§ Order read for Second Reading.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Captain JESSELI should like to ask if the Home Secretary is prepared to consider Amendments to this Bill?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)Yes, during the Committee stage.
Mr. MARSHALL HALLThe second Clause of this Bill gives power to close public-houses indefinitely. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should alter that provision so that public-houses could not be shut for a longer period than fourteen days, except with the approval of the Secretary of State.
§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSONI hope some little time will be given between the Second Reading and the Committee stage of this Bill, because there are some important questions raised in regard to which Amendments are needed.
§ Sir CHARLES HENRYI wish to know if it is intended that clubs should come into line with public-houses on this question under this Bill. For instance, would clubs come under the Sunday Regulations?
§ Mr. McKENNAClubs would come under this Bill in the manner mentioned on the face of the measure. This Bill does not affect other laws relating to clubs and licensed premises.
§ Mr. PETOAccording to my reading of Clause 1, there is no obligation on the authority to have the restrictions imposed upon clubs for the same period, or of the same drastic nature as are imposed in regard to public-houses. It seems to me that the parallel which has been taken for this Bill, namely a case of riot, has no direct bearing upon the present time when the country is in a state of war. I can understand restrictions in relation to the earlier closing of public-houses and clubs in certain districts. That may be absolutely necessary, but it seems quite unnecessary to give local authorities such wide powers as the 202 entire closing of the public-houses in a district for all hours of the day, for every day of the week, and for any period up to fourteen days—in fact, for any period whatever sanctioned by the Secretary of State. I do not think we ought to pass the Second Reading of this Bill without some definite statement as to why there is this extraordinary urgency, and why such sweeping powers are necessary. I have drafted some Amendments to Clause 1 which I shall propose during the Committee stage. It would read:—
"Provided that no such order shall suspend the sale, supply, or consumption of intoxicating liquor between the hours of 11.0 and 2.0 p.m., and 5.0 and 9.0 p.m."
There is a great distinction between the use of the public-house as a part of the everyday life of the whole mass of our population—I believe it to be an absolute necessity at meal-times in the middle of the day and in the evening—and the keeping of public-houses open till ten or eleven o'clock at night. I should deprecate power being given to the local authorities to prevent entirely the consumption of intoxicating liquors luring the ordinary meal-times of the working people. I therefore do not feel inclined to allow the Second Reading of the Bill to pass without some statement being made as to why these wide and sweeping powers are necessary at the present time.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERSo far as Scotland is concerned, I deprecate the proposal to give this power to the licensing authority. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is sufficiently aware of the fact that the sheriff of the county in Scotland is wholly and entirely responsible for the peace of the country. The whole responsibility is laid upon him for the control of the police and the general arrangements, and everything required to preserve and conserve the public peace in the counties and burghs of Scotland, and he is obviously the proper authority to deal with this restriction. I quite believe and agree it may be necessary and desirable in certain circumstances that these restrictions should be imposed, but they ought to be imposed by the proper person in 203 whom everyone has confidence, and who realises the circumstances of the case with which he is dealing, and not by licensing authorities, constituted as they are in Scotland, with really no proper claim to exercise any such power. They do not know the facts of the case, and they are elected for other purposes altogether than that which this places in their power. Really, the whole machinery for the management and control of the peace ought to be in the hands of one authority as it is now, and it ought not, as this Bill proposes, to be shared with some other authority which I do not myself believe either has the responsibility necessary or is the desirable authority. I should certainly move in Committee that the sheriff should take the place of the licensing authority.
