence at the Assize Court. I can quite understand that. But as a matter of fact, I must ask the House to
  220
  believe the statement of the judge who tried the case, that no woman or child was assaulted, and that if that had happened it would have been a most disgraceful thing, and he was glad to say no Irishman had been guilty of it.
  Twenty-three men were convicted, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated, of riot in connection with this affair at the last Winter Assize, and each was sentenced to three months imprisonment. These sentences would have expired—and this is important in view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said—in the ordinary course on the 16th instant. The prisoners having been well conducted and having therefore earned the maximum remission, and his Excellency having carefully considered the influential memorial presented on their behalf, and the report of the learned judge who tried the case, decided to order their release on the 4th instant, thereby remitting twelve days of their sentences. His Excellency, in communicating this decision, did not state the grounds, and it would be contrary to the established practice to give the reasons which actuated him in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. In these matters he represents the Sovereign and his conduct cannot be questioned either on a Motion for Adjournment or in Debate. Now let me say that this memorial, on which the hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to throw some suspicion, on behalf of the prisoners, was signed by clergymen and laymen, Protestant and Catholic, and at least one-third of the signatures were those of Protestant Unionists. Let me say that the statement that the promise to release the Castledawson prisoners was made before the Derry election may be emphatically contradicted. That is a statement which I have to make on behalf of the Government. I deeply regret this occurrence, and I am sure there is no one in the House who does not regret it and who would not do everything in his power to put an end to all this bitter feeling. I have had a pretty long experience, but I wish to say deliberately that I do not know a case which has been so grossly misrepresented and out of which so much has been made. If it be true that the troubles in the Belfast shipyards arose out of this occurrence, then there is a grave responsibility resting upon those who circulated the idea that women and children were treated in this way when the judge who tried the case has declared after hearing the whole of the evidence, that there is not a particle of truth in it.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: I am very sorry that the official responsible for the unexpected release of these prisoners, the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, has gone the length of doubting anything from a minister of the Church to which he and I belong. Mr. Barron has been most reluctant to make statements to the Press or to any other public official. Undoubtedly Mr. Barron was prevented from presenting to the Court a list of the injured children which he intended to furnish. I do not know who is responsible for the contents of the statement which has been referred to, but it is not the statement prepared by the Crown Prosecutor, and it is not an official statement by those who were present officially at the trial. I am bound to say that it is a partisan statement presented for the purpose and an attempt to justify the action of the Lord Lieutenant in connection with these prisoners. I can only express my regret that this is another of a series of cases in which the Lord Lieutenant has, probably unintentionally, but directly by his action in reference to this occurrence intimidated the administration of justice in Ireland. It has now come to be known, from one end of Ireland to the other, that whatever sentence a judge of the High Court or a county court judge inflicts upon a Nationalist prisoner, inevitably that sentence will be substantially reduced in every case in which political pressure is brought to bear. There is one fact which the Vice-President did not think it necessary to tell us, and that was that Mr. Barron
  222
  after these men were convicted, so far from feeling any resentment against these misguided men, immediately the verdict was recorded, got up and said he had no resentment against these men, and appealed to the judge to pass a most lenient sentence upon them. Mr. Justice Wright was greatly impressed by the appeal, and he said he would give it due weight. Personally, I am convinced, if that had not been made, on the merits of the case as disclosed to the judge, these men would have got at least twelve months in gaol instead of only three months. This remission of these sentences is so unjust and so inequitable that it has created a bitter feeling in the whole of the North of Ireland and is only adding fuel to the flames which have been so hard to suppress for a considerable time. I am not surprised hon. Members below the Gangway should jeer at what has happened. I am sorrry justice should be cast down in this way in Ireland. It is one of the few remaining safeguards we Protestants have there, but even now men who have never been associated with politics are forced to the conclusion that if the present proposal of the Government ever came to have effect there would be absolutely no security left for those who are not by their own right arm able to defend themselves.
  It being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at Twenty-one minutes after Twelve o'clock.