HC Deb 20 April 1915 vol 71 cc224-44
Mr. WING

I beg to move, "That this House is of opinion that, during the continuance of the War, no alcoholic liquors shall be sold in the refreshment rooms or at the bars attached to the House of Commons, and requests the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee to arrange accordingly."

I desire to mention a few of the reasons which led me to place this Motion upon the Paper. I should like at once to remove any inferences which any Members of the House should gather that I have put this Motion on the Paper with some idea that there was an amount of intemperance in this House that should be dealt with. Quite the opposite. It is because I believe in the high standard of personal conduct in this House that I ask it to make a sacrifice to moderation which is shown generally in the House. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Agg-Gardner) asks us to forego prohibition by lightening the character of the drinks sold in the bars, and suggests that in place of the prohibition of intoxicants in the House you should simply change your drinks. My main reason for moving this Motion is especially my contact with the man in the street who is reading and listening continually to articles in the Press and from the Press of various quarters asking for the restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquors for him in his club and also in the public-house. This man rightly turns round and says, "What are you people in the Houses of Parliament doing?" In the interests of law and order he has loyally obeyed all the restrictions which has been imposed upon him, and he has a distinct grievance, arising from the feeling which I am glad to see is being experienced throughout the country, that, in whatever we do in the way of restriction or sacrifice, it shall at least be equal for all classes—that there shall be no exception, rich or poor, high or low, peer or peasant. In this case we have an exceptional example in the person of His Majesty the King. The first communication which His Majesty addressed to his people included the words that he would abstain "if necessary." Many a cynic repeated those words "if necessary." In the second communication to his people His Majesty stated that he and his household had undertaken to abstain from all intoxicants. The sense of inequality is very much resented in the country. For instance, I have come across cases where a soldier is not allowed to have a drink until midday, and he must not have a drink later than nine o'clock; while a civilian may commence at ten in the morning and drink until ten or eleven at night. The man in the street regards these various inequalities as a badge of inferiority. I ask hon. Members this afternoon to show to the average public that we at least take no part in imposing any restriction which we are not ourselves prepared to accept; in other words, that we are not going to ask the average man to live up to an order of conduct to which we personally are not prepared to submit.

The view is still held in some quarters that this House is the grandest club in the world. My experience, though very short, is quite the opposite. My experience of Members in all parts of the House is that they are hard-working, sincere and industrious senators, endeavouring to do the best they can for their constituents. Still there is the view with the man in the street that we in this House have privileges which he does not enjoy. The stories of the old days are still repeated—such as that of the younger Pitt, when sitting on the Treasury Bench, turning round to Dundas and saying, "Can you see the Speaker now? I cannot;" and receiving the reply, "Yes, I can see two." These ideas still remain, and it is for us as a House to say that in this great crisis we will take this step—a crisis which has necessitated the Prime Minister going down amongst our people to endeavour to create a moral atmosphere of determination to deal with a situation the successful dealing with which depends largely on moral and spiritual forces. This House has shown itself able to make sacrifices in the form of its services, and in the giving of its sons, and some of our Members have already given their lives. In conclusion, I ask the House to view the march of events. His Majesty the King, together with his household, are abstaining. Lord Kitchener has followed their example. I am informed that a large number of Members of the Cabinet, with some of the leaders of the Opposition, have also followed that example. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] Business men in various parts of the country are following that example, and I ask this House, but not with any sense of force, to do the same. I am told that Members do not like to be forced. I respect that sentiment, and I am moving this Resolution because there is no other way by which I could take the sense of the House. I am taking the only method open to me of asking the House for its general opinion. I should like the House to feel that it is of its own free will sacrificing the use of intoxicating liquors. I hope the House will do this whole-heartedly. Let us have no exemptions. Let us have no inference from an exemption that Scottish or Irish whisky is too strong for our Members, and therefore it is better to weaken the spirit down to light wines. Let us give up all intoxicating liquors in the bars and refreshment rooms of this House. We shall give heart to public bodies and public men in the country by showing that we are prepared to take a great move, the physical, moral and spiritual influences of which will be far reaching, and we shall be standing by the King in one of the kingliest acts that any monarch in any age ever performed.

