§ No Excise licence for the sale by retail 'of excisable liquor shall be granted by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise except upon the production by the person 470 authorised to hold the licence of a receipt for the payment of the premium on a policy of insurance making some provision against loss through the withdrawal of his certificate in pursuance of a Resolution under this Act during the period covered by such receipt. If any person produces for the purposes of this Section a false or fraudulent receipt he shall be guilty of an offence and, on summary conviction, shall be deemed to have committed a breach of his certificate.
§ Any association of licence holders constituted as under shall be empowered to issue policies of insurance on such terms and conditions as its members may prescribe, but no association shall be entitled to refuse to issue such policy or policies to 471 any licence holder or licencei holders willing to subscribe to its rules and regulations—
- (a) in the case of an association insuring only "on" licences, persons holding in the aggregate not less than one thousand such licences; or
- (b) in the case of an association insuring only "off" licences, persons holding in the aggregate not less than five hundred such licences; or
- (c) in the case of an association insuring both "on" and "off" licences, persons holding in the aggregate not less than one thousand "on" licences and persons holding in the aggregate not less than five hundred "off" licences.
Mr. HEWKNSOn a point. of Order. As this is the first occasion on which a Suggestion Amendment has appeared on the Paper, I should like to ask whether this particular Amendment is put down in the proper form? In accordance with the Parliament Act, Section 2, Sub-section (4), it is contemplated that suggested Amendments are offered for the consideration of the Lords. I want to ask whether the more correct form of putting the Amendment down on the Paper is not "That the following Amendment be suggested to the Lords"? As the words stand, the suggestion is not made to anybody in particular.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere is not much in the point the hon. Member raises, because, supposing that this is accepted by the House, it would, of course, be sent with a message to the other House. If the hon. Member chooses to move to insert the words "to the House of Lords," I should think there will be no objection to putting them in. As the hon. Member says, this is a new form, and, therefore, we have no precedent to act upon.
§ Mr. HEWINSI merely put the point, because it is such a very important stage in our procedure, and it appears to me to be desirable to have the form of words settled for all time. As the form of words stands, it conveys that there is a suggestion to the House of Lords that they should pass the Second Reading. If the form of words be, "That the following Amendment be offered to the Lords," it does carry with it the implication that there is a suggestion that the House of Lords are going to pass the Second Reading of the Bill. I humbly suggest it is not desirable we should convey any such impression to the other House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt will be open to the hon. Member to move such Amendment to this Motion as he thinks right, after I have proposed it from the Chair.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMay I ask you, Sir, in reference to what fell from you just now, a question as to what the procedure would be if this Motion were carried. I understood you to say it would be sent with a message to the House of Lords. Would there be a Motion in this House following on the acceptance of this Amendment, that the Amendment should be communicated to the Lords and that certain Members of the House should be appointed to draw up a message giving the reasons of this House for it?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is not necessary. What would happen, I think, would be that a formal entry would be made on the Journal that a message be sent to the. Lords acquainting them with the Resolution the House has passed, and it would go up in the ordinary way.
§ Lord HUGH CECILWould it require a Motion?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo, it would not require a Motion. It would simply be entered on the Journals.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEMay I ask you whether a Motion of this kind would be capable of being amended in detail or whether only one Amendment would be allowed?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt would be capable of being amended in detail.
§ Mr. BARNESI rise to move the Suggestion that stands in my name. Before going further, may I say that the Suggestion is put down entirely on my own responsibility? I have not canvassed or consulted any of my colleagues of the Labour party with regard to it, and, of course, they will vote as their consciences dictate. I am glad to say I shall have as a Seconder, if a seconder is necessary, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson). The Suggestion may be briefly described as one in favour of compulsory insurance of. licence holders, and its object is twofold—first, to provide against possible loss on the part of a licence holder under this Bill, and, secondly, to make it easier for the Bill to come into operation after it becomes law. I know there are many sincere and active temperance reformers who are very 473 much against any proposal of this character, who think—I believe quite wrongly—that anything of this sort is the thin end of the wedge of State compensation. So far as I can understand their position, they object to anything of this sort because they hold that a licence to sell liquor is a licence for one year only, and they object to anything in the nature of a vested interest being given to the licence holder beyond a year. I have two answers to that, and I should like to make a few observations upon each of them. First, I submit that the State does recognise a vested interest and taxes that vested interest. When a licence holder dies the estate passes from one person to another, but not all of it, because the tax collector is there and appropriates part of it for the State. Supposing a licence holder has to pay £10,000 for a licence, he does not pay the £10,000 for the right to sell liquor for a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does in point of law."] I am speaking from the point of view of common sense. It is perfectly true that he buys the licence, so far as the law is concerned, to sell liquor for the unexpired term of a year, but the £10,000 he has paid for his licence is really a sum of money based upon the reasonable expectation that he will be allowed to sell liquor beyond the year which is then current, and will, in fact, be allowed to sell liquor so long as he conducts his business properly and keeps himself out of the clutches of the police.
I know that is not a statement of the law, but it is a statement of common sense, and I want to approach this question not in the legal sense, but from the point of view of common sense and fellow feeling. I remember that when we were discussing this matter, either the last time or the time before, there was a gentleman here, Provost Keith—a very reasonably-minded sort of man—who happened to have an interest in the liquor trade, but who was none the less entitled to consideration because of that. He told me he had been in the liquor trade all his life; that he had been reared in the liquor trade; that his father before him sold liquor in the same Shop in which he was then selling it; and, if my memory serves me aright, that his grandfather was also in the same business. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] At all events, his father was. In the light of facts like those we are not justified in taking a strictly legal view of the situation, and ought to have some regard to the fact that a man, once he 474 starts selling liquor, is going to be allowed to sell liquor so long as he conducts his business decently and in order—in other words, that the interest grows up around that natural expectation which we have allowed to grow up under a process of law. My second answer to the objection, so far as I can understand it, is that my proposal does not involve any further recognition by the State than we have at the present time. I accept entirely the legal position as to a licence lasting only for one year, so far as it applies to the State paying compensation. In view of the fact that the State only grants a licence for a year, the State cannot possibly be called upon to pay compensation. I accept that quite frankly, although, by the way, I see no reason why, if a landlord gets compensation for the loss of his land, a publican should not get compensation for the loss of his licence. A publican has just as much right to compensation for his licence, and even more so, than the landlord has for the loss of his land. I accept the principle for the time being that there is no claim to State compensation, and, therefore, it is out of the question altogether. There is no State fund, nor is there any State guarantee. We are not asking the State to do anything in the way of guaranteeing the fund or controlling or managing it. We are not even asking, what is a feature of the English law, that the publican should subscribe to a fund and that the operation of the Bill should be determined by the sufficiency or otherwise of that fund.
All that my proposal means is that the State, through its properly accredited agents, should see that the man in future protects himself against the possible operation of this Bill, and that he shall subscribe to a fund to which his fellows in the trade will also subscribe. I know that I shall be told he can do that now, and that nobody can stop him. Although that is true, I would suggest to the Secretary for Scotland that we are altering the conditions by this Bill, and so altering them that in the view of a great many people, not myself, you are going to increase the risks. Inasmuch as you are dealing in this Bill with the trade as a. whole, I suggest you are morally bound to provide that those risks should be pooled by the whole trade. It may still further be said that a man can insure now, and that no obstacle is placed in his way in regard to that. But there is the safe man, or the man who considers himself safe—a man who, like one who is young and strong, thinks he will 475 always be so, and refuses to insure himself. Even after this Bill becomes law there will be men in Scotland in places where there is no teetotal sentiment, who may think there will be no demand for the Bill, and who will refuse to insure themselves. The acceptance of my Suggestion would mean that these men, quite rightly, I think, will be compelled, in conjunction with their fellows, to subscribe to the fund, thereby equalising the risk all round, no matter where a man may be placed. It is said that the hotel-keepers should not be compelled to subscribe to this fund, inasmuch as they keep premises for the sale of food and other things. I do not see there is anything in that. As a matter of fact, if you close a public-house which is adjacent to an hotel, the bar of that hotel will be put in a position to do very much more business. I am told by those who know that the hotel-keeper is just the man who is now insured, therefore compulsory insurance will make little difference to him; except that it will make others do what he himself has done.
I want the House to consider for a moment what will happen in the event of this Bill passing into law without some provision of this sort being made. There are some very sanguine hon. Friends of mine upon this side of the House who seem to think that when this Bill is passed the public-houses will vanish like snow in the summer sun. That opinion is based upon an altogether wrong idea of human nature. What does this Bill do? It only transfers to the people as a whole the right to do in bulk what magistrates now can do in detail. That is all. That being so, we have to consider what are likely to be the sentiments which will sway the people when called upon to bring this Bill into operation. If I understand them aright, the people are no harder-hearted than the magistrates. On the contrary, I should say that the people are much more likely to be a good deal softer-hearted than the magistrates, because they are not accustomed to the wiles of this wicked world, and are more likely to be influenced by tales that may be pitched into them than the magistrates on the bench. What is going to happen in these circumstances, supposing a requisition is got up, and the Bill is about to become operative? The publican is not going to take it lying down, and I do not suppose anybody expects him to do anything of the sort. The licence holder will be up and 476 doing, and will use the very best weapons in his armoury to defeat the vote about to be taken. In the absence of compulsory insurance, or of some provision whereby the ordinary voter can know that provision is to be made for the displaced publican, there is a very poor chance of this Bill ever becoming operative at all. What will happen will be that the licence holder will go round, as he has a perfect right to do, or, if he does not, his friends will go for him, and say, "John Smith has been in so-and-so public-house for about twenty years. He has not insured. He has brought his family up. His family are still young. Are you going to deprive this man of his licence and thereby of his living?" I am not saying whether that is just or not, but it is the sort of thing which will happen under the Bill, and unless provision is made for that man you will defeat the very object that you have in view by pedantic adherence to a legal fiction which does not correspond with the facts of life. These are, briefly, the reasons why, on the principle of the thing, I move this Suggestion. I believe, if it were adopted, it would not only make provision for the man who may be displaced, but it will also get this Bill into operation, and I do not believe otherwise it ever will get into operation.
I want to say a word or two about the form in which this Resolution is put down. Upstairs I moved two schemes, and the principle of compulsory insurance was defeated largely on the details of those schemes. We got involved with opinions as to whether or not the funds would be sufficient to meet the actuarial requirements and as to whether or not they will be adequate for what was expected of them. Therefore I thought I would not get involved in any scheme at all, but that I would simply put down on the Paper a suggestion that the granting of a licence by the proper authorities would be dependent upon the holding by the man who was to get the licence of a certificate that he was insured. Therefore I put down a simple form of words. When I got talking about it with a certain right hon. Gentleman, whom I need not name, there were certain objections to that. It was defeated upstairs by too much complication, and I was told we were likely to be defeated downstairs because there was too much simplicity. It was pointed out that it would be quite open, with a simple suggestion of that sort, for half a dozen men to get together and issue bogus certificates 477 of insurance. Obviously it would be so. I quite see the force of their objections. Therefore I hurriedly got up last night, when I found that this Bill was to be unexpectedly brought forward to-day, and put down this supplementary matter in addition to the Suggestion I had first put down, which provides against the objection at all events which was raised to the simple form of Suggestion first put down, because I suggest here that there shall be no bogus certificate issued and that there shall be a sufficient number of licence holders to spread the risk so as to ensure that a man will actually have the money when the time of need comes. I take a thousand as a sufficient number to spread that risk over the publicans pure and simple, and I am told the grocers form about one half of the licence holders, and therefore I think 500 is sufficient to cover the risk of the grocer losing his licence. In that form it meets the objection raised from the Front Bench as to the Suggestion in its bald form. Then it was suggested that there would be a still further provision necessary and that we ought to provide for registration of the companies which would issue these insurance policies. I began to inquire under what Act they should be registered. I was told there is the Companies Act of 1908, which is appropriate to those companies making profits, and there are, on the other hand, the Friendly Societies Acts which are more appropriate to those associations of a mutual character which do not want to make profits. I am not a lawyer and I do not want to get muddled up with that consideration at all. It is far better that I should submit the matter in its simple form, only providing that a man shall not have a bogus certificate but that he shall be a member of an association with sufficient members and therefore sufficient money to meet the man's claim. I submit it in that form in the certain opinion that it will have the effect not only of providing for the displaced publican, but will have the further effect of making this Bill a real Bill in the interests of temperance reform in Scotland.
§ Mr. F. WHYTEI beg to second the suggested new Clause.
The remark which the hon. Member made in explanation of the form in which it appears on the Paper, namely, that it is much simpler than the previous attempts to introduce this question, aroused some amusement on the Front Bench. But surely it is for the House to 478 decide the simple question, first of all, whether in a measure of this kind it is desirable that those most closely affected by it should be insured against the risks involved in it. That is the question which the House ought to have decided at the very beginning, and which it never really has decided, for in all the earlier discussions we have had on this question the issue has been complicated by questions of machinery. I do not say that it is not difficult to draw up a scheme but it was, and is, desirable for the House to give a clear expression of opinion that some safeguard should be introduced into the Bill against the risks which it imposes. As we have heard over and over again in the Debates which have taken place on this Bill, that Members favour the question of licence insurance, but had this difficulty and that difficulty about the particular scheme which is before the House, I think my hon. Friend was quite wise in placing the issue simply before the House. It can therefore be decided on the question of principle, and if the House were to resolve that it is necessary to attach these provisions to the Bill as it stands, or to make the Suggestion to the other place, it surely-does not pass the wit of experts to draw up a scheme which would be satisfactory.
We have been told that the Government, if it supported the proposal and admitted it into the Bill, would have to offer some kind of guarantee for the water-tightness of the scheme. We have had an insurance scheme before this House in very recent times, upon which the Government explicitly and vehemently, and over and over again denied its liability to give any guarantee, and why the Government spokesman should argue it on this much smaller question that it ought to give a guarantee, and not on the larger and far more vital question, that it did not admit the necessity of giving a Government guarantee, I am quite unable to see. Therefore I do not see the foundation for the argument that the Government must necessarily guarantee the insurance scheme if it is inserted in this measure. I think the House generally, and I certainly, have always been considerably impressed by the argument that the wideness of the operation of this measure depends very largely upon the degree to which the idea of hardship is removed, and I see no other way, the provisions of the Bill being what they are, but the insertion of some form of insurance against the risks of the Bill for removing that doubt and that impress- 479 sion from the minds of the electors. I second this new Clause, therefore, first,' because I want a clear expression of opinion from this House upon what is an important question, and, secondly, because I believe the insertion of the scheme in the Bill would greatly facilitate both its passage into law and its wider operation in Scotland after it passes into law.
§ Mr. HEWINS rose to move an Amendment—
§ Sir G. YOUNGERWill the moving of an Amendment stop discussion of the general Resolution?
§ Mr. SPEAKERYes; I think the hon. Member had better move that, and then we can get it in the right form. What the hon. Member proposes to move is not a matter of substance, but really a matter, of form before we approach the substance. We might get that settled.
§ Mr. HEWINSI beg to move, after the word "suggest" ["That the Commons suggest "], to insert the words "to the Lords."
The insertion of these words would bring the form in which the Amendment is placed on the Paper into conformity with the terms of the Parliament Act, and both sides of the House will agree that it is eminently desirable that we should know and express, in the form of the words employed, precisely what the House is doing. As we are, under the name of the Suggestion stage, sending up to the other House a Bill which we know to be imperfect, but which we hope the Lords will amend by adopting some suggested Amendment, I think it very much better that we should have these terms clearly expressed. The Section I have in mind of the Parliament Act is Section 2, Subsection (4), which deals with this Suggestion stage.
§ Words "to the Lords" inserted accordingly.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEIs it possible to have a general discussion on the whole Clause? Some of my hon. Friends are anxious for a general discussion, while I am anxious to move an Amendment to the Clause—not against it—with the idea of making it explicable in some way or other.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt was for that reason that I called on the Noble Lord.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWould it be possible for me now to discuss the general question?
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo, I think not. The only practicable way of dealing with this question is to treat it as though it were a new Clause, which had been read a second time, and is then, before being added to the Bill, the subject of discussion. Amendments will then be moved upon it, and when I put the Question as a whole there will be an opportunity for a general discussion of the Clause before we send it to the other House.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEbeg to move, as an Amendment, after the word "insurance" ["premium on a policy of insurance making some provision "], to insert the words" to the satisfaction of the licensing magistrates."
For the information of the House, I should state that this is not the only Amendment I am going to move, because, if this one is accepted, I have a second Amendment to delete everything after the end of the first paragraph of the new Clause. My reasons for moving this Amendment can only be stated by dealing with the second Amendment when speaking in support of the first, because the one depends upon the other. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) spoke just now about lawyer-made law, and probably from the legal point of view he is correct; but I would observe that Labour-made law is sometimes not quite correct. I think he will find that a good deal in the new Clause, after the first paragraph, is very difficult to follow and does not fit in with what goes before. I understand what his intention is, and if he will accept my Amendment to insert the words "to the satisfaction of the licensing magistrates," that will be a sufficient instruction to the people concerned to see that the insurance premium is really in order. I do not think that we ought to lay down exactly and precisely the number of licence holders there should be in an association. I suggest that in any case the House might accept the first Amendment, in view of the second Amendment I am going to move. I am not taking this course in any hostile spirit to the hon. Member who moved the new Clause, but rather to make the proposal clearer, and, if I may say without offence, less verbose, and to enable us to get straight to the point at once. I think it would also stop 481 a good deal of opposition—I do not mean here, but outside—to the hon. Member's Motion.
