HC Deb 06 February 1913 vol 48 cc95-163

(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—

  1. (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
  2. (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
  3. (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—

  1. (a) must place on his ballot paper the figure (1) in the space opposite the resolution for which he votes; but
  2. 96
  3. (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."


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)."


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 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 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."


That was not my heading.


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 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. 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 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 [...] 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. 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.


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 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?


They have got to take it as a monopoly or leave it. If they take it, it is a monopoly.


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.


I am one of those who, whilst recognising the sincerity of those 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.


The hon. Member has not mentioned that the money is to be spent by the Secretary for Scotland upon works of public utility.


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.


Oh, yes, it has—in the three-fold option Bill backed by the Lord Advocate.


The hon. Baronet will agree with me that that Bill was not proceeded with, and was dropped.


I was stating the facts.

6.0 P.M.


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 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.


Have you received none of these postcards?


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 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.


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- 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.


I said under conditions similar to those prevailing in Scotland.


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. 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 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.


Not in the least.


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.


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 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 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. 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 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.


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 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 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 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.


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 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.


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 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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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 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.


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 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 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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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. 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, 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 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 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 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- 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.

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.


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 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 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. 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 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.


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.

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.


That is not the kind of speech you make by leave of the House!


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.


"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 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.


It is the same thing with every Scottish question?


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. 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.


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.


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 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.


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 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.


We were not all in that bargain.


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.


The hon. Member is not in order in renewing the general Debate. The question is whether the Debate should be adjourned.


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.


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 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.


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 MURRAY

rose 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 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.


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 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.


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—


Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to repeat a remark made at a private meeting of Scottish Members upstairs?


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.


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 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.


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.


By a majority of ten.


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.


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).


I am quite open to deal myself.


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.


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—


We are now discussing whether or not the debate should be adjourned, and not the merits of the question.


I will confine myself to that point. The people of Scotland 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—


The hon. Member is again getting back to the question of the principle.


I can only speak with the permission of the House, but, in view of what has been said—


On a point of Order. Has not the hon. Member who moved the Motion the right to speak again?


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.


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 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
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."


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 point, whether the majority for a no licence resolution should be 50 per cent. or two to one.


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 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 A[...]en 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)
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."


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.


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 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. Gladstone never said that.


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.


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 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.


It was put in for the sake of putting in disinterested management.


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.


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.
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."


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?


It is necessary for the House to deal by agreeing or disagreeing with all the Lords Amendments.