Lord HUGH CECIL

I should like to ask whether it is in accordance with the Rules of this House to mention the King's name with a view to influencing the decision of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER

It is against the ordinary rule, but I think hon. Members will see, on reflection, that in this case it is impossible to exclude the King's name. His Majesty has set an example, and the question is whether the House is willing to follow it. I do not see how you can possibly exclude references to it.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. BUTCHER

I beg to second the Motion. I should like to express my cordial agreement with what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wing) with regard to the great example which has been set to the country by His Majesty the King. It would indeed be strange if we, sitting in this Royal Palace of Westminster, did not in our collective capacity resolve to imitate that great example. Much has been written and spoken about the force of example—so much, indeed, that one is apt to incur the condemnation of uttering a platitude when he speaks about it. Nevertheless, I think it is well to remember that, although it is a platitude, the statement embodies an undying truth. For myself, I am satisfied that in matters of personal conduct lying outside the region of the law, example is better than compulsion, especially in a country like ours, where the idea of personal liberty is not merely a tradition, but a deep-seated conviction. If, as I think may be the case, by showing this example we can in any way help others, I think we should be ready to afford that help. There is another aspect of this question which has been touched upon by the hon. Member who has just spoken. It is possible that in the near future this House may be asked to lay down further restrictions as to the consumption of intoxicating liquors. I make no assumptions, and I indulge in no anticipations, either as to the necessity or the extent of those restrictions, but I think this, at any rate, may be conceded: This House should consider the imposition of further restrictions free from any reproach that in this matter we are inclined to put upon men heavier burdens which we ourselves will not put our little fingers to. It is said, or it will be said, that the surrender of personal convenience which would be involved in the acceptance of this Resolution is comparatively trifling. That is true. I, at any rate, do not put forward this proposal as an example of sacrifice. I think that would be dignifying it by too great a name. Sacrifice indeed must be made by all, and it will be our privilege, cheerfully and gladly, to make any sacrifices which are demanded of us. We see the heroic devotion of our fighting forces. If for one reason or another we are unable to join the fighting forces we ought to do all we can to assist our country and our country's defenders, If, as I believe, the adoption of this Resolution will result in even a small measure of public advantage it is our duty to try and effect that public advantage. It is in that belief and in £hat spirit that I heartily support the Resolution.

Mr. BONAR LAW

Obviously this is a question which ought to be discussed and decided by Members of the House as individuals, and not in connection with any party ties. In making the very few remarks which I intend to address to the House, I wish it to be understood that I do not at all speak as a representative of the party to which I belong. Indeed, I think it very probable—although I have taken no trouble to make any inquiry about it—that after the speech of my hon. and learned Friend my views will not have the sympathy of the majority of my Friends on this side of the House. But whether that be so or not I think it right that I should put them before the House. I dislike this proposal. I dislike it because I can see no possible connection between the grounds on which it has been recommended to the House, and the only ground on which it could be recommended to the House—the real effect of the proposal itself. The hon. Member who has moved the Resolution and my hon. and learned Friend have spoken as if the adoption of this Resolution would be following the example set by His Majesty. Whatever else may be said in favour of this Motion, that at least cannot be said in any way. The example set by His Majesty is a personal example, and its value consists in this: that the sacrifice—to whatever extent it is a sacrifice—is a sacrifice made by himself and not by other people. I do not wish to speak strongly on a subject like this, but the hon. Member who moved this Resolution reminded us that some other public men have made the same declaration as His Majesty. That declaration was to the effect that no alcohol should be consumed in their houses during the War. If it were conceivable that one of these men should say, "I am going to live up to the letter of that declaration, but when I go to the houses of my friends or to my clubs I shall resume my old habits," what would we think of that as an example? Is not this proposal very like that? I think it is. The idea, I am sure, which is at the back of the minds of those who approve of this proposal is that this example which the House of Commons is going to set will be useful in itself. What is the example we are going to set?

I do not think it will have the smallest value in the country as an example, unless and to the extent that it produces the impression that we are going to do one thing—when everyone of us knows we are going to do something entirely different! If it was meant that every Member of the House who supports this proposal intended himself to follow the example of the King, I should not have a single word to say against it. If it means that we are solemnly to pass this Resolution, and that those who support it are then to go to their own houses, or to their own clubs, and continue the precise habits which they had before, I do not think that that is an example which will have much effect upon the country. There is little more to say about it. This is not an example of temperance. It is not an example of abstinence. At the best it is setting the country an example which we do not intend ourselves to follow. That is what we are doing. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion said that the "man in the street" objects to having restrictions which are not imposed upon others. That is quite true. If this were a Motion to impose upon us in this House precisely the same restrictions which are imposed upon other people, I would be heartily in support of it. I think there is something else to which the man in the street objects. The real meaning—and I am sure that not a man here in his heart will deny it—the real meaning of it is that we are trying to encourage the country to do something which we do not intend to do ourselves. That is what it amounts to. If there is one thing that the "man in the street," I think, resents it is the idea that he should be influenced either by compulsion or by pretended action of any kind to do something which we think is for his good, while we are not at all sure that it is for our own good and do not at all intend to act up to it. That is not the kind of example I appreciate.