§ Mr. JAMES HOGGEI hope that this Bill will not be proceeded with without serious consideration. It gives an extension of powers to Scotland. There are specific words in one Clause making that possible. One of the Clauses provides that if the order suspends the sale, supply, and consumption of intoxicating liquor at an hour earlier than nine o'clock at night, it shall not remain in force for more than fourteen days except with the approval of the Secretary of State. I would like to point out that last year we passed a very drastic Temperance Bill for Scotland through this House. I supported the Government in passing that measure. We limited the hours of the public sale of intoxicating liquor from ten o'clock in the morning till ten o'clock at night. We are going to take the full Licence Duty from those publicans in Scotland. If you are going to apply this Bill to Scotland as well as to England, you are going to cut off another hour and still demand the same amount of Licence Duty. I do not think that is fair to the trade. I am a temperance reformer, as the House knows, and I am very willing to be up against the trade, but you ought to be fair to them, and not do them an injustice by an emergency Bill of this kind. The point, so far as I have been able to gather it from newspapers in Scotland, is that complaints have been made o£ a great many Territorials making more frequent use of the 204 public-house than necessary. That may or may not be the case, but the commanding officer of those troops can settle that question for himself. He can put every public-house everywhere out of bounds after six o'clock if he likes. That would not interfere with the ordinary community. I think the Government are doing excellently in a great number of these emergency measures, but we want to take care not to do an unnecessary injustice. I agree that the time has not come yet when public opinion in the country is such that it is essential that every public-house should shut down or that places of entertainment should be closed earlier than usual. I think it is a great mistake to shut a great many places of entertainment, and thus throw people on the street, and I hope that the Home Secretary will bear in mind that many of us who are strong temperance reformers are very anxious about this matter.
§ Sir J. D. REESThere really is a feeling that this Bill does not entirely arise out of the present situation. It is felt that temperance extremists may get their voice in to an undue extent upon an occasion like this, and I would beg that this Bill might be drawn a little milder. I have been living in a place through which a great many Territorials have been passing, and, so far as I could see, there really was nothing for them to do in the evening. I did not find that the public-houses being open led to any abuse, and I am quite sure that their being closed would deprive these men of any companionship during the evening. It is a very large order to close public-houses at nine o'clock, and the approval of the Secretary of State should be sought in every case. These licensing bodies are only too prone to be severe on the public-house. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I could give instances of it, and I beg that the Home Secretary will mitigate the rigours of this Bill.
Major MORRISON-BELLI rise not entirely in sympathy with some of the remarks which have fallen from hon. Members on this side of the House. I take the other point of view. I am, in fact, authorised to speak from a military point of view as regards London, and I know-that the military authorities there hope 205 that a measure of this sort will not be unduly delayed. At the present moment London is in an entirely different position in one way from any other town. The enormous number of men who are called to the Colours make it much harder to deal with the problem in London than anywhere else. The hon. Member opposite suggested that commanding officers should place public-houses out of bounds and see that they are out of bounds, but I would point out to him that at the present moment they are full of work, and they have not enough men to do it. It would mean that you would have every man on patrol duty at night. This measure, or some similar measure, would be very welcome. The trouble comes not so much from the soldiers as from civilians, and I wish it were possible for some kind of authoritative warning to be given to civilians that every time they see soldiers in uniform in a public-house, and every time they see on the notice boards that there has been some large victory, is not the occasion to stand treat all round to every soldier they meet. Soldiers are under great temptation from well-meaning and patriotic civilians, but these civilians are not doing their country or the soldiers any good by treating them in this way. I hope that there will not be any undue delay in passing some measure of this sort. I know that it will meet with the entire approval of the military authorities.