§ Sir JOHN DEWARI beg to second the Amendment. If the hon. Member for Blackfriars does not accept this, I do not know what use there is in making suggestions with respect to the Bill at all. This Suggestion does not interfere with the principle of the Bill, but, if accepted, it will increase very much the efficiency of the measure. I think it would be infinitely easier to get the Act into operation, if it was known that the licence holders were insured. When this was going through Committee—
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSAs a matter of practice, when an Amendment is moved, the discussion is confined to one particular point, and there cannot be a discussion of the whole general principle. Would it not have been better to have the general discussion before going into these points of detail? If we are going into these points, are we to have a general discussion on each of them?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the proper course to pursue is to discuss each Amendment as it comes up. Then when the House has gone through the whole of them, it will consider whether it will send the Suggestion to the Lords in its amended form if it be amended. If we take the general discussion first, one of two things happens, either we shall spend a great deal of time on the general discussion before we approach the Amendments at all, or, supposing a Division were taken and the Resolution rejected, no opportunity at all would be given for Amendments. I do not see any other way out of the difficulty than to discuss on its merits each Amendment as it is proposed.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEIn dealing with the principle of the Clause, would it not be better to have a general discussion before we discussed the Amendments— I mean such a general discussion as we could have on the question that the Clause be read a second time? We may waste a great deal of time if we go into the Amendments first of all, whereas the principle might be negatived by the House. Would it not be better to have a vote upon the Question that the Clause be read a second time.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is impossible. If the Resolution be passed it is passed, and there is no opportunity for amending it. Therefore, those who wish to make 482 Amendments would be shut out. It is quite conceivable that this proposal may receive certain Amendments which will convert it from one not at present acceptable to one that may be accepted. Therefore, it is only right that those who have Amendments should propose them now, and that, after the Resolution has been amended, the House should have the opportunity of saying whether it will adopt the Resolution as amended
§ Sir J. DEWARI think this Amendment will make it more acceptable to the House because it simplifies the proposal very much indeed. The proposal is that every licence should be compulsorily insured. If it is a good thing that some licences should be insured, it is also a good thing that the whole of the licences should be insured, because it reduces the liability by spreading it over the whole of the licence holders. If a small proportion of licences are taken away, the trade is thrown into the hands of those who still hold their licences. All we do here is to throw on the magistrates the duty of seeing that a licence is properly insured. At present the magistrates have to see, first of all, that a man who applies for a licence is of good character, and they have also to see that his premises are suitable. They very often ask to see the arrangements made with brewers and others as to how the business is to be carried on. I do not think that it would add seriously to their duties if they were asked to see that licences are insured. I believe the new Clause, as amended, would enormously increase the efficiency of the Bill, if it is going to be efficient at all. It would reduce to a minimum the chance of hard-slip among licence holders. I see no objection to it from the teetotal point of view. I cannot see how it could not be accepted by the Government, because it will provide that no injustice will be inflicted on people who have done nothing to deserve it. Holding the opinion very strongly that this does not affect the principle of the Bill, but will remove the possibility of injustice, I hope it will be accepted.
§ Sir THOMAS WHITTAKERBefore we go into the general merits of the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) it is perfectly clear that, if it were adopted it would have to be considerably amended in some form or other. The proposal is that there should be some provision against loss, but there is no indication of the amount of the provision, 483 or whether it would be adequate or not. The insured person should know these particulars. It is obvious that if you are to give effect to this proposal, something must be done. As to the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord opposite, it seems to me that it puts upon the licensing magistrates responsibility for the financial soundness of the whole scheme. If they are to be satisfied that a licence is satisfactorily insured, then they must be satisfied that the persons insuring the licence will be able to meet the demand made upon them, but they will have no control. The licence is to be insured with some association, company, or society, of some kind or other, and the magistrates are to be satisfied that the insurance is satisfactory. Supposing a man loses his licence, and the concern in which he is insured cannot pay, I think he would go to the magistrates and say, "You said this insurance was satisfactory, but I cannot get my money." By endorsing the satisfactoriness of the insurance, it seems to me that practically they would involve themselves in moral responsibility for its financial soundness. I do not think that Amendment would do. You cannot have the licensing justices involved in practically guaranteeing the soundness of a scheme of this kind unless they have the management of the whole thing. Here they have not the management, and I think we ought not to accept the Amendment.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERUndoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Open Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker) has put his finger upon the weak spot of the proposal. There is a great deal of truth in what he said as to the responsibility of the licensing magistrates. We are in a very difficult position. The minority in this House has over and over again proposed schemes of compulsory insurance of a partial nature—it could not be otherwise than of a partial nature—to relieve, as far as possible, any hardship to those who lose their licences under the veto provisions of the Bill. These schemes in principle have been supported by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Lord Advocate especially, over and over again, but the moment they were reduced to words and to specific proposals the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary for Scotland invariably found that the machinery was unsuitable. That it an obvious Parliamentary trick to get rid of anything in- 484 convenient. In the first place, the principle is good, and, in the second place, the machinery is bad. We have discussed this over and over again. I have always thought that a principle of this kind should be embodied in the Bill in the interest of the Bill, if it is possible to carry it out by some decent machinery. I have always thought that those who propose machinery which is not suitable have a right to ask the Government to introduce machinery to carry out the principle of the Bill in a way satisfactory to themselves. I do not think there is anything in the statement that the Government would necessarily have to guarantee the scheme.
§ Colonel GREIGIs not the hon. Baronet now discussing the general principle on this Amendment?
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI think the question is whether the justices are to have responsibility for the scheme or whether the responsibility is to rest in some other quarter. I am pointing out that the wording of the Clause is not at present satisfactory, because 'the justices would be put in the position of carrying out the instruction as to insurance, though they had no real direction what to do. There is no statement as to the amount to be insured nor as to the premium to be paid by these people. The difficulty is a very serious one. The real point we want to settle is: Is this House going to accept any sort of scheme of compulsory insurance attached to this Bill or is it not? It is impossible to discuss this Amendment without putting that specific point to the House. The Amendment is no use unless this House is going to suggest that that principle ought to be adopted.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESAs I understood your ruling, it was that we could not discuss that simple question. I agree entirely with the hon. Baronet that. it would be much simpler if we could discuss it, but I also understood that you had said that that was precisely the course which the House could not take.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think we must assume for present purposes that some system of insurance is to be established. That being so, the question arises, Which is the best system? That is what we are now discussing—the two alternatives, one suggested by the Noble Lord and one moved by the hon. Member for Blackfriars. After we have settled that, we shall then revert to the original question whether there is to 485 be any system of insurance at all or not. But we must assume for present purposes that there is to be a system of insurance.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI think it is a very wild assumption, at all events if the Secretary for Scotland is in the same mind in dealing with this matter, that the majority of this House is going to send up a suggestion of the kind, and it is almost a waste of time if that be so to discuss whether the justices shall be placed in this position or whether they shall not. We have had various conundrums put to us in the carrying out of the scheme of legislation under the Parliament Act. I do not think that we have ever had a more difficult one than this. Though I desire very much to keep within the limits of order, I do not see precisely how I am to do it. I do not think that the proposal as it stands is one that could be carried out. If the justices are put into it, they would not find it possible to suggest machinery in the various districts. The whole object of insurance is to get as big an average as possible. The individual justices or bodies of justices, therefore, could only adumbrate a scheme for their own particular jurisdiction. The average would be small and it would be almost useless for the purposes of insurance, because if a Resolution were carried the whole burden would have to be borne by the small number of people in the district itself, and not shared by the larger number outside. So, while I wish to support an Amendment which would improve this scheme, I honestly cannot see very much difference in the scheme as it stands and this proposal, except this, that you get very nearly down to a statement of principle by accepting this Amendment, should you or should you not have compulsory insurance, and if you pass the Clause as it stands, with the Noble Lord's Amendment, it is for the House of Lords to so amend that as to produce machinery which this House could no doubt accept.
§ Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONI think that my right hon. Friend on this side has shown, with his undoubted experience in the direction of insurance and licences, how impossible it would be to work the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord opposite. The hon. Baronet opposite said that he did not see how the Clause as amended would work. I have never seen any proposal yet for insurance of which you could be at all sure as to how it would work. I am not at all sure of it now, and if I support the proposal in the 486 form in which it is moved it will be for this reason, that the ways in which I think the difficulty should have been met, either by compensation or a somewhat longer time interest, having been rejected by the powers that be, in charge of this Bill, I think we have to fall back upon this Suggestion in order to secure equitable treatment so far as we are able to do so. It is upon that ground that I support this proposal, and not because I have any perfect faith either in this or any other form of insurance.
§ Mr. BARNESI merely rise to say that I cannot accept this Amendment, and for two reasons, either one of which I think is fatal. The first, as pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, is that a proposal of this sort involves imposing upon the magistrates the duty of seeing that the scheme is watertight. That, so far as I understand, is coming back to the principle to which so much objection is taken on this side of the House. Therefore, that seems to me sufficient to condemn the proposal. Then, I understand the further proposal is made that it is necessary that something should be done in the way of giving magistrates or somebody else a power of overlooking a scheme as otherwise you may have, as is suggested, licence holders insuring up to a shilling or something of that sort. My simple answer to that is, that if they insure up to a shilling, a shilling is better than nothing. At present there is nothing in the Bill to provide that a licence holder should make any provision, and therefore I am not at all concerned with that argument. Neither do I accept for one moment the suggestion that 1,000 licence holders could he got together to fix up a bogus insurance of that character. I have sufficient faith even in licence holders to believe that if an association is formed and given leave to issue policies in connection with this matter, that association would lee sufficiently bonâ fide not to insure for a shilling, but to insure, if not up to twenty shillings in the £, at all events so to insure that the man shall have something saved to him out of the wreckage of his business.
§ Mr. J. HENDERSONI wish to correct the statement that this would throw upon magistrates the responsibility of guaranteeing the insurance companies. In the Law Courts the insurance companies guarantee liquidators, trustees, and surveyors, and these persons have to produce a certificate from some insurance company, but that does not render the Courts of Law 487 responsible for the insurance company. The magistrates would have, as the Law Courts have, a list of the companies whose policies they would accept. So long as one of the insurance companies mentioned was selected, it would not be suggested that the Law Courts or the judge would be responsible for accepting that company. The magistrates would be in the same position. That meets the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
§ Mr. GODFREY COLLINSThe hon. Member for Blackfriars is unable to accept this Amendment because it might make this scheme a. watertight scheme.
Mr. BAR N ESI am not aware of having used any such words. If I did, then I did not say what I intended to say. I object to the Amendment because it associates magistrates once more with the licence, and also because I think it is quite unnecessary. I do not want to make it a condition that any man shall insure up to 20s. in the £, but I want to save something for him.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. COLLINSI think that the board of licensing magistrates, having this scheme placed before them by Parliament, would always look to the amount of money which they might have to raise in the coming year to pay the licence holders the value of the licences. In other words, they would fix a premium in comparison to the risk run by the insurer, and I think there is no doubt that we could have a sound, compulsory insurance scheme if the trade would only face the risks attendant on the trade when this Bill passes into law. Because the trade are unable or unwilling to pay a 2 or a 5 per cent. a year premium on the value of the licence, we are unable to get any sound scheme to place before them. I hope that the Government will stand firm and resist any sort of scheme like this, which cannot be sound in practice and sound in financial matters.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood)Of course, as the hon. Baronet said, it is extremely difficult to discuss the Amendment without discussing the scheme, but I shall do my best to avoid that breach of order. The Amendment is one upon which there appears to be a, great deal of difference of opinion, but the point which I particularly wish to impress upon the House is the extraordinary nature of our present procedure. 488 Here we are engaged in one of the most complicated schemes, a scheme not only to insure publicans, but to insure them compulsorily, and which shall not only be just but acceptable to the licence holder. it is an extremely difficult thing to do—in fact, a scheme which was brought out with great deliberation and thought by the representatives of the trade itself went to another place and was rejected in that other place. After having had various schemes before us, we are now asked to proceed to draw up a scheme by means of an impromptu Amendment which is not even on the Paper, but casually brought forward by the Noble Lord, and which is immediately repudiated by the hon. Baronet opposite, who, with all respect to the Noble Lord, knows 'ten times as much as the Noble Lord about this subject. Here we are attempting, by a proposal which nobody except the Mover of it defends, to contrive that most complicated thing, a scheme for compulsory insurance. That of itself condemns the whole thing. We have had six of these schemes which have been considered by the House and Committees of the House, and have also been considered in another place, and not one of them wound stand examination. And now we have this scheme which nobody defends except the Mover, and you are seeking to make it watertight by an impromptu Amendment of the Noble Lord and by other Amendments. Was there ever a more ridiculous attempt? The very phraseology of the Amendment itself does not follow the ordinary phraseology. As the hon. Baronet behind me has said, with perfect truth, the magistrates are asked to take the responsibility of saying whether the insurance is satisfactory or not. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division said, "I do not want to do anything of the kind, and I do not think there is any force in the criticism that this Clause will allow anybody to escape the obligation." Of course that part of the Clause which the Amendment proposes to put right merely says that a receipt is to be produced for the payment of a premium on a policy of insurance to make some provision. But the provision may be anything from £5 up to £5,000, or it might be up to a shilling, as someone has said. The very people to whom the compulsory scheme would apply are the people who do not want it. The magistrate would have no guidance at all as to what they were to do, yet they would have the obligation placed upon them of seeing whether the 489 thing was satisfactory or not. I think the criticism of the right hon. Baronet is very well founded, that the magistrates would be required to take a responsibility which they repudiate. This is not a voluntary scheme. This is a scheme which would compel the trade to come into it.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI cannot commit myself to this Amendment, and I would urge upon the House to consider whether it is worth while discussing this proposal. We have got this proposal before us on paper, but I am bound to say that two-thirds of it did not appear on the Paper last night.
§ Mr. BARNESWe had only notice yesterday that the Bill was coming on to-day.
Mr. McKINNON WOODDoes my hon. Friend suggest that all the notice he had was that given yesterday? Of course not. The Bill passed the Second Reading long ago, and there has been plenty of time to put down Amendments.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEHow could I possibly put down Amendments to a proposal, the whole of which was not on the Paper yesterday?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThat is irrelevant to my argument. My point is whether a complicated subject of this kind can be dealt with in this way. If you are going to ask the House of Commons to deal with a scheme of insurance under the Act, and you put down a scheme which everybody admits is inadequate, and then endeavour to improve it by impromptu Amendments, that is not the way to deal with a subject so complicated. Not only has there been plenty of time to put down Amendments, but we have had six or seven of these schemes, not one of which has been approved of as a whole. Under these circumstances I cannot vote for this Amendment.
§ Mr. CLYDEI hope the House will take note, and not only the House but the 490 public, of what has happened on this occasion, when for the first time we are making use of what is known as the Suggestion stage. This is the first Bill and this is the first Suggestion stage that has come under the new procedure, after a day's notice. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes; the House having been told for the first time yesterday that this stage of the Bill was to be taken to-day. Not only that, but the Bill which passed its Second Reading within the last ten days passed sub silentio the Committee stage, and so far as the discussions which took place at that time were concerned, they were treated by the same right hon. Gentleman, whom I am criticising to-day, from the point of view that he would listen to no Amendment and that, so far as he was concerned, the House was to swallow the Bill without the alteration of a comma.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI based myself entirely upon the Amendment, and upon the method in which the question is being dealt with by Amendments.
§ Mr. CLYDEI am basing my remarks upon the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman thinks fit to use the Suggestion stage. Now that there is a Suggestion stage, what is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman?—this has only dropped out incidentally—it is that he will have no Suggestion at all. He says what, with great respect to him, he has not always said, that he was always opposed to any scheme of compulsory insurance. If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read some of his own speeches made in the discussion of this Bill, without going back to last year, he will find that he succeeded remarkably well in disguising his meaning. It was the right hon. Gentleman himself who dealt at considerable length with what he considered to be the fact, that there was a very strong demand for some form of compulsory insurance.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI did not say a word about compulsory insurance. I said there was a strong demand for insurance, and I followed up the remark by pointing out that a large proportion of the licence holders in Glasgow were insured. I was talking about voluntary insurance.
§ Mr. CLYDEIf the. right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read his speeches he will find out from the context that what I state is well justified; much more than that, with regard to a scheme of compulsory insurance, the right hon. 491 Gentleman promised a full and open discussion in Committee. Instead of that, the right hon. Gentleman in Committee upstairs did just what he has done to-day—he will listen to no scheme, and he restricts his attitude to picking holes in any scheme presented to him; but, as to applying his own mind to the problem with a view to a practical Bill which would settle the matter, he will not move his little finger. I suppose the net result of it all is—
Mr. PONSONBYMay I ask, Sir, whether hon. Members on the Front Benches are to be allowed a larger field of discussion than private Members, who have very carefully observed your ruling?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not wish to apportion blame to those who are responsible for having led the discussion rather further afield than I intended. It certainly has gone further than I intended, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come a little closer to the subject now.