We are not going to subject ourselves even to very serious inconvenience. During the War—I speak at least from my own experience—I dine very seldom at the House, and the great bulk of Members of the House will very seldom be subjected even to any real inconvenience, not to speak of sacrifice. If there is any inconvenience or sacrifice it will fall heaviest upon the officials of the House who cannot go to our clubs and get there what is denied them in the House of Commons. We cannot in this matter set an example either of temperance or of abstinence, but it is my honest belief that we can set an example of sincerity. In my opinion the people of this country, if they understood what this really means, would respect us far more if we say we shall submit ourselves to precisely the same restrictions which we think it wise to impose by legislation upon other people; that that is what we propose and we make no pretence of doing anything more. I have, I confess, received more indications of approval of what I have said than I expected. But I do think that in a time of stress of this kind, when the whole nation ought to be in a better position than usual, we should have less rather than more of the make-believe that is part of the daily life of all politicians. At a time like this we ought to have less of it. We ought to be sincere, and we ought not to pretend to be doing one thing when we know in reality we are doing something quite different.

Colonel LOCKWOOD

The Kitchen Committee appointed by the House have not had any official cognisance of the subject of the Resolution that is now before the House, but there have been pourparlers on the subject of which I think the House ought to be made aware. The matter began in this way. My valued colleague, the Member for the Gainsborough Division (Mr. Bentham), wrote me a letter in which he suggested that, following the example of His Majesty the King, we ought to pass a Resolution in which we should embody the words of the Resolution now before the House. I may remark, in passing, that my colleague is a total abstainer. Apart from that little fault, I have always found him an invaluable colleague. I replied to him that in my opinion, and it has always been ray opinion, the King "can do no wrong," but that a Committee of the House of Commons might very easily go wrong. Therefore I preferred that as a body we should await the Instruction of the House as to what line we should adopt. After all, the Kitchen Committee is only appointed by the Members of this House to see that there is a certain amount of eatables and drinkables—of an excellent quality—and when they have thus satisfied the British Constitution we leave it to hon. Members to settle with their own constitution what and how much they should eat, what and how much they should drink, and what and how much they should avoid. Provided hon. Members pay ready money—which they do not always do—we are satisfied. I have very little to say on the subject, but I feel bound to point out to the House that the profits of the Department are already growing less and less every day. If this Resolution be passed it will reduce what is left, which is nil, perhaps by 50 per cent.!

While I am on this subject I feel bound to point out that it affects others besides yourselves, or, rather, more than yourselves. Take the Press Gallery, for instance. They would certainly never ask for different treatment from the rest of the House, but they are here sometimes four, five, six, and seven hours after we have left, and it would press upon them much more than it does us. On a subject like this I agree with my Leader that our individual opinion is worth nothing, and I do not think the opinion of the Kitchen Committee is worth anything at all. Personally speaking, I am in favour of the Motion, but I have not canvassed my committee. Some are in favour of it. Some are very much opposed to it; indeed, they told me so in language scarcely Parliamentary. One Member went so far as to say that if he could not get what he wanted here, he would get drunk—I mean he would drink as much as ever he wanted at home. However, it is, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, a matter entirely for individual opinion. If you choose to give your instructions and pass the Resolution now before the House, I am perfectly content, and my Committee would be content to roll the stone to the mouth of the den and to seal it with the Prime Minister's signet. Perhaps you will go so far as to erase Nunc est bibendum and put O fons Bandusiœ in its place. That is for you to say.

I hope, however, there will be no Division on the subject. If we do have a Division it will take away from the value of the opinion of the House, whichever way it goes. You might fairly look to the Government Bench for some idea of their opinion upon this subject. Why should we not have had the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I do not think he used to be a total abstainer. He may be now. At all events, he was always a very moderate man in the way of eating and drinking. We are entitled to hear, and I think we shall hear, what are the Government's views upon the subject. While it is to be hoped that, whatever result is come to it will be without a Division, it cannot be unanimous—individual opinions are too strong. At all events, I am sure the Committee of which I have the honour to be Chairman, look for an Instruction upon the subject, so that we should not be obliged to take an initiative, which would be very unpleasant to some.