§ Mr. McKENNAI think the points that have been raised are perfectly reasonable, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government of forcing through the House a measure which would be contrary to public opinion. There is not the least desire to take advantage of the situation in order to pass measures for any ulterior reason. The sole object, which has been so admirably expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Morrison-Bell), is to deal with a particular situation which has arisen in the War. It must not be supposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. James Hogge) that, because in Clause 1 we put in a proviso with the intention of checking any capricious action by an over-enthusiastic bench of magistrates, we 206 mean thereby that should be taken as the rule. I have had the opportunity, through the courtesy of some hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, of hearing their views as to points in which the Bill might be safeguarded, and I would like to take this opportunity of telling the House what are the Amendments which I have already agreed to accept in Committee. If other Amendments are moved with the general approval of the House, we shall, of course, be only too glad to accept them. I propose that Clause 1, Sub-section (1), should read as follows:—
"The licensing justices for any licensing district may, if they think fit upon the recommendation of the chief officer of police, that it is desirable for the maintenance of order or the suppression of drunkenness in any area, temporarily to restrict the sale, consumption, and supply of intoxicating liquor…"
Therefore, two conditions are necessary before there can be any alteration in the existing hours during which licensed premises are open. In the first place, the licensing authority must itself think fit that there should be a change; and in the second place, there must be a recommendation of the highest police authority in the district that it is necessary to cut down the hours of opening for the maintenance of order or the suppression of drunkenness. I think the inclusion of that Amendment in the Bill meets practically every point that has been raised. I am not dealing now with Scotland. It is on a separate footing, and I will leave my right hon. Friend to deal with it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWe do not like the licensing authority.
§ Mr. McKENNAWhether we like them or not, the fact remains that they are the licensing authority. It is a licensing matter, and they ought to be the authority to move in it, but they cannot act on their own discretion, they can only act on the recommendation of the police authority. Therefore, I do not think the objection to leaving the licensing authority in is really a strong one.
Mr. MARSHALL HALLThe licensing authority are only a delegated committee of the whole body of magistrates, and, if the right hon. Gentleman were to vest the 207 power in the whole body of magistrates, although I should not welcome the Bill, I should be less dissatisfied with it.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. McKENNAI do not think on the whole that would commend itself to the House. The licensing authority are the authority, and, when we secure that they shall only act on the recommendation of the police authority, who are responsible for order and the suppression of drunkenness, I think we have done everything that can reasonably be asked. Then I propose in Sub-section (2) to strike out altogether the Forfeiture Clause, and to give the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAgainst conviction?
§ Mr. McKENNAAgainst conviction, not against the order. Then as to the application to London, I propose that, in the county of London, the Compensation Committee appointed under Section 6 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, shall be the authority to be substituted for the licensing justices. But, again, this Committee can only act on the recommendation of the police authority.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhat about the City?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe licensing justices in the City will act on the recommendation of the chief of the City Police authority. I think these are all the Amendments, excepting certain ones affecting Scotland and Ireland, which, when we come to Committee, I will ask my right hon. Friends to explain.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI hope it is not proposed to take the Committee now?
§ Mr. McKENNAI can only take it now by leave of the House.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERIf it is to be taken now, may I ask the Lord Advocate to tell us how it is proposed to deal with Scotland?
§ Sir F. BANBURYMay I suggest to the Home Secretary that if he agrees to take Committee to-morrow the Amendments can be on the Paper and we shall see what they are?
§ Mr. McKENNAI will not press my suggestion to take the Committee now. We will take that stage to-morrow, and I hope the House will then agree to give us the remaining stages.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThe right hon. Gentleman has dealt with a number of points but has said nothing about Scotland.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is a Committee point.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERIt is an important point; it is whether the sheriff or the licensing justices shall be entrusted with these powers in Scotland. I say it should be the sheriff, because he is responsible for the peace of the county.
§ Mr. PETOThe right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point I made. In spite of the Amendments which he has indicated the Bill will still leave it possible for all houses of entertainment to be closed during the ordinary meal-times of the working classes.
§ Mr. McKENNAIf the hon. Gentleman will put an Amendment on the Paper, I will deal with it to-morrow in Committee.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. But I have listened attentively to the discussion on the Bill and I state frankly I do not see that any specially strong case has been made out for the Bill. One might gather from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Honiton Division (Major Morrison-Bell) that some special reason exists for this. When I find the trade assenting to a Bill I am always rather suspicious of it. The hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs gave his assent to the Bill—
§ Sir G. YOUNGERNo!