§ Mr. CLYDEI very willingly and very loyally accept the hint, Sir, but. I do not think I was wholly to blame. I wish to content myself with saying that I should very much like to know whether the Government, when they framed the Parliament. Act, projected their minds into such a ridiculous position as the Parliament Act has brought the present Session. The hon. Baronet the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker), in his criticism of the Amendment, depended upon the proposition that it was a very awkward position in which to put the publican to be told that lie must insure to the satisfaction of the magistrate. He remarked what a responsibility it would put upon the shoulders of the magistrate, how difficult it would be to exercise, and, above all, how unfair it would be to compel the trade to accept an insurance which was to be regarded as satisfactory according to the discretion of the magistrate. We all respect the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, but I think he could hardly have had in his mind the scheme of which he himself has been a loyal supporter in the course of the last few years. He had no objection to the scheme of the Insurance Act by which verybody who is compulsorily insured is to insure in a society approved, not by the person himself, not indeed by magistrates, but by certain Commissioners. Would his objection have been removed if the Commissioners of Excise had been the persons who approved the insurance?
§ Sir T. WHITTAKERIn regard to the plan under the Insurance Act, there was provision made for an actuarial investigation of those societies to ascertain whether they were sound and solvent.
§ Mr. CLYDEThe hon. Baronet is perfectly right, of course, in saying that under the Insurance Act there is provision for an actuarial investigation and that there is nothing of that kind in the scheme of the hon. Member for Blackfriars. But if that be so, and if that be the only point on which the right hon. Baronet relies, then I have misconceived his objection. I thought his objection was to the approval of the magistrate. Apparently the right hon. Baronet's objection is that there should be some form of actuarial investigation. If that be so, we could easily amend the Clause, but I rather fear that his objection goes deeper and belongs to the class which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for. Scotland always welcomes, namely, criticisms which are not of a helpful character. If the only objection is that some form of investigation or check upon the soundness of the companies which issue policies is required, there will be no great difficulty in amending this scheme any more than there was in providing for an actuarial investigation into the affairs of approved societies. It has been also suggested that people might insure up to a shilling. I think, if the hon. Members recollected, that we are dealing here with a piece of business, a very serious business, in regard to those whose property and whose ordinary livelihood are going to be interfered with, we should hear less of gibes of that kind. It is not a case in which people are going to carry on an extended scale of fraud on the scheme. If they do, it shows that the scheme is not wanted. All that the hon. Member for Blackfriars has in his mind is that if people are minded to insure at all, they should at least have the opportunity under this system of compulsion to do so. That, is what he wants to achieve. With regard to the merits of the actual Amendment, what strikes me is this. I am personally and I am sure many of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House are very anxious, to see this problem of insurance solved in some practical form. The best chance of seeing it solved under the present unfavourable conditions is to get some form of suggestion into the Bill by way of suggestion at this stage. I agree that something can be done afterwards as 493 to the difficulties which affect our procedure, but at this moment I would rather appeal to the Noble Lord for that reason not to press.his Amendment on the hon. Member for Blackfriars, if he does not see his way to accept it, because we want in this matter as far as he can, though I know it is useless to appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, to enlist on the side of fair and just terms as large a body of Members of the House as we can.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEIn view of what my right hon. Friend has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to a Clause which I know the Secretary for Scotland has already thrown over in his mind.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. MACKINDERI beg to propose in the first paragraph after the word "insurance ["a policy of insurance"], to insert the words "in accordance with the terms of this Clause."
This Amendment is aimed at the same difficulty as the last Amendment. It seeks to cure that difficulty by throwing the judgment as to the adequacy of the insurance not on the magistrates but on the association itself. If this Amendment were carried, I should then propose to omit the word "some" and the effect would be that the Clause would run "a receipt for the payment of the premium on a policy of insurance in accordance with the terms of this Clause making provision against loss." The terms of the Clause we find in the words "empowered to issue policies of insurance on such terms and conditions as its members may prescribe." The effect would be, as it seems to me, to make the proposed. Clause watertight. The adequacy of the provision would be guaranteed by the association. The members of the association would have every motive for securing that no one shirked his responsibility, and merely insured for a shilling. He would be compelled by the rules of the association itself to take his fair share in the risk run by the whole trade of the country. I suggest, therefore, the difficulty would be met by the proposal I am making. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause can see his way to accepting these words, out it does seem to me that there is a very real difficulty involved in the Clause as it now stands. By common consent, or almost common consent, I think we have agreed that we should be throwing a very difficult and undesirable 494 burden on the magistrates. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if we made them the judges as to sufficiency, would object to the State being brought into guarantee the adequacy, but by this proposal we throw that burden upon the association of the trade itself. That there must be some judgment as to the adequacy, I submit the discussion has shown very clearly. The hon. Baronet, and other hon. Gentlemen have made that evident. I beg to move.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to second the Amendment.
I do so because this Amendment brings the two portions of the Clause together. It is impossible, of course, under the Clause as it stands to amend it to the full extent that perhaps the machinery requires, but this proposal is a distinct improvement in the linking up of the two portions of the Clause. I think if we adopted the suggestion in this form, it would come back to us in a form which would provide the necessary machinery. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that there have been certain sections of the trade who objected, but there are also certain people who think their licences quite safe, and who would not insure unless compelled to do so. It is surely reasonable that the House should look with reasonable generosity on a proposal of this kind in order to relieve the situation. After all, no insurance can be anything but a solatium. Under the present system of heavy Licence Duties they could not afford to pay a sufficiently large amount to make certain of 20s. in the I am pretty sure of this, that no Scotsman is going to ruin his fellow man and neighbour without seeing that sufficient provision is being made to prevent that. It is not possible to conceive that this measure would be very effective unless some proposal of this kind is introduced. I myself believe that the Scottish elector would be very much more generous and more sympathetic, very much more than—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Baronet is now dealing with the whole of the Resolution and not with the Amendment.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI believe that, if sent to the House of Lords as a Suggestion and embodied in the Bill, something of this kind is likely to improve the measure.
§ Mr. BARNESI cannot accept this Amendment and for the very obvious reason that it is quite evident that the Mover has something quite different in his 495 mind from what I have in my mind. The lion. Member used the word "watertight." I do not, know in what connection he used that word, but I do not feel that the Clause should get the character of watertightness if it means that a man is to be insured against loss. That would be the effect of the words of the hon. Member. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise would have to satisfy themselves, upon the production of a receipt, of a policy of insurance making provision against Toss. That would impose on them the duty of seeing that the scheme would produce 20s. in the £ and it might also be interpreted to mean that it, would be actuarily sound. I do not want to impose any such condition upon any Government official, and therefore I cannot accept.
§ Mr. MACKINDERI do not think that follows from what I said or from the words I put forward. It would entirely depend on the terms prescribed for the members of the association by the association.
§ Mr. BARNESI am only taking the words in their common-sense meaning. The Clause would read that the man must insure against loss, and that necessarily means that, he must insure for the full value of his licence. I do not want to impose that condition on him.
§ Sir T. WHITTAKEREither insurance against loss means insurance for the total amount that will be lost or it means that the amount is to be left to the
§ voluntary decision of the person insured. If it means insurance to the extent of the total loss, then I think we are back in the old position of throwing the responsibility on the Customs. If it means that they are to insure to such an amount as they individually decide will be sufficient, then it practically means that it is voluntary insurance and that, they can fix the amount at what they like. If they can fix the amount at what they like, it brings us back to the point referred to by the hon. and learned Member on the. previous Amendment. He ridiculed the idea that they would insure for a shilling or one pound. I think he overlooked the fact that this is a compulsory Clause. You are going to compel men to insure who otherwise would not, do so. If the amount for which they are to insure is to be left to their decision they can settle it by voluntary arrangement, and these men, who would not insure unless they were compelled, will want to insure for as little as possible; therefore they will go in for a shilling or a pound, or some other nominal sum. On this Amendment I cannot express my general views as to insurance. They are not quite what the hon. and learned Member thinks. We have not here, however, a practical working scheme.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 264.
499| Division No. 187.] | AYES. | [7.32 p.m. |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Duke, Henry Edward | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Hunt, Rowland |
| Astor, Waldorf | Falle, Bertram Godfray | Hunter, Sir Charles Rod K. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Fell, Arthur | Jessel, Captain H. M. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Kerry, Earl of |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Kinloch Cooke. Sir Clement |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Forster, Henry William | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gardner, Ernest | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Gibbs, George Abraham | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) |
| Bird, Alfred | Goldsmith, Frank | M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. |
| Blair, Reginald | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Boyton, James | Grant, James Augustus | Mount, William Arthur |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Greene, Walter Raymond | Newman, John R. P. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Gretton, John | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Butcher, John George | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Haddock, George Bahr | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Cassel, Felix | Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Clyde, James Avon | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Pete, Basil Edward |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Harris, Henry Percy | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Helmsley, Viscount | Pryce-Jones. Colonel E. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Randles, Sir John S. |
| Croft, Henry Page | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peer |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Royds, Edmund |
| Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) |
| Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Talbot, Lord Edmund | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) | Winterton, Earl |
| Sanders, Robert Arthur | Thynne, Lord Alexander | Weimer, Viscount |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Tryon, Captain George Clement | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Spear, Sir John Ward | Tullibardine, Marquess of | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Stanier, Beville | Valentia, Viscount | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Stewart, Gershom | Walker, Colonel William Hall | Younger, Sir George |
| Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) | |
| Swift, Rigby | Weigell, Captain A. G. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mackinder and Major Hope. |
| Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) | Wheler, Granville C. H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Ffrench, Peter | Lundon, Thomas |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Field, William | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Fitzgibbon, John | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) |
| Alden, Percy | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson | McGhee, Richard |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Arnold, Sydney | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Done[...]al, South) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Ginnell, Laurence | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Gladstone, W. G. C. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Glanville, Harold James | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Curdy, Charles Albert |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Goldstone, Frank | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Barton, William | Greig, Colonel James William | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Meagher, Michael |
| Bentham, George J. | Gulland, John William | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hackett, John | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Boland, John P[...]us | Hancock, John George | Middlebrook, William |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) | Molloy, Michael |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Molten, Percy Alpert |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Mooney, John J. |
| Bryce, John Annan | Hayden, John Patrick | Morgan, George Hay |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hayward, Evan | Morison, Hector |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hazleton, Richard | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Muldoon, John |
| Bytes, Sir William Pollard | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Munro, Robert |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Henry, Sir Charles | Murphy, Martin J. |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Higham, John Sharp | Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hinds, John | Needham, Christopher T |
| Clough, William | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Clynes, John R. | Hodge, John | Nolan, Joseph |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Hegge, James Myles | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Compton Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Nuttall, Harry |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Holt, Richard Durning | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Cowan, William Henry | Hudson, Walter | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Crooks, William | Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Dowd, John |
| Crumley, Patrick | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | O'Grady, James |
| Cullinan, John | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | John, Edward Thomas | O'Malley, William |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| De Forest, Baron | Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Shee, James John |
| Delany, William | Jones, William (Carnarvenshire) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Devlin, Joseph | Jowett, Frederick William | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Dickinson, W. H, | Joyce, Michael | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Dillon, John | Keating, Matthew | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Kellaway, Frederick George | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Doris, William | Kelly, Edward | Pointer, Joseph |
| Duffy, William J. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devbn, S. Melton) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Edwards, Sir Frances (Radnor) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Lardner, James C. R. | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'r[...]d, Cockerm'th) | Radford, G. H. |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Leach, Charles | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Levy, Sir Maurice | Reddy, Michael |
| Falconer, James | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.), |
| Rendall, Atheistan | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Snowden, Philip | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Sutherland, John E. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Sutton, John E. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Robinson, Sidney | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Tennant, Harold John | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Thomas, James Henry | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rowlands, James | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Rowntree, Arnold | Toulmin, Sir George | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Runciman, Rt. Hbn. Walter | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Scanian, Thomas | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | |
| Sheehy, David | Watt, Henry A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Barnes and Mr. Adamson. |
| Shortt, Edward | Webb, H. |
§ Mr. GRETTONI desire to move, to leave out the word "some," in order to ascertain what is meant by that limitation upon the word "provision." Shall I be in order in so doing?
§ Mr. BARNESMay I suggest that that involves exactly the same principle as the last Amendment?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow, when moving his last Amendment, said that he proposed to move, as a consequential Amendment, to leave out the word "some," and he discussed the two Amendments together. Therefore, I think that the decision the House has just come to disposes of that point.
§ Mr. GRETTONIs it necessarily consequential? Shall I not be in order in moving it as a separate proposition? It is practically a different question, although the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division referred to it in his argument.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member can proceed.
§ Mr. GRETTONI beg to move, to leave out the word "some" ["making some provision against loss "]—
§ Mr. FREDERICK WHYTE rose in hi; place, and claimed to move, "That the main Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put the Question.
§ Mr. GRETTONI propose to leave out the word "some," in order to ascertain what exactly is meant by the proposal of the hon. Member opposite. The policy of insurance must be against the loss possible upon the withdrawal of the certificate. The word "some" may mean anything, and unless there is a definite statement as to 500 what provision is to be made, whether 50 per cent., or 75 per cent., or 10 per cent., or whatever is intended, the whole Suggestion appears to me to be absolutely useless. It is certainly not a practicable Suggestion in the form in which it now stands. If there is to be compensation, it should clearly be for the loss, and the proportion of loss to be paid should be stated. Otherwise this is merely a window dressing Suggestion. I submit, therefore, that this word ought to be omitted, and that some clear definition should be given as to what is intended by subsequent words.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONI beg to second the Amendment. The inclusion of this word "some" really does reduce the general proposal to a farce. It makes a sham insurance take the place of a real insurance. You should include some provision to make certain that the insurance which you desire to have effected shall be a real one. Unless some more definite words are put in the whole thing falls to the ground.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think it makes any difference whether or not the word is in. I do not think there is anything in the Amendment.
§ Earl WINTERTONI think we ought to have some explanation as to the meaning of the word "some" from the Government.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is the point we have been discussing, and I would remind the Noble Lord that we cannot go over the same ground again.
§ Earl WINTERTONI am not aware that that takes away from me my right to speak to this Amendment. If you rule so, I shall sit down.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI only rule that the 1 Noble Lord must not go over the ground= 501 which has been already gone over, or he will be sinning against the Standing Order in regard to repetition.
§ Earl WINTERTONI had not commenced my speech when you rose to call attention to that fact. I wish to ask the Government what meaning exactly they attach to this word "some." I am the director of an insurance company, and I believe the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) also is, and I never yet knew of an insurance company where such a phrase comes into play as to "some" provision. In no insurance premium that I ever saw was there ever such a term. It is a most absurd business. There is no meaning in the words making "some" provision. Does it mean provision in the case of a licence worth hundreds to the extent of one shilling or to the extent of hundreds of pounds? I hope the Lord Advocate will explain. [Laughter.] The subject seems to be one of great amusement to hon. Gentlemen opposite. All I can say is that such a suggestion should go up from this House will make even more ridiculous this Suggestion stage, and render the whole Bill more ridiculous, inoperative, and futile than even its authors intended.
§ Mr. BARNES rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think that Motion is necessary.
§ Amendment put, and negatived.
§ Main Question again proposed.
§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLARI think we are entitled to suggest to the House, in view of the arguments which have been put forward, and the opportunity for discussion that it is perfectly clear that there has been no case at all made out for compulsory insurance in any shape or form. I do not desire to say more than this; that on this particular occasion we have reached the seventh separate scheme which has been put before the House. The hon. Member for Blackfriars who has suggested this scheme to the House to-day has not succeeded in impressing the House with the fact that his scheme would be workable in any shape or form. I do not think he expected to do it.
§ Mr. BARNESNo, not you!