Mr. LEIF JONES

The Leader of the Opposition made a speech which, I think, impressed the whole House. It was a very ingenious argument and evoked a great deal of sympathy. But I should like to point out that the sentence which, I think, elicited most applause was when he said we might gladly submit to any restriction laid on the rest of the nation. I would point out we are not subject to the restrictions in the matter of the consumption of liquor to which any other part of the country is subject. We meet in a Royal Palace. There is no licence for the sale of liquor. No one has any power to lay restriction upon us, and, therefore, if anything exceptional is to be done it must be done by decision of the Members of the House. There is no power over us. Whatever is done is done by our own volition. There is no other place in the-country where liquor may be sold without a licence.

Mr. WILLIAM YOUNG

This Motion proposes to take away the right either to consume or to sell liquor.

Mr. L. JONES

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Motion was not of the smallest value, because Members did not propose in their private life to follow the example of the King—at least there was nothing in the Motion to that effect. There I entirely agree with him, but, at the same time, I disagree with him in thinking it is of no value, because the House has a collective as well as an individual voice, and, really, what this Motion is enabling us to say to the country is what is the collective opinion of the House of Commons in regard to this most important matter. In the action of the King; in the action of so many distinguished public servants after the speeches made in regard to munitions of war; after the evidence of coming drastic proposals of the Government to deal with this matter, I do think that the House will find itself very much freer, as the Mover and Seconder said, to deal with the munitions question, and all the drink question, if they are no longer asked to be in the exceptional position they have been, and forego the privileges of selling and consuming liquor here. There is not quite so great an inconsistency as the Leader of the Opposition said.

So far as I know, there is no proposal to subject the workers in the country, and the people of the country, to a complete prohibition of the sale of liquor. That is a consummation, no doubt, devoutly to be wished, but I see no prospect of it coming soon, and, although there may be restrictions, there will still be opportunities, so far as I know, for people to consume liquor in their private houses if they wish to do so, and that, after all, is only what Members of the House will be able to do if the House decides to-day that the sale of liquor is to cease on these premises. Therefore I do think, much as I have been impressed by the Leader of the Opposition, he put his case too high, and I hope there will be no Division in this matter. I have not the least desire to go into the Lobby to force my opinion on hon. Members. Hon. Members know the bar is no advantage to me. The profits of the Kitchen Committee undoubtedly are. Hon. Members, by their drinking, apparently pay for my cheap food, but I hope the House will decide without a Division; and I do feel that, in spite of much in which I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, the case for this Motion is made out, and I hope the House will see its way to agree to it.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not know there is very much to be said after the admirable speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I venture to say, if he will allow me, that I agree with every word he said, and I hope his example will be followed by the House itself. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) said that example was better than compulsion. I quite agree with him. But what he is going to do is not to set an example, it is to compel. The hon. and learned Member does not come down and say, "I at home am not going to drink any spirituous liquor, and I hope other Members will follow my example"?—no doubt an excellent example—but he says, "You in this House are not in future to drink any spirituous liquor, not by your own unanimous will, but by the will of the majority of the Members of this House." But my hon. and learned Friend is contradicting himself, because what he is proposing is to compel, and not to set an example. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion told us a great deal about the man in the street. But who is putting any compulsion upon the man in the street? As far as I know, the man in the street can get what he wants at any public-house at certain hours. There has always, been a limit to the hours of public-houses, at any rate, during the last fifty or 100 years, and, therefore, there has always been a difference between the power to obtain drink in this House and the power of the ordinary person who has to go to a public-house.

Mr. L. JONES

The hon. Member can still go to the public-house if he wishes.

Mr. W. YOUNG

Why should he be compelled to go to the public-house?

Sir F. BANBURY

That is absolutely true. If the hon. Member is alluding to me, I still can go to a public house, and I still can go home. Therefore, what is the good? I am not setting an example. I do not dine in the House of Commons, and I do not think my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee does.

Colonel LOCKWOOD

You have dined with me.