§ Mr. RAWLINSONWell, very nearly. I really should like to know rather more clearly what special case there is in the mind of the Home Secretary which makes it desirable to pass this very drastic and very extreme Bill. You are giving power to close clubs and public-houses during meal-times, causing the greatest possible inconvenience to the general public and to a very large number of persons who depend very considerably upon licensed 209 houses for their opportunity of getting food in the daytime, and, unless it is really necessary, I submit that such drastic powers as these ought not to be given. I think the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Honiton Division affords one of the best examples of the strength of the case against this Bill. He stated that he was anxious to have this Bill in force in London at the present moment. I venture to submit there is not now the slightest ground for supposing it is desirable. There is not the slightest ground at the present moment for shutting up all clubs and public-houses in London at nine o'clock in the evening.
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is not for one moment to be supposed that the Chief Commissioner of Police will recommend that all clubs and public-houses shall be closed at nine o'clock.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONMy hon. and gallant Friend's speech was to the effect that the Bill was urgent. He told us it was needed in London at once, and we may therefore assume that the Commissioner of Police would make such a recommendation. I do not think that Bills of this kind should be carried when there is no real demand for them, and I want to know what is the real reason for this Bill. As far as towns like Portsmouth are concerned, we know that the difficulty has already been dealt with by Proclamation. What is the need, then, for this very drastic legislation? This is not a question of detail, and I submit that the Bill in its present form constitutes panic legislation of the worst form. It may be better when amended. But before the House passes such legislation as this, which must cause much inconvenience to people going about their business in the ordinary way, we should have placed before us much stronger material than is at present in evidence, in order to show that it is really necessary to put these powers into the hands of the licensing authority or the police.
Mr. J. W. WILSONI think that in a short Debate of this character the Government should be supported by voice by those who approve of their action. I consider the safeguards that these powers are only to be put into operation in the interest of public order or for the suppression of drunkenness should be sufficient, 210 and that the matter is within the option of the licensing authority are sufficient in this case. After all, what is it proposed to do? It is suggested we should take a course which has already been adopted in most of the European countries engaged in this great strife. Here are we in this country, by placards and by other means, appealing to the loyalty of our young men and asking them to come into the Army. We are trying to arouse their enthusiasm, and ought we not to be prepared to help the officers of the Army by adopting this small measure, even at the expense of inconvenience to the public, in restricting the hours of opening of public-houses? What more regrettable sight could there be than is witnessed by those going up and down the country—the sight of recruits suffering from the misplaced kindness with which the public are treating them? I hope the Government will be supported in this matter, and I am sure the public will submit to any slight inconvenience that may be caused in places where these powers are put in force. The example set by other European countries is one which surely we should be prepared to follow! It is acknowledged by the naval and military authorities that it would be in the interest of the country, as well as of the recruits and of the Territorials, to adopt this course, and we have a right to expect the public to do this, even if it involves slight inconvenience in certain quarters.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI should not have spoken but for the tone adopted by the last speaker. As I understand it, everybody is willing to give the Government these powers if they are required by either the naval or the military authorities. On that, I think, the House would be unanimous, and all that has been said by hon. Members who have spoken on this side of the House is that these powers should be enforced when the naval and military authorities require it, and not otherwise. The fear which exists in the minds of persons like myself is this, that the Government—I do not say the Home Secretary—but that the Government as a whole is being acted upon by a group of temperance people who are taking advantage of this war to carry out their own peculiar views. That is the suspicion 211 which is entertained on this side of the House; and while I am quite willing to consider measures for closing licensed houses should it become necessary in the general interest of the community, when the War is over, at a time when the discussion of the question can be taken on its merits, I do not feel that I can allow a little group of men who may have influence with the Government, and who have been disappointed because a part of their licensing scheme has not prevailed to use the momentum of this War to now obtain powers which might be used illegitimately. It is in no way unpatriotic for hon. Members in any quarter of the