§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLARAnd the hon. Gentleman has not succeeded. He has 502 not made out a case to justify him in supervening with a suggestion such as he proposes to the House of Lords. I feel that the Government has taken a very wise course in refusing to look at this Suggestion. I feel satisfied when the Bill goes to the House of Lords for consideration that that House will take into account the fact that the House of Commons has already given its opinion on many different occasions upon this question of compulsory insurance. I hope that in the Division which is now taking place that the House will again, by a very large and overwhelming majority, indicate to the House of Lords that on this subject there can be no further Amendment considered. I am glad that the Government are firm in their determination to adhere to the form of the Bill as passed last Session. I feel sure that the people of Scotland will appreciate the view they have taken. On this occasion they are only expressing the view that there has been no change of opinion in Scotland, rather the other way, that the people of Scotland are determined to get the Bill they originally asked for.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI am not by any means astonished that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken should have made the speech that he has done. Of course, we know the driving power behind the Government in this flatter. It is a very unfortunate thing in my opinion that the Government has throughout the discussions on this Bill paid so much attention to extreme opinion and so little to moderate opinion. I can tell the hon. Member that if he thinks he is doing a service to the trade by objecting to compulsory insurance, that he will find that he is mistaken. The various schemes put forward up till now are practically all one scheme. Financially, in all the schemes of compulsory insurance the basis has always been the same. The scheme never pretended to be anything more than a solatium for possible loss in the case of the adoption of the options under this Bill. At no time has it ever been proposed to attempt to insure the full value of the licence, because it is quite impossible to licence holders to pay the premium to entitle them to expect payment of that. But, as the hon. Member for Blaekfriars has said more than once, if a man loses his licence it is much better that he should have half the value with which to go out and start a new business, than that he 503 should have nothing at all. It is in order to give the licence holder the advantage of the general average over the whole of Scotland, and to enable him to secure something or other out of the wreck, that these schemes have been proposed, not at all with the view or with the expectation of providing him for all the money he will lose, but, as I have said before, to provide some kind of solatium to start afresh in life when his licence has been taken away. To suppose that the six or seven different schemes put before the House have really differed in essence is a mistake. In essence they have been the same throughout. I think I proposed the first of them, and I have proposed others since. Every one of them will be found to be exactly on the same foundation, differing only in the machinery, and only attempting partial and not full insurance. One of the objections that the Lord Advocate made to one of the schemes was that it did not provide full assurance. I always agreed. I think he will agree with me that I never intended that the scheme did it.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure)I quite agree.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThe scheme is not a final or full provision, and that is why the word "some" is no doubt put in. There is no attempt to be made to evade responsibility by under insurance any more than to gain an unfair advantage by over-insurance. If this House thinks the Bill should pass with some solution in the way of compulsory insurance, it would be a very simple matter to suggest what is just, honest, and fair. I cannot say myself that I expect the Secretary for Scotland will agree to any such suggestion as this being sent to the other House. He has all along taken a very decided attitude against com-
§ pulsory insurance, just as the extreme teetotalers have done. Why they should deny to these unfortunate people an opportunity to protect themselves as far as they can, I have never been able to understand, except that they seem to have a most vindictive feeling towards them. Through no fault of their own, these people have possibly been born into the business, as I was born into mine, and have carried on their business, as I have carried on mine, without ever thinking that we were doing other than that which was perfectly legitimate, fair, and proper. A change of opinion of some kind has arisen, or appears to have arisen, in respect to the system under which these licences have been granted. It is proposed to change it. The consistent, reasonable, judicial consideration and decision is to be entirely abrogated and a popular vote is to be substituted. Not content with that, and with having placed the businesses of these people in jeopardy—for everybody knows you can never tell how a popular vote may go, and it may change from time to time—notwithstanding that, they come down here, like hon. Members opposite, in a pure vindictive, spirit and say, "We will not only ruin them, but we will not give them a chance to protect themselves."It is a miserable spirit. It is necessary that someone should speak for these people. If the Bill passes to-morrow, it will do my business no harm, but I do resent—bitterly and strongly resent—the feeling shown by many people in dealing with this matter. I do think it is not a credit to the House of Commons that, when we get the opportunity of doing something which will relieve the tension in carrying out this policy, that it is not done.
§ Main Question, as amended, put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 233.
507| Division No. 188.] | AYES | [8.0 p.m. |
| Adamson, William | Cassel, Felix | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Astor, Waldor[...] | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Goldstone. Frank |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Clyde, James Avon | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.) | Clynes, John R. | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Grant, J. A. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish | Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Greene, Walter Raymond |
| Bigland, Alfred | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Gretton, John |
| Bird, Alfred | Craik, Sir Henry | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) |
| Blair, Reginald | Dalrymple, Viscount | Haddock, George Bahr |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Dixon, Charles Harvey | Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Duke, Henry Edward | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) |
| Boyton, James | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Harris, Henry Percy |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Falle, Bertram Godfrey | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Fell, Arthur | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) |
| Butcher, John George | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. |
| Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Forster, Henry William | Hills, John Waller |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Gardner, Ernest | Hogge, James Myles |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Gibbs, G. A. | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Hope, Harry (Bute) | Norton-Griffiths, J. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | O'Grady, James | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Parkes, Ebenezer | Sutton, John E. |
| Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Swift, Rigby |
| Hunt, Rowland | Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. | Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutstord) |
| Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk, | Pointer, Joseph | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Ingleby, Holcombe | Pollock, Ernest Muray | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Randles, Sir John S. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Rawson, Colonel R. H. | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston) | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Winterton, Earl |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Younger, Sir George |
| Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Snowden, Philip | |
| Mount, William Arthur | Spear, Sir John Ward | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Barnes and Mr. F. Whyte. |
| Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Stanier, Beville | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Falconer, James | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Lundon, Thomas |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Ffrench, Peter | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Alden, Percy | Field, William | McGhee, Richard |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Fitzgibbon, John | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Gelder, Sir W. A. | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick) | Ginnell, Laurence | M'Curdy, Charles Albert |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Gladstone, W. G. C. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Barton, William | Glanville, Harold James | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Manfield, Harry |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Greig, Colonel James William | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Meagher, Michael |
| Black, Arthur W. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Boland, John Plus | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hackett, John | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Hancock, John George | Middlebrook, William |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Molloy, Michael |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Bryce, John Annan | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hayden, John Patrick | Mooney, John J. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Hayward, Evan | Morgan, George Hay |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Hazleton, Richard | Morison, Hector |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Muldoon, John |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Henry, Sir Charles | Munro, Robert |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Higham, John Sharp | Murphy, Martin J. |
| Clough, William | Hinds, John | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Hodge, John | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Holt, Richard Durning | Nolan, Joseph |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Horne, C, Silvester (Ipswich) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Cotton, William Francis | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Nuttall, Harry |
| Crooks, William | Hudson, Walter | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N,) |
| Cullinan, John | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | John, Edward Thomas | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmar (Swansea) | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll) | O'Dowd, John |
| De Forest, Baron | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Delany, William | Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Malley, William |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Deviln, Joseph | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Dillon, John | Joyce, Michael | O'Shee, James John |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Keating, Matthew | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Doris, William | Kellaway, Frederick George | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Duffy, William J. | Kelly, Edward | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lardner, James C. R. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Leach Charles | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Levy Sir Maurice | Radford, G. H. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Reddy, Michael | Scanlan, Thomas | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Sheehy, David | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Shortt, Edward | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Sutherland, John E. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Roberts. Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilson, Rt. H on. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughtan) |
| Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Tennant, Harold John | Winfrey, Richard |
| Robinson, Sidney | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Roche. Augustine (Louth) | Touimin, Sir George | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Rowlands, James | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Rowntree, Arnold | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Watt, Henry A. | |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Webb, H. |
§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. Ure ]
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKI beg to propose, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
It is no part of my duty in beginning the Debate on the Third Reading of this Bill to review the varied details of and arguments concerning this system or that system, or our varied experience with regard to these systems. We are now dealing with the Bill in its broad and general aspect. Personally, I am glad that it is with the principles of the Bill that we can now deal, and that we are no longer concerned with its details. Speaking for myself, I make bold to say, as I have said before, that to these principles in their fundamental meaning I am absolutely opposed, and I have no hesitation in saying so. At the last stage of the Bill I went so far as to show I was ready to compromise; that I was ready to support a reasoned Amendment, which found fault with particular parts of a Bill, and which claimed that certain additions should be made to the Bill. I was prepared to give up my own predilections against these principles, and I was ready for a compromise. We have seen how these attempts at compromise were received. We have seen again to-night how little possibility there is of getting from the Treasury Bench any sort of concession or anything else but the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. My objection is broadly to the whole of the principles upon which this Bill is based. I am not going to attack the motives or objects of hon. Members opposite. I do not think there is a single man in this House who is not prepared, if he is a sane and 508 reasonable man, to admit that we are here to-day to do, each of us in the way he thinks best, what we can to advance the cause of temperance. We may differ as to the methods, but I think we can pay each other the ordinary respect of thinking that our ends are the same, and that we all desire to spread temperance; but I object to the method and the principle by which hon. Members who support this Bill seek to gain that end. It is no doubt true that. for a long time we have regulated this trade. We have made rules; we have had Government supervision; we have curtailed hours, and we have done what we could to lower the number of public-houses. We have done what we could to close public-houses at certain hours and on certain occasions. To a certain extent, I am with hon. Members opposite in thinking that is a necessary part of good government; that it is necessary that a trade of this sort, affecting the well being of the great masses of the people, should be under regulation. It is recognised by the State, and. it is the duty of the State, so far, to regulate it. But when you come to these particular regulations, we find that we differ from one another considerably. I am old enough to remember well the first movement towards very strict and prohibitive legislation in Scotland; what were called the Forbes-Mackenzie Acts. They were well known and widely advocated; they were discussed and criticised. They were thought by some people to be the harbinger of a new social regeneration. Public houses were closed on Sundays entirely. They were closed earlier on weekdays; they were made subject to more severe regulation. Some of us in those days did not think that those Forbes-Mackenzie Acts would bring about all that social regeneration which the advocates of temperance prophesied. It turned out to be true. I have spent a large part of my life in Scotland, and I do not think that 509 the prohibition regulations made Scotland a very sober country. She went in advance of England in her prohibitive legislation, but not in the temperate habits of her people.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESWould the hon. Member like to repeal the Forbes-Mackenzie Acts?
§ Sir H. CRAIKI am not speaking about repealing those Acts. What I say is that experience and common sense teaches me that you should look at the results of prohibitive legislation, in which Scotland went in advance of England, and they did not make Scotland a more temperate country than England. I represent a constituency largely composed of Scotsmen, many of whom are resident in Scotland, and that constituency is so intelligent and fair-minded that I make bold to say that I am speaking sincerely the mind of the bulk of my constituents when I assert that on the whole Scotland has not by that legislation advanced in temperance very materially during the last generation. What are you going to add to your regulations now? The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) asked what is this Bill going to do, and he said that it is simply going to take licensing out of the hands of the bench of magistrates and put it into the hands of the people. Do hon. Members opposite think that that is an adequate, just, and fair description of this Bill? Is it not obvious that, in taking these duties out of the hands of the magistrates, you abolish the judicial element altogether and put it into the hands of those who act not on judicial principles, but according to their wishes, their interests, their personal predilections, or their personal opinions? I say nothing against that. They may be conscientious in holding those opinions, but the great difference is that you are subjecting a great trade to new restrictions; you are taking certain duties out of the hands of those who were bound to act upon judicial principles; and you are placing those duties in the hands of those who will act merely according to their personal opinions or predilections.
Personally, I would resist a public-house being licensed near to my own house, but if I were the magistrate on the bench I think I should conscientiously hear the evidence and give my judgment in such a case absolutely unbiassed by my own personal interests. I should be bound to do so, and I should be guilty of corruption of 510 the worst sort in my position as a judge if I gave way to any ether influence. But if the question came before me as an individual ratepayer, in a particular district, I should certainly vote that a public-house should not be set up there, because I should not feel bound by any judicial considerations, and I should feel that I was free to act according to my own personal opinions. Surely hon. Members see that there is a fundamental difference between that case and the mere transfer of the power from the-hands of the magistrates to the hands of the people. You will probably ask if we are not to restrict this trade and impose these tremendous regulations upon it; if we are not prepared to give to what really may be only an active minority of the population, the power to restrict their neighbours from having conveniences to get drink if they wish those conveniences, and if we are not willing to assent to the course proposed in this Bill, what is our alternative? I have several alternatives, and it is because of my attachment to them, and my desire that they should be tried, and the certainty I feel that sooner or later, perhaps by a slow but a sure process, they would work in the direction of amelioration, that I am opposed to the principles of this Bill.
I remember the saying of a distinguished prelate that "He preferred England free to England sober." I think that is an exaggerated representation of what the late Bishop of Peterborough really did say, but I make bold to say that l attach equal importance to the freedom of my country as to its sobriety. I think both of them are qualities that we need to prize and build up, and I am not prepared to, set up a chain of slavery simply in order by artificial means to make the country what you call sober. In the first place, I would treat this question with a little more sympathy than some of the extreme teetotallers do. I would try to approach the people by some more sympathetic action, something that will take a little more account of their feelings and the temptations in which they are placed. There are some words which often come into my mind, written by Scott, who was one of the best judges of human nature, which were put into the mouth of one of his characters, Mrs. Mucklebackit, in his novel "The Antiquary," when Monkbarns delivered an injunction as to the necessity of avoiding the use of alcohol. She says:—
It's easy for your honour and the like o' you gentle folks to say sae, thae hae stouth and routh and fire and fending, and meat and claith, and sit dry and canny by 511 the fireside—but an ye wanted fire and meat and dry claise and had a lair heart, which is warst of ava, wi' just tuppence in your pocket, wadna ye be glad to buy a dram wi' it to be gilding and claise and heart's ease into the bargain.With a touch of humour, one can see what it was that Scott made that fisherwoman teach to those about her. He would have tried to bring that comfort and brightness and social help into their lives that might assist you far more than all your Temperance Bills. Do try to make the public-houses places where a man can take his wife and family as they do abroad. You make your public-house as severe and as forbidding as you can, but is that treating your fellow citizens with sympathy and insight into the meaning of their lives? Do not, I ask you, frown upon the public-house if you wish the public-house to be better than it is. Make it a place where a man would lose his self-respect if he indulged in excess. Make it a place where he has his respectable neighbours around him, instead of a place where those around him are only too glad to see him drunk. Make it a place where be can spend his leisure hours with self-respect and with enjoyment. Most hon. Members know something of Stockholm and Copenhagen. Have they not attended the winter gardens and the open air gardens there and heard music playing and seen acting going on all the time men were drinking some light beer or wine, or whatever it might be. There is just as little drunkenness there as there is in this House. I have been there quite often and seen it for myself.Do you not trust anything to your vaunted education? I have spent a good deal of my time in educational administration, but if after forty years of educational administration you are going to bring forward legislation to treat your fellow citizens like children, then I say your compulsory education is not worth the money you have spent upon it. If we believe that education is an ameliorative and raising influence then let us be patient and wait until it works its ameliorative effect. Do you not believe that it would inevitably do so, and that it must, if it is any good at all, build up character; and without character what is your temperance worth? Is temperance a virtue in the case of the convict who is shut up in a prison and cannot get access to any alcohol? Temperance, if it means anything, means the power that a man acquires of controlling himself by self-respect, by character, and by respect for his fellow 512 creatures. I do not care in the least for that temperance which is enforced and which is not the fruit of self-respect and self-control. I believe, too, that you could do much by attention to the physical training of our youths. That, in my belief, is a thing most wanted in our education. Hon. Members are aghast at any proposal to submit our young men of from fourteen to eighteen or from eighteen to twenty-one—those who are hanging about the street corners, turning into wastrels, after you have spent upon them lavishly for their education—to military training to make them fit to defend their country and proud of themselves as citizens. Hon. Members are angry because we propose to take these young fellows for a few weeks or months, for 4, few years into camp to give them the vast benefit and advantage of feeling what it is to lead a healthy life, to have their sinews trained, their nerves strengthened, and their brains made clear in action. All this would come if we were to adopt that universal military training for which we are working as missionaries. It would do more than all your temperance Acts to build up character and to teach young men what it is to lead a healthy life.
Do hon. Members think that this craving for drink in unwholesome quantities is a thing natural to man? Is it a thing that comes in the midst of healthy life? Do they not know that if you make a man live a healthy life the craving diminishes, and that the man who leads such a life can regulate with ease the amount of alcohol he thinks good for himself to take? Many of us do habitually take alcohol. I have every respect for those who do not think that any alcohol can be otherwise than detrimental, but really, as sane men and as men of some experience, they must allow us to judge for ourselves if we leave them to judge for themselves. If you give young men proper physical training and they learn to know, what many of them, alas, never know, what it is to have their sinews in good order, their brains clear, their digestion good, and their whole mental and physical activities energised, the craving for drink will in very many cases disappear and in all cases become less. I despair altogether of a thorough treatment of this question, and, if I speak alone, I shall utter my opinion upon it. I despair almost of either political party facing the odium that would be got by adopting the measures that I propose. 513 You never will deal with intemperance until one political party or another is bold enough and strong enough to deal with the drunkard as he deserves to be dealt with. What is the use of passing on the crime to the manufacturer or to the dealer in alcohol? Is the man not responsible himself for his conduct? And ought you not to bring it home to him as a disgusting and degrading vice? If he makes himself a nuisance to his neighbour, if he makes himself a danger to his neighbour, and, still more, if he commits crime under the influence of his degrading vice, I would not treat him with greater indulgence. Deal drastically with vice in the sinner, and not merely with those who may be providing alcohol, which many of us want and desire, and have a right to have, simply because other people misuse it and degrade themselves by misusing what is one of the gifts of nature. Do not treat the drunkard like a child.
I have watched this matter in Scotland, both from inside and outside. You have tried severe regulations, but you have not advanced temperance in that way nearly so much as it has been advanced by the influence of education, of social opinion, and of social respect. I have observed often what I think is a morbid and unwholesome habit of treating drunkenness, when it is seen in the street or in a public conveyance, as a joke rather than as something contemptible and vile. I defy anyone who has moved about in Scotland very much to deny that frequently, when a man is seen to be drunk, he is treated tenderly and greeted with a smile rather than with indignation at his conduct. You will never cure a drunkard by treating him in that way. You will never cure him as he is cured in Montreal or Quebec, where a drunken emigrant is dealt with very drastically. I believe it would be a good lesson to some of our fellow inhabitants, both in England and Scotland, if they were present in one of the emigration halls in Montreal and saw how a drunken emigrant is dealt with by the police of Canada. There is no morbid affectation of treating him as a child and with undue kindliness. There is no suggestion of treating the whole thing as a joke to be laughed at the next day. The emigrant is taught., as soon as he gets to that country, that, if he is to be of any use in Canada, he must learn to control himself, acid that the responsibility of his degradation rests not on other people, but upon himself. 514 Let us be sincere. I can easily understand that there are certain hon. Members opposite who honestly believe in full prohibition. They consider that the whole trade—the manufacture and consumption of alcohol—ought to be absolutely prohibited. I would treat those hon. Members as a small minority, to be treated in the same way as one treats any small peculiar section, such as people, for instance, who absolutely consider it a crime and against their conscience to take a weapon in their hands and to serve their country in any shape or form that may involve fighting. The State cannot be regulated by the morbid opinions of small minorities like these, and as bodies regulating State action they must be set aside as a negligible quantity. Take any section of opinion that bulks largely, do we find they really hold that men who are employed in the production of alcohol, in one shape or another, are to be treated as pariahs not entitled to our respect?