Sir F. BANBURY

And I have had excellent alcoholic liquors on those occasions. That is the point; we are not subjecting ourselves to any inconvenience. His Most Gracious Majesty—I do not think it is possible to avoid introducing his name—has set an example; he has said that in his palace alcoholic liquors shall not be consumed. The hon. Member can say that in his house alcoholic liquor shall not be consumed. Why is that not sufficient? What more do you want? Let us follow His Most Gracious Majesty's example. What we are trying to do is to follow the example of the Pharisee and trying to make out that we are better than we really are. I hope that the result of this Debate will be that the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion.

Sir STEPHEN COLLINS

I must say I am very sorry indeed with the tone of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is not only a great disappointment to many Members of this House, but also to many up and down the country, and even to persons in very high places, because there is a want of sympathy with that great example which has been set us. I very much deplore that the Leader of the Opposition could not, be more sympathetic to this noble example that has been set us. The Leader of the Opposition said that we are making it hard for the officials if not for ourselves. Well, it is just the same in the Royal Palace for the officials there. Then the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) referred to the fact that we can go and get what we want outside, but so can the officials connected with the Royal Palace. All the arguments that have been raised against this might have been raised in the noble example that has been set us, and I do want to appeal, not as an abstainer, although I am one, but have never tried to force my opinions upon anyone. I am an abstainer by birth and by conviction. I am a life-long abstainer, and the older I grow the stronger my convictions grow. I have never tried—and my friends who are not abstainers will bear me out—to force my opinions upon anyone else, and I should deplore the fact of going to a Division.

I hope every Member, even the Leader of the Opposition, will rise to the occasion. The Leader of the Opposition did not seem satisfied we were going far enough; he almost hinted that if we had to agree to an out-and-out total abstinence that is worth doing, and said, practically, "I will go with you there." If the Leader of the Opposition will get up and say that, I have no doubt many of his supporters will follow him. I do hope the House will take this matter seriously. This is a great, and sad and serious time. Hon. Members and right hon. Members have made sacrifices, noble sacrifices—sacrifices which are too tender and sacred for me to refer to. Cannot you then make this little sacrifice? I believe it will be a good example to the country and the people when they read in to-morrow's papers that this Palace of Westminster, with all its associations and its noble traditions of the past, has risen to this little occasion, and has decided that here we will abstain from intoxicating drink. I believe it will be an example that will do good. It will encourage our troops and Lord Kitchener and many other leaders of our Army and Navy. I hope the House will not proceed to a Division, but I trust we shall all agree to carry this proposal which has been moved and seconded so admirably.

Sir RICHARD COOPER

The appeal made by three hon. Members opposite is nothing more nor less than this: If you believe this is wrong, sink your personal feelings and support us so as to avoid a Division in this House. For my part, I am determined to resist this Motion to the utmost limit. If it were likely to have anything of what I might term a party nature about it at any future date, for the sake of supporting the country and the Government through the War, I would willingly sink a very great deal of my own personal feelings, but whilst the War is on and a large number of our colleagues on both sides are away fighting, we are left to use our own discretion as to what particular personal action we should take during their absence on a matter that does not concern them and their country beyond the point of example. I hope too much will not be made of the claim of example. Let us remember that even people in high positions in this country who have rightly set an example have done it on the advice of Ministers, and because it was thought desirable and advisable it has been put into practice. My own personal reasons for opposing this Motion are based first of all on the fact that no logical reason was put forward by the proposer of this Motion, and no reason whatever was given by him why we should accept it. When I come to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher), the only reason I could gather from his speech was to the effect that if we only practised what is contained in this Motion it would be so much better and easier for us later on to preach to the people of the country. That embodies a commitment on the part of every hon. Member who supports this Motion or does not oppose it to the statement which has been generally made to the country that War munitions are being hampered and kept back, first and foremost on account of the drinking habits of a certain section of the working classes of this country.

We understand that the Government have held a number of Cabinet meetings to consider this question, and that they have not yet come to a decision as to whether the drink question is affecting the production of munitions of war. We all knew soon after the War began that a long and patient period of preparation had to be undertaken by the Government for a large offensive forward move some time in the spring. If it is a fact that the drink problem has affected the production of munitions of war, how is it that the Government, and those responsible for State administration, did not discover this last November, December, January, or February? How is it they have not discovered it until the 28th February, when the country was informed that during all this long period of preparation the drink problem is at the root of the present position? It is nothing of the kind, and no evidence has been put forward in support of that statement. I intend to oppose this Motion to the fullest, because to pass this Motion on the appeal which has been made to us would be unworthy of the representatives of the people and of self-respecting individuals. I am not prepared to commit myself, however indirectly, to interpretations which the country can put upon our actions, and rightly put upon them. For these reasons I certainly intend to oppose as fully as I can this Motion.

Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

In my judgment the Resolution before the House is a Resolution of pure cant. May I remind hon. Members that the total amount of drink consumed in the Smoking Room of this House last week was only four shillings, and in this way we are asked to set an example to the country! I do not think any hon. Member of this House has ever spoken in anything like such strong terms as I have against drinking amongst the working classes, but I have never been in favour of total abstinence by a policy of prohibition. As the King's name has been brought into this question I am sorry to say that I must take, the opposite view. I entirely dissent from the view that because His Majesty chooses in his own household to take this course—I do not know whether it was done on the advice of his Ministers or because the King himself thinks total prohibition is best in the interests of the State—that I should take the same view. I know that the miners I represent are wholly opposed to total prohibition in an industry in which light beer does no harm to them whatever.

The people who have never done any manual work, who have never worked in a mine, and who do not know what the practice is of those who work in mines and attend to furnaces, are utterly unable to express an opinion upon what a working man really wants after he has done his work. I know that the indiscriminate use of alcohol has been one of the great curses of our country; but if we seek to set the country an example in this way when we ourselves are not going to set an example in our own homes, in my opinion is nothing but pure cant. I should be sorry to have a Division on a domestic matter of this kind, but if we do divide I hope every hon. Member who is going to vote for this Motion will be able to say to his constituents that what he voted for in the House of Commons he is going to carry out in practice. Hon. Members who are going to vote for this Resolution are merely going to do it to set an example to the country upon a drink bill of 4s. for a period of a week. Seeing that this is a question upon which the Government is shortly going to put before the country a national policy, I think we ought to adjourn the Debate until the Government have definitely told us what their policy is. If the Government are going to say we are going to have a policy of light ales, I should be with them; but as the Government have not yet formulated their policy, and as we do not know what restrictions they are going to ask Parliament to place upon the sale of alcoholic liquors, I think this Debate ought to be adjourned.

Sir WALTER ESSEX

I beg to second the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.

I cannot help thinking that a large number of hon. Members are very unwilling to do anything which would appear to be forcing their opinions upon others. If this question goes to a Division whichever side wins will be faced with the dilemma of having to face the proposals of the Government with tied hands. I hope the House will see its way to support the adjournment of this question as the best way out of the difficulty. I trust the Government will accept this Motion and I hope that when they make their proposals to the country dealing with the liquor trade they will see to it that a self-denying ordinance no less strong is laid upon ourselves in this House.

Mr. CHAPLIN

I rise to support the Motion for the Adjournment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Mansfield. On the whole this appears to me to be a Motion that the House ought to support. After listening to this Debate it seems to me that nothing has really been said which ought to carry the slightest weight in support of the Motion which has been moved this afternoon. May I ask the House to recall for a single moment what was the original excuse for this Motion and for the controversy which arose with regard to drink and its effect on the fortunes of this War? The excuse was that it has been stated by a man in a great position that in this country at this moment we are engaged in the greatest struggle with which we have ever been confronted, and we are faced with three enemies: Germany, Austria, and the effect of drink in this country, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that the last of these three was the most dangerous enemy of all. I was never able to share that opinion for a moment, but if I were wrong and if he were right it was the Statesman who made that declaration who was more to blame than anyone else in this country—

Mr. W. THORNE

On a point of Order. I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is justified in discussing on a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate the principle of prohibition and the provision of munitions of war.

Mr. SPEAKER

The question before the House is whether the Debate should be adjourned, and upon that question we cannot discuss the wider questions with which the right hon. Gentleman has been dealing.

Mr. CHAPLIN

I was thinking, Mr. Speaker, of the old rules, but they have been changed so often that it is difficult to remember exactly what they are. I will confine myself entirely to the question of the Motion for the Adjournment. The reasons for putting the Motion on the Paper have changed altogether and the whole situation has changed. What are the arguments which we have heard in support of it? I agree that the example set by His Majesty is a noble example, and we have, as the Leader of the Opposition told us, each of us in our own individual case to deal with it according as we think right, but the example set by His Majesty is not in accord at all, or only in a limited degree, with the Motion now before the House. The example given at Buckingham Palace prevents the consumption of liquor, but the Motion now before us does nothing of the kind.

Mr. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman is discussing the Motion and that is not now before us. The question now is whether we shall postpone the discussion until a future date or continue it.