House to say, "We are willing to give you this Bill provided the powers are only put into operation at the instance of the naval or military authorities." That is taking a very fair stand in the matter, and I will ask the Home Secretary what is his objection to putting that into the Bill? The measure, as at present framed, is, to my mind, a little wide, and I think the Home Office, seeing how easily powers are being given to them in regard to general classes of legislation, is taking advantage of the patriotic temper of the House of Commons, which is passing Bills with lightning rapidity, to rush through the House something in the nature of drastic legislation; they are waving the flag and seeking to advance by a side wind the great cause of temperance. Hon Gentlemen opposite dissent, but we on these benches are entitled to our suspicions, and we are also entitled to give expression to them. I generally support temperance legislation in this House; I certainly have never opposed it. But I do object to the occasion of this War being turned into a vehicle to carry out a purpose which is not exactly that with which we are all in agreement. We sympathise with the Government in this emergency. We know how heavily they are weighted with care and how great is the anxiety they have to bear. But when we are giving the unanimous assent of this House to legislation it is our duty to see that the legislation is in accord with the unanimous feeling, and that it represents the common opinion of the House. There is a considerable minority of hon. Members who hold that these drastic powers should only be put in 212 force at the instance of the naval or military powers, and I strongly think that the right hon. Gentleman would do himself and the Government good service by accepting an Amendment of that kind.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI certainly hope that the House will read this Bill a second time on the understanding that it will be proceeded with in Committee tomorrow, when we may be able to see all these different proposals in writing and form our opinion upon them. My own experience, speaking from the point of view of the ordinary man in the street, leads me to suppose that some such Bill as this is needed. I can assure the hon. Member who spoke last that I am not one of these temperance fanatics to whom he referred. I have no sympathy at all with their point of view. I hope that the Government will take care that this Bill is not used for any indirect purpose. I am sure they do not intend it to be. I also hope that they will put in such complete safeguards as will entirely spike the guns of anybody who wishes to use it for any purpose of that kind.
§ Mr. PIRIEI am afraid the hon. Member for North Worcestershire (Mr. J. W. Wilson) and the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) took an exaggerated view of the real purpose of this Bill. I do not think it is necessary to appeal to patriotism or to say there is excessive drunkenness, or on the other hand, to say that the Bill is due to the machinations of the temperance group in this House. I look upon the Bill as the first elementary step to be taken in a situation in which the country finds itself. It does not go beyond what is being done abroad by countries who are in the same position. It does not go so far as what is taking place in France at this moment. Some weeks ago, in France, an order was issued to close the public-houses at certain hours of the day, and if any case of drunkenness is traced to a public-house the owner of that house is placed under a very heavy fine and the house closed for the remainder of the campaign. We are by no means taking an exaggerated step in reading this Bill a second time. I agree with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) with regard to the naval and 213 military authorities. If an Amendment of that description were carried the Bill could be applied to every town in which there were places for recruits. I sympathise with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Honiton Division (Major Morrison-Bell), who emphasised the need for the Bill in London.
§ Mr. GRETTONI speak on this Bill from an entirely independent point of view, because I have not had the advantage of any conference with the Home Secretary, and, as a matter of fact, had not seen any of the Amendments until he introduced them to the House. Apparently some of my hon. Friends are more satisfied with those Amendments than I should be. In the first place, there has been no real case made out for this Bill, except with regard to London. One hon. Gentleman opposite tried to show it was necessary in places where Territorials were assembled. That hon. Gentleman came from Scotland. I do not criticise his experience across the Border, because I am not acquainted with what occurs across the Border in Territorial camps, but so far as this side of the Border is concerned, I would speak in strong terms against any imputation of that kind being made against men now serving in the Territorial Force. I spent many years in the force when it was known as the Volunteer Force, and afterwards when it was reconstituted, and I know that the inert who join are of a very high class, possessing great self-respect and self-restraint, who desire to behave well in the uniform they wear and do credit to the battalion which they join. My own experience, not only generally, but when going amongst the Territorials, leads me to protest against any idea being circulated among the public that the large number of Territorials now assembled makes this Bill necessary.