§ Mr. LEIF JONESWe want the trade treated as a dangerous trade.
§ Sir H. CRAIKDoes the hon. Member say that these people should be treated as pariahs, as persons who have lost all sense of duty to their fellows, because they are engaged in a trade which he would like to have absolutely prohibited?
§ Mr. LEIF JONESI want to get them into a better trade.
§ Sir H. CRAIKWhatever the opinion of the hon. Member may be, we do not treat in that way in this House our fellow Members who may be engaged in that trade, and whom we may meet in ordinary society. We know perfectly well that those who avoid entirely, in their personal life, the use of alcohol are, after all, a minority in this country. That is an indisputable fact. Why is it, then, that in face of that fact, in face of our ordinary conventional way of treating these men, in face of the fact that we accept charity from and hold in honour those who are engaged in this trade, and that the great mass of us do not avoid the use of alcoholic liquor—why is it we have a measure of this kind now before the House I would remind English Members that, although they may try the experiment on Scotland, once established, it will very soon spread to England. The cheers which greet that statement are confirmation of my words. You propose to try the experiment in Scotland, and in England they merely say 515 "this is a Bill for the promotion of temperance; we have not studied its provisions, but we suppose it is all right." They may rely upon it that in due course, once the system is established in Scotland, they themselves will have their liberty restricted in just the same way as this Bill proposes to restrict the liberty of my fellow countrymen in Scotland.
Why is it that these exaggerated and tyrannical ideas gradually spread their influence, and acquire a strong position in the community? I will tell you why. We know quite well what an enormous amount of influence is possessed by a small and determined section of faddists. They push their cause in season and out of season. They are never asleep. They never allow their attention to be diverted from the one object of accomplishing the triumph of their fad. They are always present to suggest a plan on lines close to their heart. Gradually, they begin to push their way amongst electioneering agents and managers. There is nothing an electioneering agent knows is a better aid to him than to have a small but compact and determined clique fixed upon their own fad, who in return for his support of the fad, will give him a whole hearted support in the election. I am not misrepresenting the facts. This is how these fads spread their influence. What comes a little later? If you oppose if, you are opposing temperance. If you support it, you are told you are in no way committed to the terms of this or that Bill; you need not trouble what the details of the Bill are, but you understand the object is to promote temperance, and, therefore, you are hound to support it. Thus they spread their influence still further, and it grows until they become a most important factor in the work and the whole business of the electioneering agent. That is what explains the fact that a small minority in this country, at first adopting this fad, and setting themselves with undeviating strength of purpose to pursue it, have represented themselves as the sole advocates, pioneers, and missionaries of temperance, and have gradually proved their value to electioneering agents. They have silenced their opponents by telling them that if they showed the least doubt about their special nostrum, they were encouragers of intemperance and found a benefit and some lucrative advantage in the destruction of their fellow creatures. We know that you may have an excellent object in promoting temperance, but as 516 soon as you set up a particular nostrum for dealing with it, you will allow no detraction from that particular nostrum; every man who is not entirely with you is against you, and everyone who casts the smallest doubt or even asks for a careful discussion of your particular nostrum is dealt with as anathema, and as a mere obstructor anxious to prevent its advance. You have taken up, by the process I have explained, this kind of local option. Have you ever noticed how absurd it is, looked at from a large constitutional standpoint, that any one section, much more a small minority of one-third of any community, because 30 per cent. is enough, and will give you a majority—
§ Sir H. CRAIKThirty per cent. only is necessary for voting purposes; and a half of 30 per cent. is 15.per cent., therefore 16 per cent. is a majority.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI can assure the hon. Gentleman he is entirely wrong in his figures. He cannot have read the Bill.
§ Sir H. CRAIKThirty per cent. is the number who must vote, and 16 per cent. will be the majority of those who vote.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI mean that it is a minority of the whole community.
Mr. McKINNON WOODNo. The hon. Member must not misrepresent it like that. It must be a majority of those voting.
§ Sir H. CRAIKCertainly.
Mr. McKINNON WOODIf the majority vote against it, they can defeat the minority. There must be a majority in favour of it. The argument is ridiculous.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIs it ridiculous that members are returned to the school boards by 20 per cent. of the voters? You never get more than 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the voters to go to the poll, and it is an enormous poll if you get 50 per cent. The majority of those voting, providing they are 30 per cent. of the voters, are still a minority of the whole of the inhabitants. A great many people, through indecision or apathy may not vote. Are hon. Members prepared to carry this principle 517 of local option to a logical conclusion? Are they prepared to say that a minority who are against other things than alcoholic liquors, may prevent their consumption? I know, and I see a good deal of reason for it, that there are a great many people who say that as much harm is done by the drinking of tea to the nerves and in producing anaemia as the drinking of alcoholic liquors. Doctors themselves have said so. Are hon. Members prepared to give to a 30 per cent. minority the power of refusing the right to drink tea, except in certain quantities? Duncan Forbes of Culloden, one of the soundest Whigs of his day, who was responsible for the fact that the Jacobite rebellion did not succeed, in 1748 or 1749 proposed a Bill making penal the consumption of tea by those who did not possess an income of £500 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who was that?"] Duncan Forbes Of Culloden.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)I do not quite see the relevancy of this. I would remind the hon. Member that he has been speaking for three quarters of an hour, and that this is the Third Reading—the final stage of the Bill.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI did not know that there was any rule as to the length of speeches. I am in possession of the House. If I am out of order in speaking for a certain time, no doubt you will tell me.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe speech must be relevant to the question. I thought the hon. Member was led astray by sonic interruption, and might go very wide of the subject.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI was not conscious of being misled by any interruption. An hon. Member opposite asked me for the name, and I gave it him. I would point out that we are now discussing a local option Bill. I am ready to accept your correction if it is irrelevant, in discussing a local option Bill, to point out that the principle of local option may not stop here, but may be applied to other things. Is there anything irrelevant in that? If so, no doubt, you, Sir, will stop me, and also if I err in regard to the length of my speech. If I do not err again on a point of Order, I shall be guided by my own judgment as to my arguments. I say this is a principle which may be applied in a way that may be very hostile and disagreeable to those who do not advocate the consumption of this particular article. I have stated my fundamental objections 518 to the Bill. I was prepared to swallow those fundamental objections and to accept a fair compromise on the basis of two conditions, first, that you should give to the community whom you set up as judges in this matter— [Interruption.] When the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) has quite done, I will continue. It would be more convenient if he made his speech afterwards. [An HON. MEMBER: "Give him the next hour."] The two conditions upon which I was prepared to sink my objection to the principle of this Bill were, first, that you should give to these fellow subjects of mine the power of a wide and all-embracing option as to the system of licences that should be established. You denied that, forsooth, in the name of democratic liberty. There was one more condition which would have made me ready to sink my principles, and that was that you carried out this drastic change without unjust injury and robbery of one class of my fellow subjects. You have refused that. You have refused all compromise either as to just and fair conditions for the publican, or as to a wide and all-embracing choice for the constituency, and, therefore, I revert to the position I first took up, and which is my real and personal position in regard to this Bill, that it is built upon a wrong foundation, that it mistakes the course that you ought to take in dealing with your fellow-citizens, and that it will not raise their self-respect or build them up to better habits, but will lower them to the level of children and imbeciles.
§ Major HOPEI beg to second the Amendment.
9.0 P.M.
It would give me far greater pleasure to be seconding the Third Reading of a real Temperance Measure for Scotland. I should like to controvert the contention put forward by the Secretary for Scotland, and also by many hon. Members opposite, on the Second Reading, that we on this side of the House are opposed to the principle of local option and that we are not anxious for some measure of real temperance reform. We are not opposed to local option, and we are as anxious for real temperance reform as many hon. Members opposite. I have always declared myself in favour of giving Scotsmen the option of deciding how the liquor traffic should be carried on in their own locality, and I believe that the passing into law of a measure of temperance reform is in the best interests of the Scottish people, and I believe that a large majority of the 519 Scottish people demand that a temperance measure should be passed into law. But they do not demand that this measure should be passed into law. Far from it. It is neither in the true interests of Scottish temperance, as it is likely to leave the House now, nor is there a demand amongst the majority of the Scottish people for this Bill. If there is a popular demand for a particular measure in a particular form and that measure is at the moment of a by-election before Parliament, if one of the candidates takes up an unpopular attitude on that question, even though there is a question perhaps of greater importance before the electors, surely his opponents will press him on what should be his weak point. I took part in a by-election just after the Bill had emerged from Committee and before it was considered on Report. I addressed numerous public meetings, and at nearly every one I was subjected to a considerable amount of heckling. At several meetings I was asked my views on the Scottish Temperance Bill. I always replied that I was in favour of the principle of the Bill, provided that the areas in which the poll was to be taken were large, and that some form of machinery should be set up for compensating the displaced licence holders at the sole expense of the licensed trade. I was never asked any supplementary questions on this subject at any meeting, nor was the first question asked me at more than a comparatively few of my meetings. If I had been advocating unpopular views on this point, is it not certain that my opponents would have pressed me constantly and urged me to put forward these unpopular views, and asked supplementary questions on them? My answer, advocating temperance reform in large areas and a measure of compulsory insurance, was in accordance with the opinion not only of my own political supporters, but of many of my, at that time, political opponents. Anyhow, having given these answers, will anyone say that I should be justified in voting for this Bill as it stands now?
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI should think so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said he told the heckler that he was in favour of the principle of the Bill.
§ Major HOPETo make it quite clear, I said I supported the Bill provided there was some machinery set up for compen- 520 sating licence holders out of funds provided by the State itself, and also that the areas in which local option was to be decided were large. Even the Lord Advocate himself, on the Second Reading, could not assert that there was a majority in Scotland against some form of compulsory insurance. The best he could put forward was that there was a large body of opinion opposed to compulsory insurance, and that he agreed with them. Surely even the addition of the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland to a large body of public opinion does not convert it into a majority of Scottish opinion. As regards the areas now, surely the Secretary for Scotland will not say they are very large. I acknowledge that my term "large" is vague, but I am quite prepared to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has any objection to that scheme which was put forward in another place by Lord Balfour of Burleigh under which county and town councils would delimit suitable areas for taking a poll containing not less tha 2,000 electors. Would this provide unreasonably large areas? I should like to draw attention to another aspect of the popular demand in Scotland theory. After the House, last February, decided to disagree with the Lords Amendments en bloc we adjourned for a short holiday. Nearly all the Scottish Members held meetings in their constituencies. Was not that a chance for a raging campaign in favour of the Bill and nothing but the Bill; for denouncing on the platform the iniquities of disinterested management and compulsory insurance, and for urging the dangers of extending the time limit beyond the magic period of five years? But did hon. Members opposite take that opportunity? I think not. I have been refreshing my memory by referring to the newspaper reports, and I find that the Secretary for Scotland himself had a somewhat stormy meeting in Glasgow when he explained his own uncompromising attitude on the Bill.
§ Major HOPEI have the newspaper report in which it is stated that there was considerable interruption, and that the Secretary for Scotland was constantly heckled. He was heckled in regard to this very Bill.
§ Major HOPEAnyhow it was not a favourable meeting to him.
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe hon. Member is entirely mistaken. The great body of the meeting was favourable. There may have been one or two interruptions. It is a very common occurrence in Scotland. The hon. Member may have had interruptions at his meetings.
§ Major HOPEWe may leave it at that. His meeting was not enthusiastically in favour of the Bill.
§ Major HOPEI say that the meetings addressed by Scottish Liberal Members were not enthusiastically in favour of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman cannot produce any report in any newspaper which gives the impression that his meetings were in favour of the Bill. The report I have read gave a very different colour. I see that the hon. Members for East and South Edinburgh advocated disinterested management, during the recess. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh wished to have that inserted in a separate Bill. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division advocated compulsory insurance, but hardly any of the other Scottish Liberal Members mentioned the Temperance Bill during the recess. They confined themselves to advocating the advantages of Free Trade. It was more immediately important no doubt than the Scottish Temperance Bill last March. The Scottish Members were also pretty well employed defending the National Insurance Act, and answering complaints by their constituents. That is the picture of the Scottish people demanding the Bill and nothing but the Bill just after this House had disagreed with the Amendments of the House. of Lords. What a chance was thrown away by hon. Members opposite! There is, I believe, a majority of the Scottish people in favour of a settlement of this great question of temperance reform on the lines of compromise, which is a method always acceptable, where it is humanly possible, to the Scottish people. But what is compromise? I believe it is defined as a settlement of differences by mutual concessions and agreements. What mutual concessions are offered by the Secretary for Scotland? I had hoped that on the Second Reading of the Bill last month he would have indicated some golden bridge on which he would have permitted the Scottish Members to walk 522 before the passing into law of this Bill. He had another chance this evening, but he did not indicate any form of compromise by which the Bill could be passed into law this year. Does he really look on the House of Lords as a sort of inferior body which must come continually petitioning him in different forms? Is not the real method between parties who are honestly trying to come together to make one step towards each other? Is it not the turn of the Secretary of Scotland now to make a step? The House of Lords made the last step when they put forward their Amendments. The Secretary for Scotland threw them all out. He disagreed with the whole of the Lords Amendments. You cannot mention any Amendment of importance which he allowed this House to accept.
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe hon. and gallant Member laid great stress on the matter of the areas. I accepted an Amendment to increase the limit of population from 10,000 to 25,000. That is one Amendment, and there were a great many other Amendments.
§ Major HOPEI should like another one mentioned.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Member is not addressing the Chair. I would point out that this is not an occasion for dealing with the Lords Amendments of last Session. We are now discussing the Third Reading of the Bill.
§ Major HOPEI apologise. I was interrupted by the Secretary for Scotland. I think I am justified in saying that the Amendment as to areas did not deal with the county areas. It still left the parishes the areas as regards the counties. It was only a small concession to increase the limit of population from 10,000 to 25,000 as regards the burghs. I sincerely hope that the Secretary for Scotland will yet, even at the eleventh hour, put forward some suggestions for compromise and endeavour to bring about some measure of Scottish temperance reform which shall pass into law this year. By doing so I believe he will be consulting not only the interests and wishes of the large majority of the Scottish people, but consulting also his own political interests in Scotland.
§ Sir JOHN M'CALLUMI am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow. and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) has 523 left, because he stated certain things that one would have liked to reply to. In his absence I think it would be better simply to make some general remarks. The hon. Member is decidedly opposed to the fundamental principle of this Bill, which is "to promote temperance in Scotland by conferring on the electors in prescribed areas control over the grant and renewal of certificates, by securing a later hour of opening for licensed premises, by amending the law relating to clubs, and by other provisions incidental thereto." Minor processes have been tried for a long time in connection with the restriction of licences, and they have utterly failed, and it is because we believe that more drastic measures are needed in various parts of Scotland that we are now anxious that this Bill should be put on the Statute Book at an early date. Few words are needed to support the Bill now before the House. The question is well known in every nook and corner of Scotland. For fifty years we have been discussing this question, and we know it root and branch. Therefore, to talk of any other methods might seem to indicate that Scotland does not know its own mind on the subject of this Bill. We know, by experiences in the past, that there is need for drastic reform, and this reform is introduced in a very simple way by giving the right to manage the traffic and to say whether we shall reduce licences or abolish them, or in certain districts say that, instead of opening at six in the morning, as is done in London, and carrying on until half-past twelve o'clock at night, they must not open until ten in the morning and must close at ten at night. I have great pleasure in stating that the alteration of the hour of closing a few years ago from eleven till ten o'clock has had a most wonderful result. Naturally, we think that if one hour has made such a difference in Scotland, what would the whole twelve hours make? It is simply a question of proportion which anyone can understand. Sunday closing has gone on for a long time in Scotland, and we know the opposition that arose to it. It is fifty-nine years since we introduced that measure, and where the magistrates have power to go still further, and where those powers have been exercised, the result has been most wonderful in certain quarters.
Social reformers are now anxious for further reform, and those steps that have been made are now the envy of both Eng- 524 land and Ireland. It is not education, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow University indicated, that brought about this change, for eight years ago Scotland was drinking £1 a head more than England and now it is drinking 15s. 3d. less. That is a very marked change. We were educated for forty years previous to the last eight years, but certain things have been in operation since then which have been of great advantage. There has been an arousing of the public conscience in Scotland. People are beginning to realise that something must be done which has never been done before. If you visit Edinburgh and Glasgow on Saturday night, the Salt Market in Glasgow and the Grass Market in Edinburgh, you will see scenes of drunkenness there that can only be described by the words "simply hell." While the average is very low in Scotland, because there are so many teetotalers, the drunkenness which goes on in certain quarters can only be dealt with by very drastic measures. That is the reason for this Bill. In the locality which I have the honour to represent we have now reduced drunkenness to a lower proportion of the population than in any other city, town, or village in Scotland. How has it come about? Thirteen years ago we had two clubs. Those clubs created a great amount of drunkenness on Sunday morning. A great many people went and got liquor before their breakfast. The result was that we used to have from thirty to forty drunkards before us on a Monday morning. The magistrates of that day, of whom I had the honour to be one, made up their minds that they would punish these men very severely, as they were simply nuisances in the street, and they were a pain and a disgrace to their families, who were glad that we dealt with them as we did. The policy we adopted was this: They were fined £2 or thirty days' imprisonment. In most cases the fine was paid, and in some cases it was paid by the magistrates themselves out of consideration for the men's families. In nine months there was a great improvement, and in another nine months both those clubs were closed. When we tasted the whisky, what did we find That it was like the stuff they sent out to South Africa. Have we no right to protect men from a position such as I have indicated?