Mr. CHAPLIN

I am afraid that I shall greatly disappoint the hon. Gentleman who has just now asked us all to be unanimous on this occasion. I for one certainly cannot accede to his request, and, if the Debate should continue, I shall have another opportunity of giving my reasons, but I at all events heartily support the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.

Mr. HODGE

Previously to the hon. Baronet behind me (Sir A. Markham) speaking, the three speakers on this side of the House were teetotalers. I confess to being something akin to them in opinion with respect to the use of alcoholic beverages, but it appeared to me when they were speaking that it was rather a strange thing to talk about an example. Their example does not appear to me to be one that they should seek to impose upon other people. I think that the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate made by the hon. Baronet is probably the best way of dealing with the Motion of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing), because we are taking him on the wing instead of killing him entirely. I cannot speak for the whole of my colleagues, but a great many of them are of opinion that the Motion of the hon. Member is ill-conceived, and that it is very much better to wait until such time as the Government have declared their policy on this question before seeking to impose something which is entirely different on the House of Commons. I concur in everything that the Leader of the Opposition has said. It is no good restricting people who can go outside and get the refreshment they want. Therefore, if the hon. Member is not inclined to withdraw his proposal, I think this will be the easiest method of getting rid of him.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

There are just two points which I should like to put to the House. The House has been given the opportunity of coming to a decision on this matter, a decision which the Leader of the Opposition deprecates and minimises. My view is that the example of the House of Commons, especially in a matter of this kind, would be very largely imitated outside the House. We have this opportunity placed before us, and we either reject it or we accept it. The adjournment of the Debate will be virtually a rejection of the Motion—a rejection of this small act of self-sacrifice. It would not be any self-sacrifice on my part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is a very small act of self-sacrifice if four shillings is the total bill for last week. What will they say outside, when we come to legislate for the workers? They will say, "When the House of Commons are deciding this matter for themselves, they decline to sacrifice even four shillings a week, but they want to put upon us limitations which they refuse to put upon themselves." This is the only place in the country where there are no limitations.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is now arguing the Main Question, and is not speaking to the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.

Mr. CHANCELLOR

My point was that the acceptance of the Motion for the Adjournment would be practically a rejection, and would be interpreted in the sense which I am trying to put outside the House when later on we come to deal with the question.

Mr. COWAN

Before the House decides whether to adjourn this Debate as the easiest way of getting rid of what some hon. Members think an inconvenient Resolution, it might be convenient if the Government could give us some indication, not as to the nature of their proposals, but as to when those long overdue proposals will be put before the House?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)

I regret exceedingly that I am unable to comply with my hon. Friend's desire, either to state what the Government proposals will be or when they will be made. I have however, listened to the present Debate from the first word to the last, and it cannot be doubted that there is a considerable divergence of opinion in the House with regard to the original Motion. We are now debating, not the Motion itself, but the question whether the Debate should be adjourned. A very powerful, a much more than plausible reason has been adduced by my hon. Friend why the Debate should be adjourned at the present time. He rightly says that Government measures for dealing with the whole matter are shortly to be brought forward and that it might be more advantageous for the House to be informed fully what the Government's proposals are before a Division is taken on a controversial question of this kind. I am bound to say for my part that if there had been unanimity in the House it would have been a great satisfaction to me personally and I should have cordially welcomed the acceptance of the Motion of my hon. Friend; but in saying that I speak for myself personally. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I have no right either to speak for the hon. Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House or even for my colleagues in the Government. This is not a Government matter in any sense whatever; but in view of the divergence of opinion and in view of the weighty arguments put before the House by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division, I think that we should be better advised to accept the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate and wait until the full proposals are before the House.

Mr. LEIF JONES

In answer to my right hon. Friend, may I say that it was the Prime Minister himself who, in response to my hon. Friend's question, provided this opportunity to the House for deciding this question. The Prime Minister knew perfectly well that the Government proposals were not then before the country and could not be before it to-day. It does not therefore seem open to a Member of the Government to tell us that we ought to wait until we have the Government's proposals before us. The Government's proposals do not seem to me to be a determining factor in this matter at all. My hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) says that there is a good deal of cant about this Motion and about this Debate. I deprecate the use of strong language, but I do hope that the House will have the courage to-day to give a straight vote upon this single issue rather than relegate it to some future time.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow (Wednesday).

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One minute before Five o'clock.