FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (MEETINGS ON LICENSED PREMISES). (Hansard, 25 February 1914)

§ Mr. GULLAND
I beg to move, "That this House do now Adjourn."

§ Mr. POLLOCK
I desire to raise a matter of great importance to the friendly societies at the present time. To-day I asked the Prime Minister Whether, in view of the concern felt by the friendly societies regarding the attitude of the Government towards their meetings upon licensed premises, he will give this House an opportunity of discussing the matter? The answer I received from the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) was that the matter would be considered and that they would carefully consider any representations made by friendly societies. That is a very unsatisfactory answer, and I desire to call the attention of the House to the matter. For many years friendly societies have been accustomed to choose their own places of meeting. The friendly societies—members and officers—consist of some of the most temperate, intelligent, and self-controlled of their class. Is it to be supposed that at the present time these members and officers are unfit to choose where the meetings of friendly societies should take place. It is proposed, as I understand, to issue Regulations in terms similar to those already issued to Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. I anticipate the answer the hon. Gentleman will give is, 1909 that if a similar Regulation has been issued for Wales and Scotland, perhaps it will be suitable to England. I do not know anything about friendly societies and their working in Scotland or Wales, but if it is intended to issue a Regulation in similar terms to those issued in 1912 for Wales and Scotland, I contend that a very grave inroad will have been made upon the liberty of friendly societies. Under these Regulations no meetings of any approved society, or any branch there of, can take place on any premises where there is the sale, wholesale or retail, of any intoxicating liquor, whether for con sumption on or off the premises, or in any club where intoxicating liquor is sold; and there are Regulations providing that, at any premises where they do hold meetings, and which are contiguous to premises where alcoholic liquor is sold, there is to be a separate entrance, no internal communication, and there is to be the sanction of the Commissioners obtained. Is it possible to suppose that there should be two places of meeting for an approved society, that it should meet for its State business in one place, and that it should hold a separate meeting for its voluntary business at another place? That is really inconceivable, and it would be unbusinesslike and unworkable. One comes back to consider for what purpose the Regulation is issued. Time and time again while the Act was being passed we were assured that there was no intention to interfere unduly or to make an inroad upon the working of the friendly societies, for there are many of us in all parts of the House who would desire to pay a tribute of respect to the great English institutions, the friendly societies. It is to be observed that those meetings of friendly societies necessarily take place at the close of the day, that they are meetings not merely for the administration of benefits, but that they are intended to be means by which -well earned relaxation can be secured; and I am only contending for what is a truism when I say that at meetings of friendly societies character has been built up, a sense of brotherhood has been developed, and social intercourse has been promoted. If friendly societies are fit to be trusted, why should they not be trusted still If you desire to pass a regulation which shall interfere with their liberty and with the proper working of their voluntary side, then I understand this regulation. I am not prepared to accept the answer the hon. Gentleman gave me, for this reason. He 1910 said he would carefully consider the re presentations made by the friendly societies. I consider that the boot is entirely on the other leg. The Government have got to tell us under what right, for what reason, and for what purpose they justify their interference with the friendly societies. What is the cause and what is the ground on which they think such a regulation ought to be published? What reason have they for interfering with the friendly societies? What reason have they to suppose that the friendly societies will not continue in the future as in the past to manage their own business well on the premises they like to choose for the purpose, and will not continue to be as they always have been, of a temperate and well managed and properly conducted character? The answer must be given by the Government. They must tell us what their reason is for interfering with the friendly societies, and I ask their attention at once to this point.

§ Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury)
I think if the hon. Member had studied the answer I gave in reply to his question to-day he would have saved him self the trouble of raising the matter now, and he would have saved the time of the House. There is no regulation made by the English Insurance Commissioners in relation to the place of meeting of approved societies. There is no draft regulation, and no such regulation will be made and laid before the House until con sideration has been given to the views of all concerned.

§ Mr. FORSTER
I would like the hon. Gentleman to make representations to his right hon. Friend who is really responsible for this matter. We know that the hon. Gentleman is only temporarily representing the Insurance Commissioners. We hope he will remind his right hon. Friend that this matter has been decided by the House of Commons, and that the House of Commons has given the friendly societies the right to meet where they will. I remember when the Insurance Bill was before the House, an attempt was made by the extreme temperance party opposite to prevent societies from meeting on licensed premises for the purpose of the Insurance Bill, and this House then decided that the societies were to retain their freedom, the right of meeting where they chose, and I want it to be clearly understood that no right hon. Gentleman, 1911 no body of Commissioners, no Civil servant, or anybody else, ought to have the right of overriding and upsetting the decision which the House of Commons has taken.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and other speakers, have rather missed the point which really troubles the friendly societies. The position to my mind is this: that if they get the right to use the elementary schools of the country at a nominal fee that would be a great gain. When the Bill was before the House, as hon. Members will remember, I was almost the sole champion of the voluntary thrift institutions of this country. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, after I addressed the House, got up and assured hon. Members on this side that they, the Conservative party, were identified with a compulsory scheme. I was, therefore, left stranded as the sole exponent of the voluntary thrift movement. I am not likely to desert those voluntary institutions, as we see them thrown over at random by hon. Members opposite.