We used to have six or seven hundred men coming from Glasgow on Sunday for the purpose of getting drink, because we were the right number of miles apart. It became a perfect nuisance. We told hotel 525 proprietors distinctly that unless they exercised a little more discretion in giving liquor to those people their licences would be taken away. Eventually some of the licences were taken away, and if you went into Paisley on a Sunday and went to an hotel you could not get any drink in it. They have only a six days' licence. Public opinion has backed up the action of the magistrates, and nobody to-day has any desire to return to the old methods. What we effected shows clearly what may be done by this Bill. We used the means at our disposal. We could only use it on one day in the week, but we want to be able to use it every day. In the circumstances, I think that this is a very mild Bill. It will never interfere with the liberty of anyone who wishes to live a noble and straightforward life. Those who desire liquor will have an opportunity of possessing it through the ordinary channels. We are only asking for what has been done in many places throughout the world, particularly in the States and the Colonies, and it has wrought one admirable result. In some of these States, you cannot get liquor under any conditions, and you will And drunkenness there at a lower ebb than in any district which I could mention in the British Isles, except where the principle is now adopted, of which I have been speaking.
In the circumstances I love this Bill, and because the people want it, I hope that the House of Commons will have the common sense to pass it as they did before, with a right royal majority larger than any of the majorities which we have had on the other Bills. It will gladden the hearts of many who are social reformers in Scotland, and it will take out of the way of temptation others who are weak and unable to resist temptation, and if there is anything noble in the nature of manhood it is that we should be willing to make sacrifices for the sake of others. On that account, when I look round and see our prisons, our poor houses, and our asylums, I wonder that some of those who come from various constituencies in Scotland do not vote straight for a Bill of this kind. This evil is the canker worm that is eating into our public life, because it slays not a few thousands, but fifty or sixty thousand in the year. If then, as we maintain, this Bill can accomplish what we believe by argument and reason has been so clearly shown in Committee and also on the First, Second, and Third Readings of the Bill, I trust that within a measurable time the House of Lords will have their 526 eyes opened, and see that it is just, right and wise without any trouble and without waiting for the result of the parliament Act to give us this Bill within the next few weeks.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI am sure we must all have listened to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down with feelings of absolute agreement, so far as concerns the sentiments which he has expressed, but in regard to his arguments, I submit that they were entirely upon our side, though they were not intended to be so. I do not suppose that anything we can say in regard to this measure will divorce him from his love. But he has shown us from his own remarks that in Scotland they do not want this Bill shoved down the people's throats against their will, but rather that they should have solid and sober magistrates like the hon. Gentleman himself, men who are not afraid to do their work, with the result that sobriety follows upon their action. An hon. Member has stated that in Scotland they are now ready for local option. That may be so in regard to Paisley, but Paisley is not Scotland, and I would point out that the rest of Scotland is not ready for local option. I am perfectly well aware that all the prohibitionists in Scotland are asking for it, but that is a very different matter. This Bill is entitled the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, to promote temperance in Scotland, and it is backed by the Secretary for Scotland, and supported by the Lord Advocate. But will it carry out what it professes on the face of it to carry out? I am firmly convinced, for my part, that, though there may be one or two good points in it, such as those relating to clubs and earlier closing, it will actually do more harm than good. Of course, we know what is going to happen. If one prefers one's own opinion, and does not agree with every single word that the Secretary for Scotland or his supporters say, then one is pariah and an outcast. Hon. Members know that as well as I do.
One of the greatest temperance reformers in this House, a man who probably knows more about the temperance movement than anyone here, suggested a simple Amendment for insertion in the Bill, and, so far as the Liberal party is concerned, he became a Pariah and an outcast. He is not here to-night. He has said all he has got to say, but you have absolutely taken no notice of what he advanced, because he did not happen to 527 toe the line as the Secretary for Scotland knows how to toe it. This Bill, of course, will be passed to-night, and, so far as this House is concerned, it will be finished with it, and the measure will go to another place. If there should be a General Election, hon. Members, opposite, when they go to the country, will say on the platform that they have passed this great measure of reform; but if they discover that a good many people in Scotland do not like the interference which the Bill sets up, they will come down and they will say, "Oh, you need not be a bit afraid of it." And that is exactly my own impression of what the effect of the Bill will be. The attitude I have always taken upon this question is that I do not believe in prohibition by law; I do not believe that you can make a man an abstainer by order. I am not going to quarrel with prohibitionists. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland looks upon me, I will not say as an enemy, but as one who takes a directly opposite view to his. I would point out that I have as much right to my opinion as the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) opposite, and I have got a bigger majority behind me in my country than he has in his. I am a Scotsman and he is a Welshman. There are more temperance people in this country than there are prohibitionists. Therefore it is true to say that I have got a bigger body of opinion behind me than he has. The Secretary for Scotland was good enough, for no particular reason this afternoon, to say that the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division knows ten times more about this subject than I do.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI said the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs knows ten times as much as the Noble Lord.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI think that is very likely, but my real point is that I know ten times more about Scotland than the Secretary for Scotland does, and I am perfectly certain that if he thinks this Bill is going to do any good in Scotland, he is only showing his absolute ignorance of that country of his adoption. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland bought a kilt and thought that made him a Scotsman. Apparently I am wrong in that. The right hon. Gentleman did not buy a kilt. I think the right hon. Gentleman is doing very poor service indeed to temperance 528 in Scotland by this Bill. I wish to get to the bed-rock points in connection with this measure. We will take, for instance, the Clauses dealing with the areas. Does any hon. Gentleman really think that by simply dividing comparatively small towns into prohibition areas he is any more likely to snake those towns sober? Take a town like Perth, with a population of 30,000. That town has six wards, and if you divided it into six areas you would find that you would have prohibition in one area of Perth and not in another. The dividing line between two areas might run up the middle of the street, and you would have prohibition on one side and not on the other. If a public-house was removed from one area, the result would be to increase the profits of the house in the adjoining area where there was not prohibition. Does the hon. Gentleman think that such a proposal is going to promote temperance? I submit that it is going to double the profits of the men on the other side of the road. Suppose a man is in a dry area, where it is difficult to get drink, he could go to the nearest telephone in order to ring up someone to supply him. He could ask the nearest licensed grocer or publican in some street, which is not in a prohibition area, to send down as many cases of whisky as he required and take it to his house, and quite easily keep within the law.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEThe sort of thing that would never take place in the hon. Member's house. Working men probably would pool one order for what they wanted, and thus you would really have State-erected shebeens, and hon. Members opposite know that as well as I do. [An HON. MEMBER: "Never."] Why not?
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEsaid go to the nearest telephone, where you could pay a penny or twopence and send a message. There is no law against it.
§ Mr. MORTONAre you to get drink by telephone?
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEYou talk about prohibition, and you would have a shebeen in that street which you could not touch. I think the result will 529 be that you will drive the drinking out of properly controlled licensed houses and you will be putting it into other houses, to the great detriment of the inhabitants. You talk a great deal about what this Bill is going to do. I do not wish to say anything in the least offensive to working men. You are doing nothing to improve their conditions or to remove the reasons, but I think you would find it very difficult to carry any prohibition measure in a working-class area. Does the Secretary for Scotland think he would carry prohibition in working-class areas? He knows perfectly well that he could not carry a measure of this sort, even in a great sober constituency like St. Rollox. I think it would have been far better to have had a proper licensing board of men who would not be afraid to do their work in spite of public opinion. It would be much better to strengthen the licensing bench rather than putting the job in the hands of the people themselves. You only trust the people with your own particular nostrums, so that you really do not trust them. There is nothing in the Bill which is going to improve the quality of the liquor that is drunk. Why should not hon. Member's have done something to secure a better class of liquor? You are not going to stop people getting drink, and you might have done something to secure a better class of spirit. You could have done that by putting a prohibitive tariff on spirits, and have beer and other light drinks sold at different places. The publican does not sell drink because he wants to do so, but because he desires to make a profit, and if there was more profit out of beer than whisky it would encourage him to sell the beer and you will get the people to drink beer instead of whisky, which I believe would have a far better temperance effect. The hon. Member for Paisley (Sir J. M. M'Callum) pointed out how people in this country were gradually becoming more sober. I most thoroughly agree with him and with the hon. Member for Edinburgh University, when they said that what you have got to do is not so much to deal with the existing drinker but rather with the young man to try and prevent him falling into the habits of his older relatives. You could do far more by example. What sort of example do the Liberal party set? Surely if you say that prohibition is a thing to have, and that absolute abstinence is good why do you not act up to your principles. I know the hon. Member opposite is a prohibitionist, but I am not. I believe in moderate temperance.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONThis is not a. prohibition Bill.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEWhat. is it if it is not, although in one sense I do not think it is, nor do I think that you will get much advantage out of it.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONProhibition Bills do net permit a man to have spirits in his house.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEHon. Members want to have prohibition for other people and leave themselves free. Why do not hon. Members practise what they preach? I do not wish to say anything offensive, but take the whole Coalition and what support would prohibition get? You would get strong support from the Labour party, but the Irish party and the others think alike, and would you suggest you are going to have prohibition in this House in the smoking room and in the dining room? If you did you would know the exact sincerity of hon. Members.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI do not think it would be carried very far. The Secretary for Scotland referring to seine remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Major Hope) said that he had discussed this measure very fully at the election, and I think he gave us to understand that he was returned owing to this Bill to a great extent, or owing to his attitude on the Bill.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINELet. us take the meetings at the right hon. Gentleman's election, and what was the result? He went to a by-election, brought up this Bill as a plank in his programme, and came back with 2,000 less votes. That is probably a sign of what is to come. That is the reason why hon. Members opposite do not wish to bring this Bill before the country. The Secretary for Scotland said that he was not in favour of allowing any kind of insurance. I think hon. Members opposite would have been wise to have allowed some reasonable measure of insurance—whether compulsory or otherwise I cannot discuss now. The Secretary for Scotland himself, who says that he wishes to trust the people, has stated that there is a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of compulsory insurance.
MARQUESS OF TULLIBARDINEPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me who said this? On the 1st April, 1912, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
No doubt there is a demand for compulsory mutual insurance.. … No one objects to the trade insuring itself; no one objects to the most complete system of insurance in the trade.…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1912; cols. 887–8, Vol. X XXVI.]One must couple that with the statement of the Lord Advocate. The right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Advocate, of course, always agree on all points. The Lord Advocate in the same Debate said:—The question of compulsory insurance has always presented itself to me under two aspects: Firstly, as an indispensable act of justice to a dispossessed publican: and, secondly, as a method of smoothing the path to proposing a no-licence resolution. It is on the latter aspect, of course, that it appeals to me most strongly."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 1st April, 1912. cols.953–4, Vol. XXXVI.]He went on to say that he was in favour of some method of insurance, but the forces of righteousness were too strong for him. He said that was a matter for the Committee; but in Committee it was blocked, and we were practically not allowed to deal with it. Hon. Members opposite will carry this Bill to-night, but they will carry it not by the temperance vote, but by the help of people who are in favour of other things altogether. They will carry it by the help of hon. Members from Ireland, although there is hardly a single Member amongst them who is really in favour of prohibition. I wonder how many of them are in favour of prohibition for Ireland? Yet they are going to vote for it in Scotland. Hon. Members should practice what they preach. How many of them would hold up their hands now to take the pledge as a real good example to 'Scotland? They are much more likely to go and drink toasts to Cabinet Ministers to show their confidence in them, probably in the wine of their own country or in the wine of France. Very seldom will you find at these great Liberal banquets toasts drunk in soda water or ginger beer. I submit that, hon. Members should practice what they preach before they attempt to impose a Bill of this description upon other people.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEThe Noble Lord opposite has referred to this measure over and over again as a Prohibition Bill. I do not think that anyone on this side is in favour of prohibition by Act of Parliament. This is not a Prohibition Bill. It is not even a Temperance Bill. It does not say to anyone, "Thou shalt not drink." It makes no pretence of anything of the kind: It is not a "Close-the-bar" Bill. 532 It is as much a "Keep-the-bar-open" Bill. It allows the people of Scotland to keep the bars open for all time if they like. There is no reason why the Noble Lord should not carry on a propaganda in his own district to keep the bars open. This is a local option Bill. It proceeds upon the assumption that certain localities are ripe for reform before others.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEYou can have the existing public-houses continued if you like for all time. The Bill is purely and simply a democratic measure under which you say to the people of the different localities, "If you wish to keep the bars open, keep them open; but if you wish to close them, no other people shall say that you shall not." Several Members opposite have asked us to compromise. What do they mean by compromise They mean, "Let us keep what we have, while you keep on conceding." We have been conceding all along the line. They begin by asking that in the contest they may take off the gloves. When we allow them to take off the gloves, they say. "We want you to compromise. Let us put on knuckle-dusters." Their demand is a constant attempt to wreck the Bill. It is not an honest attempt to compromise on the merits of the case. Take the Suggestions of the House of Lords. They were not to improve the Bill, not to make the principle more effective, not to give the people of Scotland a greater right, or to allow the right to be exercised with greater simplicity or fairness. They were simply an attempt to smash the Bill altogether. They proposed to include another option on the ballot paper. There are three under the Bill: Are you in favour of licences being continued; are you in favour of licences being reduced; are you in favour of licences being abolished? They wanted to put in a fourth—in other words, they wanted to split the vote. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I think they did. I believe that all those interested in the liquor traffic who supported the proposal did so from the motive that it would be a vote-splitting option. At any rate, if that was not the motive, it would certainly have that effect. If you ask people to vote for four candidates instead of three, the chances of one of the original three winning are reduced. The late Leader of the Opposition said, "We want to give Scotland a larger choice." Suppose you 533 had said that at the Derry election, and had nominated a Roman Catholic Nationalist. What would have been the result? Simply vote-splitting for the majority and a win for the minority. The choice, instead of being larger, would have been less. So it is in Scotland. If you put another option on the ballot paper, you will split the votes of the reformers. So much so is that the case that with the three existing issues there is the provision that in case "no licence" is not carried by a three-fifths majority, all those who vote "no licence" are added to those who vote for reduction. In that way you avoid the vote-splitting influence within the three issues. But to add a fourth option without making a similar provision is to make it impossible ever to get the 60 per cent, necessary to carry "no licence." Having told them that they are making no provision against the vote-splitting influence of that extra option they suggest numbering the options in the order of the voter's choice, but they examine "no licence" votes first and rule it out if they do not reach 60 per cent.
If disinterested management were perfectly right and a good and wise reform, I would still oppose it because of the wrecking influence that it would have upon the other issues. We were asked to compromise by so weakening the measure that it would be ineffective altogether. Take the other suggestion of a time limit of ten years instead of five. If this were a prohibition, a close-the-bar measure, I would be willing to consider a time limit, but this is a local option measure and I am not going to deny the people of Scotland the opportunity of exercising their judgment for ten years. The insurance Amendment was also on wrecking lines. If an insurance system could be wholly detached from the Temperance Bill I should give it all the support in my power. If the trade wants to insure any of their number against the misfortune of having their licences taken away, I would be quite willing to support a distinct measure of insurance, but it would have to be detached entirely from the temperance measure. It is not part and parcel of a temperance measure and you should not have insurance attached to it. Throughout the whole of this controversy, we are opposed by those who are opposed in principle to the right of the people managing their own affairs in their several localities. In regard to the promise that this Bill holds out to Scotland. The sense of danger in the minds of those who oppose it is this: That if the 534 people of Scotland have the right to close the bars they would exercise that right and close them. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Why, then, oppose the Bill? If this is a Local Option Bill, why should you oppose it, if you think they will keep the public-houses open? As a matter of fact, you think they will close them. The evidence—and that evidence is easily got all over the country—is that the people are waking up to the idea that the prevalence of the facilities for getting drink increases the amount consumed. You believe that. The people believe that! If that is true, the chances are that the people of Scotland will wake up to the necessity of diminishing the temptation of young people to drink. An endeavour will be made to put into force this preventive measure. It will not cure drunkenness. It will not make people sober by Act of Parliament. But it will tend to prevent drunkards being made. The evidence that we have been able to accumulate from our Dominions Overseas and other countries shows that if you close the bars, to that extent you diminish the temptation to take drink. If you diminish the temptation to take drink you diminish the number of people who ultimately become addicted to drink. In short, decrease the facilities for getting drink, and you decrease the amount consumed. Decrease the amount consumed, and you decrease the crime, poverty, misery, disease, and premature death associated with the use of it.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MACKINDERI should like to refer to a speech which was made a short time ago in debate by the hon. Member who sits for Paisley (Sir J. M. McCallum). The hon. Member painted for us heaven and hell in Scotland: Heaven in Paisley, hell at the Salt Market. The Salt Market is not quite in my Constituency, but it is next door to it. In doing that it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman voiced the main objection that many of us on this side have to the principle of local option. Are you quite sure that in making heaven locally you do not also make hell locally? Are you quite sure that Paisley is not to some extent responsible for the Salt Market? The tramway line is not a very long one between the two places. If you refuse to admit to heaven the sinner there is only one place for him to go to, and that is hell.