The case that was made for London was a good case. London hours are very much longer than those in any other part of the Kingdom. If the naval and military authorities in London think that in certain districts those hours should be shortened in the evening, it is very difficult to resist and I should not endeavour to resist acting upon that advice. My objection is the same objection as that raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East fork (Mr. T. M. Healy). Why drag in the 214 licensing justices? They are not responsible for the maintenance of order. Their duty is, at the end of each year, to decide whether licences should be renewed, and to deal with applications for new licences and matters of that kind. When you are dealing with matters of order the police are the authority. They act under the Riot Act and under the emergency Acts which have been passed by this House. Why drag in the licensing justices? The fact that they are brought in is an obvious justification for the suspicion indicated by the hon. and learned Member. There is another provision in this Bill which shows that there has been a certain endeavour by somebody who has had something to do with it to satisfy a certain group on the other side of the House. The object of the Bill is to secure that the houses should be closed, but why impose the forfeiture of the licence? If you want a house to be closed, close it for a fixed period—for a fortnight, three weeks, or a month if you like—but why do you interfere with the question of the renewal of the licence? That is a police measure. I should not have the slightest objection to the Bill if it were to be enforced by the police authority.
§ Mr. McKENNAIt will be.
§ Mr. GRETTONThen I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I did not know that that was what he intended. I understand that the police authorities may apply to the licensing justices, but cannot put the Bill into force. The justices cannot put it in force, because, unless the police apply, they cannot act. That is a very inconvenient way of dealing with a matter of this kind. You should trust the police authorities to act in this matter, according to the need of preserving public order. I understand that is the ground for proposing the Bill. Why then drag in these two authorities? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not anxious to make any mention of the naval and military authorities. Why should not the police authorities be empowered to act, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, as soon as they think it is desirable for the maintenance of public order or the suppression of drunkenness? I quite admit what has been said on all sides of the 215 House that so far as this Bill is required by the naval and military authorities, they should have it without hesitation; but so far as this Bill is being made, in the way it is drafted, a measure to carry out the fads and cranks of hon. Gentlemen who sit in different parts of the House, it should be swept away and the Bill should be left what it was intended to be—a Bill to help the naval and military authorities.
§ Mr. DUNCAN MILLARThe hon. Member who has just spoken has suggested, as others have done, that this Bill should only be applicable to certain particular districts. I altogether fail to follow him in that argument. It is a Bill which is good for the whole country, and it ought to apply to the whole country. Sufficient discretion is given to the justices and the chief of the police in each district to see that the conditions prevail which make it necessary to carry its provisions into effect. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) to the distinction between the case of England and Scotland. Speaking as a Scottish Member, I believe that the desire for this Bill is very strong in Scotland. I believe there have been unfortunate scenes which have occurred in a number of large centres in Scotland within the last week or two which give good justification for supposing that there is a necessity for carrying a measure of this kind. I do not want in any way to attach any blame to the Territorial force themselves. It was very well put by an hon. and gallant Member opposite that in this matter it is the public who are very apt to mislead the soldiers and tempt them, and in a time of excitement which does, and is likely to prevail always at war time, it is extremely desirable that the military should be safeguarded in this particular way. With regard to the provisions of the Bill, the Government have gone very far indeed in trying to meet all the views expressed on both sides of the House in order to make it a Bill which will meet with the approval of the whole House. I deprecate very much the remark made by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), that the Government in this matter are being influenced by any section or by individuals in this House. I believe the Home Secretary must have receved requisitions from many 216 different authorities, military as well as civil, which led to his introducing this Bill, and that he has not in this matter been forced to take action by any one section, but that he has gathered up the opinion of the whole of the House. I sincerely hope that this Bill will be passed in a form which will make it extremely useful. I know the need for it exists in Scotland to-day, and I suppose it exists also in all other parts of the United Kingdom. Under the proposals now made by the Home Secretary, I feel that no injustice, direct or indirect, will arise.