§ Mr. FORSTER
We were told that they assented to it.

§ Mr. BOOTH
Hon. Members opposite deliberately threw over the voluntary thrift movement and demanded a compulsory scheme.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
That is not true.

§ Mr. BOOTH
The hon. Member for Colchester used these words:— The case for compulsory legislation, to my mind, is unanswerable. I maintained when the Bill was introduced that it was to a certain extent a scheme of State Socialism, and the hon. Member for a Division of Cumberland, who was president of the Anti-Socialist Union in this country, got up and corrected me. He said it was not State Socialism, and he gave it the blessing of the Opposition on the ground that it did not at all touch the question of State Socialism. I repudiated that, and I was attacked by the Opposition. I was left as the solitary voice in this House to defend voluntary thrift. Now the defence of voluntary thrift does imply freedom of choice of the place of meeting. Hon. Members opposite wanted the State to interfere. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Undoubtedly 1912 the whole Opposition, as voiced on the First Beading and Second Reading, in the Committee stage, and on the Third Reading of the Insurance Act, were in favour of the State Socialistic principle of compulsory insurance. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Forster) got up and assured the House that in no circumstances whatever would the Opposition seek to make party capital out of this question. They knew it was unpopular, thereby anticipating that declaration of she Chancellor of the Exchequer that the general voters of this country were not prepared for it. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks anticipated that, and, knowing that, and presenting that view to the House, he still declared that the Conservative party were in favour of a compulsory scheme. If you admit a compulsory scheme, you admit, as I foretold to the House—I pointed it out on the Second Reading— the interposition of State officials as regards their own ideas about all things, including the place of meeting. [HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Undoubtedly you cannot have a scheme organised by State officials and governed by them without having the imprint of their views upon the whole scheme. They are now placing it upon the place of meeting. I, as a Liberal and Radical, and advocate of freedom and liberty, do not like the interference of Government officials with regard to the place of meeting. Hon. Members opposite have not a shred of justification for their position to-night. They handed themselves over body and soul to the State-Socialistic scheme. There was not, on the Second Reading, one solitary voice raised on that side in regard to freedom of action on behalf of the voluntary societies. They glorified the compulsory principle. They glorified the worship of Government officials, and expressed their intention of carrying that to its logical conclusion. It comes with a very bad grace from them to criticise it now that they find it has inconvenient results. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock) is perfectly sincere to-night. The only complaint I make of him is that he was asleep during the passage of the Bill.

§ Mr. POLLOCK
Again and again throughout the months the Bill was in Committee I pleaded for liberty for the friendly societies, and that they should be trusted by the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer.

§ Mr. BOOTH
Yes, in a vague, general way there is no doubt.

§ Mr. POLLOCK
I was not vague.

§ Mr. BOOTH
Certainly it was vague. The hon. Member never spoke on the First Reading or the Second Reading. He did not speak on the Third Reading.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
Did he not have an Amendment on this very point?

§ Mr. BOOTH
No, the voluntary Amendment, came from this side. There never was an Amendment on the other side in favour of voluntaryism.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN
Was not an Amendment moved on meetings on licensed premises, and did not our side support that?

§ Mr. BOOTH
I dare say you did, if you thought you could catch votes. Hon. Members opposite, with regard to the voluntary principle, never asserted it in the slightest degree from beginning to end, except they thought they could 1914 catch a few votes for the First and Second Reading the definite issue was tried. We then had to decide whether we would have a compulsory or a voluntary scheme. Hon. Members opposite without exception plumped in favour of a compulsory scheme of State supervision. There was not a single hon. Member opposite 'who sup ported it on the Second Reading. I said I was not convinced that a compulsory scheme was necessary, and 1 was not satisfied with the arguments. Not a solitary bit of support did I get from the Conservative side. They made no response in the House, and in the Lobby they told me I was running my head against a stone wall, and I was a solitary man in the House, and my own personal friends on the other side said why was I fool enough to do it?