§ Mr. MACKINDERYou come to the second absurdity involved in this Bill—the voting for "no licence." You may get Paisley when it is cleaned out to vote for "no licence," but how are you going to get the Salt Market as a whole to vote for "no licence?" That is fundamentally our objection to the Bill. I do not think it could have been put more picturesquely than by the hon. Member for Paisley. We believe, to adopt his words, that the result of this Bill will be to give you heaven and hell locally, and in patches in different parts of the country; and in proportion as you shut the sinner out of heaven you shut him out of all prospect of heaven, and he will therefore continue only to have hell. He will then revert, we may feel pretty certain, to the only consolation that hell can give him, and he most certainly will not vote for a removal of that consolation by carrying your "no licence" measure. That is not an exaggerated way to put it! I am simply putting it that way for the purpose of my argument, and in the phraseology of the hon. Gentleman who spoke to us with such eloquence and power, and with such love, as he put it, for this measure. That is fundamentally our objection to the Bill. But we go to deeper matters than that. We object to local tyranny.
The hon. Gentleman opposite who has just spoken, with many others, said lie wished to leave the decision to the people of the locality. Are they quite sure they mean that? Have they analysed the meaning of their words? By the people of the locality they mean the majority. They do not mean the people as a whole; they are going to leave to the majorities in the district the power of doing—what? In a single parish there may be only a single public-house. The majority will have the power, not to decide a general question of legislation in the way we legislate supremely in this House, but in a subordinate capacity they are to settle the administrative question: a question which contains judicial aspects and which involves consideration of the way in which that particular public-house has been conducted. That is a question which may very easily in a parish of a few hundred inhabitants involve matters of personal spite and personal feeling. Precisely to eliminate all that we have established in our system of justice in this country. If justice and freedom mean anything, it is not justice and freedom for the majority, but for the 536 minority. We do not consider that is the position that you are seeking to establish. I believe your Bill, to a large extent, will be a dead letter, and that the position you are seeking to establish is one of local tyranny. You say that your sole object is to enable the people of a locality—and you mean the majority—to say they shall not drink. They will say to those whom this Bill would affect, "Thou shalt not drink, but I shall drink at home or in my club."
§ Dr. CHAPPLEThat is not in the Bill.
§ Mr. MACKINDERI cannot help that. The Bill will not remove the fact.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEThe Bill says, "Thou shalt not sell."
§ Mr. MACKINDERI think I am quoting the hon. Member's words. He said, "Thou shalt not drink." He said the very object of the Bill was that in a particular district they should say to the people, "Thou shalt not drink."
§ Dr. CHAPPLENo, no. What I said was the Bill did not say, "Thou shalt not drink "; I was not in favour of that. I said this Bill says, "Thou shalt not sell," unless the people will it.
§ Mr. MACKINDERIt is a question of splitting hairs. So far as I can see, "Thou shalt not sell" is equivalent to saying, "Thou shalt not drink." The hon. Member's own contention is that by reducing the number of those who buy drink you will reduce the amount of drink consumed. When you say, "Thou shalt not sell," you are effectively saying, "Thou shalt not drink." If that be the case, you are putting it in the hands of the majority to tyrannise over the people of the district not in a legislative, but in an administrative way. There would be included in that majority a considerable number of those who, like himself, are able to drink in their own houses or in their clubs. Simply by being a majority in any particular district they are able to say, "We want a pleasant district; we want to be rid of a nuisance; we want to throw that nuisance into a neighbouring district; we do not care if we make hell of that district if only we make heaven of ours. So long as we have our district free from the public-house we do not care what happens to our neighbour, or what the result will be." You are attempting to establish a system of local tyranny, and I use the word advisedly, because it is. 537 tyranny, which is brought to bear upon single individuals, the tenant of a public-house in the parish which has only one public-house, and as a result of an agitation which may involve questions of a personal character, which ought to be subject to judicial investigation. As I ventured to say on a former occasion, you are attempting to convert into Marconi Committees all those parishes of Scotland. You are handing over to a non-judicial popular authority these matters which it is not capable of dealing with. I am totally opposed to the principle of this Bill. The hon. Member for Paisley read out the short title of the Bill. Although it is of considerable length, still it passes for a short title, yet, curiously, it leaves out to a large extent the permanent essential principle around which our contest is waged, namely, that of local option. I thoroughly and profoundly disbelieve in the principle of local option. I know that, for the moment, certain Members from Scotland, who are in the majority, though they do not represent the same majority of electors in Scotland, having been steam-rolled, have agreed to give up their opposition of that Bill of last year, when they prayed that the Whips should be taken off. In order to keep the Government in power, and not to jeopardise their holidays, they will agree to the conditions which are imposed upon them, and go submissively into the Lobby together. Half of them do not believe in the fundamental principles which are involved in this Bill, and I say, unhesitatingly, I am totally and absolutely opposed to it. Apart from that, I contend I am just as much an advocate of temperance as they are. They believe in tyrannical methods. They believe in saying, "No, thou shalt not." I believe in constructive methods. The rose has its thorns. Your idea is to get rid of the thorns. You are thinking of the thorn all the time and destroying the rose.
It is quite inevitable, human nature being what it is, that human beings shall wish to live, not the dour, sour life that you would impose upon them, but something with social light and warmth in it, and I believe that if you go counter to that natural human propensity for social life and all that makes for the elegance, the leisure, and the beauty of life, you will have a reaction which will sweep your Bill, and you with it, completely away. Throughout history you have the same experience. Wherever you resort to these 538 tyrannical methods, and attempt to drill morality into the people, the last state of the people is worse than the first. The only method in my opinion by which you can permanently cure these propensities which you are attempting, as I am, to stop, is by recognising that vice has an aspect which is an exaggeration of virtue. You must recognise the social propensities of men and provide for them. What is the present situation? It is that your magistrates have reduced to the mere condition of drinking hells the public-houses which they licence in the place of permitting them to be what they ought to be, free and open clubs with no entrance fee, similar to what they have in certain countries, which are free from that which has cursed our present system. If you had public-houses with windows right down to the ground, glazed over the whole front, so that the whole of the people might see what was going on within; if you permitted games of an ordinary social character; if you allowed men to go there with their wives and children; if you had family gatherings there; if you allowed some escape from the narrow conditions of the ordinary working man's life, you would do something real and permanent for temperance.
The curse of the present system is the narrow view which you have managed to impose upon your party. A small element consisting of bigots dictates the policy. This small minority sell their votes now, and impose upon Ministers and upon candidates where there are small majorities, the stern necessity of bringing forward the Bills which they advocate, and which the majority do not believe in. That is the fundamental position under our present electoral system. It is nod the thousand men on one side who have studied the conditions and incline one way, or the one thousand men on the other side who have also studied the condition and incline to the other way who have the power. These two thousand balance one another, but then there come in the bigots, like the small minorities of this teetotal party, and they sell their votes and they decide on which side the majority shall be, and the result is that we are ruled not by the common sense and not by the general feeling of the country we are ruled by extremists and bigots and purblind men. The consequence is that we shall put upon the Statute Book legislation which will become the laughing-stock 539 of history. For that reason I oppose the Third Reading and support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
§ Mr. MUNROThe hon. Member who has just sat down has delivered a very eloquent and somewhat violent speech, and has used a good deal of picturesque nomenclature. I do not intend to follow him in that particular direction. Perhaps he will forgive me for saying that the speech which he has delivered would have been more apposite if it had been delivered thirty years ago, on the first occasion when a Bill substantially in the same terms as this was proposed in the House. A good deal of water has flowed under the bridges since that time. The hon. Member has made a speech which shows that he has been both deaf and blind to all recent history in connection with this proposal. He has forgotten that for many years, both in this House and in Scotland, the country and the House have pronounced unhesitatingly in favour of this measure. He has forgotten the very recent history of this Bill in the House. I could not help thinking as I listened that the speech which he was making was in very marked contrast to the very pacific speeches which we listened to only a few weeks ago on the Second Reading of this Bill from that side of the House. On that occasion we were informed that the principle of the Bill at least for the purposes of argument, was being accepted by the Opposition. We were told on that occasion that hon. Members opposite would not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, founded, as we are now told, upon a most vicious principle, and that they would swallow their convictions and swallow the Bill, not as an agreeable draught, but as a nauseous dose to be taken with a wry face.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERHear hear.
§ Mr. MUNROThe hon. Baronet opposite evidently approves of that view, and that position was very clearly taken up and expressed by many hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member silo has just spoken. They declared that they were prepared to vote for the Second Reading of a Bill embodying this vicious principle only a few weeks ago, but to-night the hon. Member for Camlachie has told us that he is thoroughly and profoundly opposed to the principle of this Bill and disbelieves in it entirely. What is the reason of this change of attitude between 540 the Second and Third Reading of this Bill? The real secret is that while the Opposition were prepared to accept the principle of this Bill on the Second Reading, they will not vote for the Third Reading because they cannot get their way with regard to the application of that principle as set forth in this measure. Surely that is more political petulance than statesmanship in the case of those who adopted that attitude so short a time ago and have reversed it now What is the real situation with regard to this measure? It is too late to make speeches impugning the principle, because in Scotland for a very long time Bills in substantially the same terms as this measure have been approved of by large majorities of the representative bodies in Scotland and by large majorities in this House as well. Now the hon. Member opposite comes forward at the eleventh hour and says, "We will not have your Bill unless you include in it certain proposals made in another place, which are three in number." We are entitled to ask—what evidence have you that the people in Scotland desire that the Amendments proposed in another place should be embodied in this Bill? I think the answer is that there is no such evidence. We have heard a great deal about disinterested management, but I would like to ask any hon. Member opposite who represents a Scottish constituency how many petitions he has received in favour of that proposal? I would also like to ask in how many constituencies do hon. Members opposite think they could carry a resolution in favour of that particular principle being introduced into this Bill?
§ Sir G. YOUNGERSpeaking for myself, I have received dozens of such petitions.
§ Mr. MUNROI think the hon. Baronet opposite has been more fortunate, or perhaps I should say less fortunate, than some of his colleagues.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEfought a teetotaler and a Liberal at the last election on the principle of this Bill, and I beat him handsomely.
Captain CAMPBELLMay I say that I have had a similar experience in this matter to that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs.
§ Mr. MUNROI do not want to continue the controversy, but I should like 541 very much to know the source of many of these representations. Many of them, no doubt, have been of an official character, but I repeat: Does any hon. Member who represents Scotland on the other side of the House think for a moment that the proposal to import into the Bill the principle of disinterested management would pass his executive committee if it were proposed there to-night or tomorrow? I do not believe that there is one Member sitting on that side of the House any more than there is on this side who could answer that question in the affirmative. In these circumstances, I venture to urge upon the Secretary for Scotland that he will make no concession with regard to the matters which the House of Lords introduced into the Bill last year. If he does so, I am quite certain that he will disappoint enlightened public opinion in Scotland. I am perfectly confident that he will alienate his best friends, and I am equally confident that he will delight some of his bitterest enemies if he does so. He has, so far, remained unmoved, either by coaxing or bullying in the matter, and it is unthinkable on this side of the House that he should retrace his steps and abandon the position which we rejoice that he occupies.
The alternatives before us are perfectly clear. The one alternative is that we should pass this Bill under the Parliament Act and wait for a year before getting it. The other is that we should accept those Amendments, embody them in the Bill, and pass the Bill so amended. We have no difficulty in making our choice. So far as the first alternative is concerned—I speak perfectly frankly, and speak only for myself—there is the possibility, before the Bill matures under the Parliament Act, of the demise of the present Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I said the "possibility." That is a risk that we are quite willing to undertake. So far as the other alternative is concerned, there is the certainty, not the possibility, that the Bill would prove a quite ineffective weapon of reform and would be a bitter disappointment to those who have been its good arid staunch friends for very many years. So much for our attitude. What of your attitude? May I put this question to any Scottish Member who sits on the other side of the House and who is probably going to vote against the Third Reading to-night. Is he quite certain that he correctly expresses the views of his 542 constituents, who for the sake of argument he is prepared to admit favour a Bill founded upon this principle, when he takes action with the full purpose, if possible, of destroying the Bill rather than accepting it in the form in which it is proposed on this side of the House?
§ Mr. MUNROThe Noble Lord is always certain of everything, but I venture to remind him that when the Bill was in another place, a Noble Lord, whose authority and information on this subject he will not dispute, said that it would be a calamity if, even in its present form, the Bill were lost. In these circumstances, our attitude is perfectly clear. It is to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, and, if Scottish Members on the other side decide to vote against it, the consequences are their own affair.
§ Mr. CLYDEWe have arrived at the final stage of the discussion of this Bill in its second year. As far as I can gather from the remarks of the hon. Member for Wick Burghs he has learned nothing from these discussions. His attitude is the attitude which best becomes the most uncompromising advocates of the extreme teetotal position—the position that they will have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. They will consider neither what is just and fair to the general public, nor what is indispensable to the fair treatment of the publican. There are two things which, so far as I am concerned, have always been paramount in my mind about the acceptance of this Bill. What do you ask me to do as an ordinary citizen —and I can only judge what you ask of my fellow citizens by considering how it appeals to me—what do you ask me by this Bill to do to my fellow citizens on the one hand and to the persons whose property and interests are engaged in a particular form of trade on the other? The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs addresses this House as if there was a clear issue always between the man who who stood up for the publican and the man who stood up for the temperance reform movement. If that is his opinion he has thoroughly misunderstood his countrymen.
I am not opposed to temperance reform. But it is your habit on public platforms to say that we are. I have had plenty of experience of that. You represent us always as tied to the trade, as standing up for the publican. The hon. Member for 543 the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) is even now inclined to assent to that. But in his mind he knows that there are others beside those who hold extreme views, whose minds have been fully alive to the appalling ravages of the particular evil which he is devoting all his zeal to combat, and I hope I can be fairer to him than he apparently wishes to be to me. Notwithstanding all that—if in his charity he can see his way to make room for it—notwithstanding that many of those who oppose him on this question would lend him a hand in the promotion of temperance reform, there remain two considerations which, so far as I am concerned, I cannot rid either my mind or my conscience of, and these are, my duty to my ordinary fellow citizens, and my duty to that particular class of fellow citizens who happen to be the victims of your particular legislative scheme.
Just observe what you are asking me to do. You are asking me to exercise this franchise in the particular ward of the burgh in which I live or in the parish of the county in which I reside. You are asking me to help to decide by my vote whether other people, who surely are as much entitled to regulate their own lives as I claim to be to regulate mine—you are asking me to tell these people that they shall not have power over their own lives. The hon. Member for Stirling gets out of it by saying that this is not a Bill to prevent people drinking in an area, but its object is to prevent people selling drink in an area. How do you think they can get drink except by buying it? Yet the object of this scheme is to make it difficult or impossible for them to buy it. If the extremists had their way I suppose the total area of the country that might be covered by the "No Licence" Resolution is as wide as the country itself. Do not let us deceive ourselves. You are asking me to undertake to tell my fellow citizens in the same ward or the same parish that they shall not drink a glass of beer or whisky. If it is not that, what does it mean except that I am to find my place among the moral cowards who know that they can buy their own drink elsewhere and keep it in their cupboards, while the working man can only get his drink at the public-house! Others can do that; I shall not. The only relief from a situation which I tell the House frankly, so far as I am concerned, would be intolerable—the only relief from that situation is, we are told, to be 544 found in the direction of that other option, which, we are told, is the split vote. Splitting the vote between what? I thought this was a case where there was to be public freedom of choice. What do you mean by splitting the vote? If you mean splitting the vote between "no drink" and "some drink," I understand you. But you cannot stand up for the Bill on that basis. If you mean splitting the vote in the sense that in place of three options there are four, what do you mean by splitting the vote? The expression "splitting the vote" and the argument against splitting the vote arises where there is a clean vote between black and white, or between "A" and "B," and somebody steps in and says, "Try 'C'; it is a middle course." That is not this Bill. This Bill has three options as it is.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEThere is a provision in the Bill in order to prevent those three options splitting the vote. The provision is that if "no licence" is not carried by the 60 per cent., those who voted "no licence" have their votes added to reduction. In that way you prevent confusion of the three issues, and there is no splitting of the vote.
§ Mr. CLYDENever was there a more flimsy, and I will say a less intelligent, objection urged to an argument than that. The hon. Member can only make it out by saying that there never was a proposal to treat the votes for disinterested management on the same principle as the votes for reduction are treated in the Bill.
§ Mr. CLYDEThat is not so, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) says. It is not so at all. Therefore, the last remnant, so far as I understand, of justification for the position which the hon. Member for Stirling took up on this point disappears.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEDoes the hon. and learned Member say that there will be a provision or that a provision has been suggested analogous to the one in the Bill for preventing the votes being split, if a fourth option is added?
§ Dr. CHAPPLEThat would not affect "no licence."