§ Mr. MACKINDERThere is one important point raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) to which no reply has been given. I venture to hope that the Home Secretary will carefully consider the point before the Committee stage is reached. I refer to a ease which might quite well occur, namely, that this Bill will be put into force especially in certain districts, and if a case is made out for it, in that case it is probable that the public-house keeper will lose seriously. Is it fair that no allowance should be made with regard to the duty to be paid? It is wrong, when we have an emergency law which is to be enforced for the general good, that the cost of it should be paid by a few particular people. I hope that point will be considered.
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKI speak from a different point of view than that of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Duncan Millar). In ordinary circumstances I have uniformly opposed Bills of this kind, because I have thought conscientiously that such restrictions were economically and socially wrong, but in this particular case I desire most emphatically to associate myself with the supporters of this Bill. I have seen by close experience the evils that are being worked at this moment, not amongst Territorials, but among those who are recruiting for the Army Lord Kitchener desires to raise. There may be details as to the authority, as to the means by which that authority may be exercised, and as to the restraints that it may be necessary to place upon those who have this particular object to serve, but I have no hesitation whatever, as one who has uniformly opposed by Motion and Vote Bills promoted in ordinary circumstances by the 217 temperance party, in supporting this Bill now, and I hope we shall unanimously pass the Second Reading.
Mr. HAMILTONI find myself chiefly in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). I feel that every Member of the House is anxious to assist the Government in any legislation that is necessary and wise for the betterment of the country and for military or naval purposes. Is this particular legislation demanded by the military and naval authorities? If so, it should be stated in the Bill, and the restrictions should be confined to such districts which are affected by having soldiers near by or where recruiting is going on. I can assure the House that last week in my own Division a magistrate who is the head of the band of hope—a gentleman who disagrees with me in politics, but with whom I have been working actively during the last week on distress committees and so forth—called together two or three of his co-conspirators and tried to close the public-houses in our district. He even, I believe, telegraphed to the Home Secretary to know whether he had the authority to close them, and the Home Secretary replied that he had not. Therefore that little scheme fell through. There is no camp, and there is no question of soldiers being anywhere near that district. This is a deliberate attempt—by the band of hope—to put forward teetotal legislation in this House in a time of crisis. I am very much in favour of temperance legislation, but I am not in favour of wide legislation preventing a working man from having his glass of beer in the ordinary hours if he wants it. I call that class legislation. Anyone of us can go and have our drink at any time of night that we want it, because we have it in our house, and no one can prevent us drinking it; but if a working man hears of a great victory and wants to discuss it with a pal, he has not drink in his house, and cannot get a glass of beer if the band of hope in the district has closed the houses. I do not think that sort of legislation is what we want to pass in a hurry as emergency legislation at present. I do not think it will help temperance, but will put it back. I am convinced that if it is necessary to assist the 218 military authorities, or the recruiting authorities, or the naval authorities in any district, such a Bill as this might be useful, but I feel very strongly that if it is passed it ought to rest with the police authorities, and if they wish to see it put into force it should be done on application, not to the licensing bench, but in the ordinary way to the bench of magistrates. If the Home Secretary will agree to that, that the police authority shall first move in the matter, and having moved, shall apply to the ordinary bench of magistrates for an order, I think a great deal of the opposition to this Bill would be taken away.
Mr. DENNISI quite sympathise with the objects of this Bill, and a Bill with this object must be passed, but from the moment I read this Bill I never could understand why the Home Secretary dragged in the licensing justices as the people to be appealed to. They have nothing whatever to do with it. This is purely a police measure, and either the military police, the naval police, or the municipal police should regulate this matter. It ought to be left to them alone without the intervention of any licensing justices. There is a very strong suspicion in the minds of most people with regard to temperance legislation where licensing justices are concerned. We who practise before them know their general tendency, and if the Home Secretary wants to remove the Suspicion from the minds of Members of the House, he will remove from his Bill the reference to licensing justices having their opinion asked at all, and leave it entirely as a matter for the police in each district who will act upon the suggestions of the military and naval authorities.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Friday).