§ Mr. CLYDESo far as I am concerned, I cannot charge my mind at this moment with the various forms these proposals have taken, but this I do know, that the form which these proposals have taken certainly did not exclude a provision of that kind, and so far I know anything about them, in my mind, and in the minds of many of those who approved of that option, there was certainly nothing antagonistic to the inclusion of a proposal of that kind. I quite admit that I cannot change my mind upon the matter at the present time. So much for the public and for the attitude of mind which, so far as a great many people who believe like myself are concerned, makes it simply impossible, if one has any regard for the principles of liberty at all, to have anything to do with a proposal which, starkly and without limitation, asks one to take one's part in telling other people how they are to conduct their lives. That is as much their business as it is mine, and, please God, so long as I shall be able to control it, so it shall be mine.
Look at the other aspect of the question, that aspect which touches not the public but the publican. I know he is a common football for all extreme temperance reformers. I do not want to be unfair about that, but, after all, they very often talk as if it were so. I understand that there is still some difference of view remaining between the Secretary for Scotland and. the Lord Advocate. I have said what I have to say about that before, and I am not going to say anything about it again, except that I notice that the Secretary for Scotland resented somewhat warmly what I said this afternoon about what I understood to be his attitude towards the question of making some provision for fair treatment of the publican.
§ Mr. CLYDEIf I misrepresented the Tight hon. Gentleman I am sure I did not 'misinterpret the Lord Advocate, for precisely in the.same Debate, the Second Reading Debate last year, I am perfectly certain, for within the last few minutes I have read it over, that the Lord Advocate, whom I think I heard say a moment ago that he was not conscious of any difference with the Secretary for Scotland—
§ Mr. CLYDEAbout this Bill—I should be sorry to extend the matter unduly—certainly said that so far as his view was concerned the provision of some means of fair treatment for the publican was absolutely indispensable, and he certainly invited us to consider this proposal upstairs. To be quite serious, once more, what do you ask me to do as an elector in my ward or parish? I am going to make the assumption that I think there are far too many public-houses in my ward or parish. The assumption is, if you will, that I think there ought to be none, though I doubt very much if I should reach that view, but it is quite likely that I should reach the view that there are too many. Having reached that view you ask me to cast a vote in the ballot box under this Bill which will have the direct and immediate effect of taking away from 25 per cent. of the people in my ward in Edinburgh or in my parish in the county of Kinross, the business that they have conducted for years, the means of livelihood by which they live; and which will involve the forfeiture of the capital they have put into it. Even if you were to tell me that it was certain that I would do a great deal of good to a lot of people in that ward or parish, I should absolutely refuse to accomplish that purpose by either taking away from these people their business or annihilating the capital which they put into it. I should do so because I think it is monstrously unfair that in order to try and do some good you should victimise certain individuals. You are certain of the harm you will do. You are only perspective and speculative about the good you may do.
I have tried to put that perfectly clearly from the practical point of view, from the point of view of one to whom the Bill is going to apply. How anybody who was brought up in the traditions of liberty can put his hand to this Bill without making provision, on the one hand, in some such direction as disinterested management without either a reasonable solution of the problem with regard to our fellow citizens and their right to regulate their own lives, or, on the other hand, with regard to some fair form of insurance or compensation or extended time limit, or whatever you will, to make the thing applicable without gross injustice to those whose livelihood and capital depend on the business, I cannot understand at all. I perfectly understand the attitude of the hon. and learned Gentle- 547 man (Mr. Munro) or the hon. Member (Sir W. Menzies), both of whom let the cat out of the bag. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Munro) said the temperance organisations were the backbone of the Liberal organisations. I quite understand that. That is intelligible. But the less the hon. Member talks about political petulence in these circumstances the better. I quite understand the point of view of the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire, who says that no Liberal candidate need hope to stand in Scotland unless he swallows this Bill. It is a powerful argument, but it is not very eloquent of the opinion of the people of Scotland, and of those who talk glibly about the opinion of the people of Scotland, and who challenge us, for example, as to what success we would have if we went to the electors with a proposition that we would not swallow the Bill as it stands. There is nothing that I have stated more clearly than that while I feel, and everybody feels who considers the question, that the idea of local option has a great deal of attraction about it, and, it may be, a great deal that might be useful, there are only two conditions on which it could fairly be given effect to. These are, on the one hand, that by a system of disinterested management you should provide some palliative at all events for the monstrous interference with the right of everyone to conduct his own business, and, on the other hand, that there should be some means—I think there are many ways by which it could be done, and I admit that they are all different—of doing what is only fair and just to the publican who is going to be dispossessed.
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a little difference that arose between himself and myself, and between the Noble Lord and myself when he repeated the same statement later on in the discussion. Both the hon. and learned Member and the Noble Lord represented me as saying that there was a strong demand for compulsory insurance. I have not the exact words of the hon. and learned Member, but the Noble Lord stated that I said there was a strong demand by the people of Scotland. The Noble Lord was good enough to tell me the speech he referred to. I find that a considerable portion of the speech dealt with compulsory insurance, and that I made it abundantly clear that I was convinced that a very large portion of the trade were not 548 in favour of compulsory insurance. If the Noble Lord will refer to the words which precede those he referred to, he will find that was put in unmistakable language. I referred to the scheme brought forward by the hon. Baronet in 1910, and I reminded the House that when he brought it forward he received many letters against his own scheme from the members of the trade. It was quite evident that he had not the support of the trade.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThat was long ago.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI said it was in 1910. It appears, therefore, that there is a great difference of opinion as to the proposal of compulsory mutual insurance. The Noble Lord quoted a sentence from my speech in which I stated that there was a demand for compulsory mutual insurance, but he put in some words of his own which—
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI asked him to couple that sentence with what the Lord Advocate said in order to get at the proper meaning.
Mr. McKINNON WOODA most extraordinary way of interpreting a speech ! That is a novel kind of criticism, and it is not of a very satisfactory description. If the Noble Lord had read the next sentence he would have seen from where that demand proceeded. It was from the Scottish Mutual Insurance Association, which naturally wanted compulsory insurance that would add to their business—small blame to them ! I did not criticise them That was the demand I spoke of, and the demand from a section of the trade. That small point, which I have now disposed of, shows how dangerous it is to quote isolated sentences from a speech. Even the best reports cannot be altogether trusted. I remember once having the honour to reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. There was a question of settling some small matter by Order in Council. The hon. Baronet said that this was reverting to the Star Chamber, to which I replied that that was rather exaggerated language, for the only thing, after all, that had got to be settled was the question of small fringes of area, but the OFFICIAL REPORT, which was "Hansard" in those days, made me put the thing in this way: "This was an exaggeration of language, for the only thing that had to be settled was a very small question, only the question of female franchise." I have always felt that 549 it was very dangerous to take detached sentences. I always strive to take the general tenour and meaning of a speech. The hon. and learned Gentleman accused my hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs of having learned nothing. I have learned something from this Debate—that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been just as much opposed to this Bill if we had accepted the Lords Amendments as he is now, because his objection to the Bill is that it contains the principle of local option and. if we had accepted the House of Lords Amendments it would still have contained that principle. If there are four options instead of three, it may be true that it would be more difficult to carry any one of them. Still it contains the principle of local option, and that is what the hon. and learned Member condemns in unqualified terms.
He said, in a passage of immense eloquence and energy, that it was a proposal that he should establish himself as the master of the people and dictate to them what they were to drink. That might be an objection to some other Bill. It has nothing to do with the present Bill. The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University found fault with some of those on this side of the House for not having read the Bill, but he revealed the fact very soon that he had not read it himself, because lie said that 16 per cent. of the people could carry either reduction or veto.He talked about a minority carrying reduction or veto. That is quite an abuse of language. You have got to get a majority, and that majority has to represent a very substantial proportion of the electorate on the roll. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not of the people."] Not of the children. Under this Bill you have to obtain such a majority in order to carry a Veto Resolution that not one of us would like to have to obtain such a majority to become a representative in Parliament. I wonder how many of us would fail to qualify under the conditions of this Bill. The whole weight is against those who want to get prohibition under this Bill. They have got to get a three-fifths majority of those voting, and that majority must not be less than 30 per cent. of the electorate. That means a very considerable proportion of those voting. The number of people voting at school board or local elections would not carry either.
This Bill has been persistently misrepresented, I think persistently misunderstood, 550 because I do not think that it has been wilfully misrepresented, but it has been entirely misunderstood. The fact is that the Bill gives very great safeguards to the licence holder. I have learned this, that the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite is not based upon the fact that we have not accepted disinterested management, or compulsory insurance. The Opposition is to the root principle of the Bill. "I am against it," said the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, "root and branch. In this Bill I profoundly and thoroughly disbelieve." He went on with much eloquence, but some confusion of metaphor, to compare a public-house to the rose. He spoke of it as "the abode of beauty and elegance." I have never heard a public-house described in such eloquent and glowing terms. Most people apologise for the public-house as a necessity, but the hon. Member thinks it is a rose, and the abode of beauty and elegance. No wonder he objects to its being interfered with. Then another hon. Member opposite asked us to look at the thing fair and square. It is the old fight. The hon. Member for Glasgow University said that the reason why temperance legislation was passed was because we get the assistance of people who belong to temperance organisations; that they are very active people accustomed to organising, and that they went to the agents of the Liberal party and said, "Now, if you support temperance legislation, we will give you the aid of our valuable organisation." And so legislation was carried. That is the picture on one side. Is there no influence of the trade at elections? The hon. Gentleman who is the representative of the university sits high above these things. But there has been treating. There has been a great deal of influence on the part of the trade at elections. The influence is being exerted here to-day. And one of the reasons of the opposition to the Temperance (Scotland) Bill is because the English trade think it might be a pattern for an English measure. The hon. Member for Midlothian brought forward an extraordinary argument, and so did the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member always addresses the House with much eloquence and skill, but I do not think I ever heard an argument quite so bad as his this afternoon. He seems to think that the fact of his representing a Conservative constituency which has not supported temperance legislation proves that Scotland is against it. Let me paint out that there is a very large 551 number of Members who represent a group of constituencies, and who are in favour of local option, and even Members on that side of the House who come forward and seek to obtain votes at a Scottish election have, with the hon. Member for Midlothian, at least to render lip service to the cause of temperance. What did the hon. Member tell us in an argument against the Bill? Surely it was the most curious argument in the world. He said that when he fought Midlothian he appreciated that a large majority of the Scottish people demanded temperance reform? He told the hecklers that he was in favour of the Bill, and he said that they did not heckle him any more.
§ Major HOPEI said provided that the areas for the Bill were enlarged, and that a scheme of insurance provided by the trade itself was introduced into the measure.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI know the hon. Member said the area was to be enlarged, and we have agreed with the other House in that matter.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERNot as regards the wards.
Mr. McKINNON WOODDoes the hon. Baronet think that if you increase a town you do not automatically increase the area of the wards?
§ Sir G. YOUNGERNot necessarily.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI do not know that there is any exception. Speaking generally, you cannot increase the limit of population without automatically increasing the size of the wards. The important thing is that he said he was in favour of the principle of the Bill, and he is the only Member opposite who said he was in favour of the principle of local option. But, surely, the situation is clear'. I forget the exact numbers, but, it is something like eight or nine to one of those who represent Scotland who are not only in favour of
§ the principle of the Bill, but who put it forward at every election, and know in this matter they represent the opinion of Scotland. Of this thing I am sure, and that is that Scotland wants to see this principle of local option tried. Hon. Members say that the veto will not be carried. Very well, that will depend on the will of the people. If the people take the view they desire them to take, there will be no veto. Does any hon. Member opposite deny what the Royal Commission many years ago, even the Majority of them, admitted, that in many parts of Scotland there are far too many public-houses, and that the excessive number of licences is a direct incitement to temptation to drink. If that is the opinion of the people of Scotland they will use this Bill for the reduction of the number of licences. Hon. Members want this principle of local option. I do not think it is necessary to say any more upon this subject. I had hoped this controversy might be closed. I should have thought it was in the interests of the trade as well as of the people of Scotland that this matter should be settled, but I am afraid that the matter will have to go on. I do not know what will happen in another place, and I will not attempt to forecast their action in the matter, but I do hope that counsels of more conciliation will prevail. We have had no conciliation offered us from hon. Members opposite.
§ Major HOPEHave you offered any?
Mr. McKINNON WOODYes, I met all the Amendments I could meet, but I am not prepared to give up the principle of the Bill, and if anything is plain from this Debate and from the best Debate we had this Session on this Bill, it is that nothing will conciliate hon. Members opposite except the surrender of the principle of local option.
§ Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 166.
555| Division No. 189.] | AYES | [10.59 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Bethell, Sir J. H. |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Black, Arthur W. |
| Adamson, William | Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Boland, John Plus |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Barnes, George N. | Booth. Frederick Handel |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) | Bowerman, Charles W. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) |
| Alden, Percy | Barton, William | Brace, William |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Beale, Sir William Phipson | Brady, Patrick Joseph |
| Allen, Rt. Han. Charles P. (Stroud) | Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Brocklehurst. W. B. |
| Armitage, Robert | Beck, Arthur Cecil | Brunner, John F. L. |
| Arnold, Sydney | Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Bryce, J. Annan |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Bentham, George Jackson | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Jardine, Sir J, (Roxburgh) | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | John, Edward Thomas | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Hey wood) | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Jones, Leil Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Clough, William | Joyce, Michael | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Clynes, John R. | Keating, Matthew | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Kellaway, Frederick George | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Kelly, Edward | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Kilbride, Denis | Radford, G. H. |
| Cowan, W. H. | King, Joseph | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Crooks, William | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Reddy, Michael |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lardner, James C. R. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cullinan, John | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon) | Leach, Charles | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Dawes, J. A. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbifjhs) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lundon, Thomas | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneslde) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Robinson, Sidney |
| Dillon, John | Lynch, A. A. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Dons, William | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Duffy, William J. | McGhee, Richard | Rowlands, James |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Maclean, Donald | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Edwards. Sir Francis (Radnor) | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Elverston, Sir Harolil | Macpherson, James Ian | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wextord, N.) | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel) |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | M'Curdy, C. A. | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. |
| Firench, Peter | Manfield, Harry | Sheehy, David |
| Field, William | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Shortt, Edward |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Martin, Joseph | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Smyth, Thomas F. {Leitrim, S.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Meagher, Michael | Snowden, Philip |
| Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Menzies, Sir Walter | Sutherland, John E. |
| Glanville, H. J. | Middlebrook, William | Sutton, John |
| Goldstone, Frank | Millar, James Duncan | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Molloy, Michael | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones | Molteno, Percy Alport | Tennant, Harold John |
| Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Allred | Thomas, James Henry |
| Guest, Hon, Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Mooney, John J. | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Hackett, John | Morgan, George Hay | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Hancock, John Georue | Morrell, Philip | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Harcourt, R1. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Morison, Hector | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Muldoon, John | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Munro, Robert | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Webb, H. |
| Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Murphy, Martin J. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Needham, Christopher T. | White, Patrick (Heath, North) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Hayward, Evan | Nolan, Joseph | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Hazieton, Richard | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Wiles, Thomas |
| Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Nuttall, Harry | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Henry, Sir Charles | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wor[...]s.,[...]) |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Doherty, Philip | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Hinds, John | O'Donnell, Thomas | Winfrey, Richard |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E, H. | O'Dowd, John | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Hodge, John | O'Grady, James | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Hogge, James Myles | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Malley, William | Young, William (Perthshire, East) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Horns, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Shee, James John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Sullivan, Timothy | |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Palmer, Godlrey Mark |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Forster, Henry William | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Gardner, Ernest | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Gibbs, George Abraham | Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Astor, Waldorf | Goldsmith, Frank | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Greens, Walter Raymond | Randies, Sir John S. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gretton, John | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Rawson, Colonel R. H. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barnston, Harry | Haddock, George Bahr | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glou., E.) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Royds, Edmund |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Lawrence | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Harris, Henry Percy | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Helmsley, Viscount | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Sandys, G. J. |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Hickman, Cornel Thomas E. | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hills, John Waller | Stanier, Beville |
| Bird, Alfred | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Blair, Reginald | Hoare, S. J. G. | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Boles, Lieut.- Colonel Dennis Fortescue | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Stewart, Gershom |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Swift, Rigby |
| Boyton, James | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Sykes, Alan, John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Houston, Robert Paterson | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Burn. Colonel C. R. | Hunt, Rowland | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Butcher, John George | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. | Terrell, George (Wilts. N.W.) |
| Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Ingleby, Holcombe | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Jessell, Captain H. M. | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Cassel, Felix | Kerry, Earl of | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kintoch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Walker, Colonel William Hall |
| Cave, George | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent. Mid) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) | Weigall, Captain A. G. |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Weston, Colonel J. W. |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Locker-Lsmpson, O. (Ramsey) | White, Major G. D. (Lanes.. Southport) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | LcckWood. Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R. | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Wilson, A. Stanely (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Mackinder, Halford J. | Winterton, Earl |
| Croft, Henry Page | M'Mordie, Robert James | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Denison-Pender, J. C. | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Dixon, C. H. | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Doughty, Sir George | Morison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Mount, William Arthur | Younger, Sir George |
| Duncannon, Viscount | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Fells, Bertram Godfray | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Eyres-Monsell and Major Henderson. |
| Fell, Arthur | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes |
Bill read the third time, and passed.
§ The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
§ Adjourned at Twelve minutes after Eleven o'clock.