HC Deb 11 May 1915 vol 71 cc1513-75

(1) Where it appears to His Majesty that it is expedient for the purpose of the successful prosecution of the present War that the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor in any area should be controlled by the State, on the ground that war material is being made or loaded or unloaded or dealt with in transit in the area or that men belonging to His Majesty's naval or military forces are assembled in the area, His Majesty has power, by Order in Council, to define the area and to apply to the area the regulations issued in pursuance of this Act under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and the regulations so applied shall, subject to any provisions of the Order or any amending Order, take effect in that area during the continuance of the present War and a period of twelve months thereafter.

(2) His Majesty in Council has power to issue regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, to take effect in any area to which they are applied under this Act—

  1. (a) for giving the prescribed Government authority, to the exclusion of any other person, the power of selling or supplying, or controlling the sale or supply of, intoxicating liquor in the area, subject to any exceptions contained in the regulations; and
  2. (b) for giving the prescribed Government authority power to acquire, compulsorily or by agreement, and either for the period during which the regulations take effect, or permanently, any licensed or other premises in the area, or any interest therein, so far as it appears necessary or expedient to do so for the purpose of giving proper effect to the control of the liquor supply in the area; and
  3. (c) for enabling the prescribed Government authority, without any licence, to establish and maintain refreshment rooms for the supply of refreshments (including, if thought fit, the supply of intoxicating liquor) to the general public or to any particular class of persons or to persons employed in any particular industry in the area; and
  4. (d) for making any modification or adjustment of the relations between persons interested in licensed premises in the area which appears necessary or expedient in consequence of the regulations; and
  5. 1515
  6. (e) generally, for giving effect to the transfer of the control of the liquor traffic in the area to the prescribed Government authority, and for modifying, so far as it appears necessary or expedient, the provisions of the Acts relating to licensing or the sale of intoxicating liquor in their application to the area.

(3) Any regulations made before the passing of this Act under the powers conferred by any Act dealing with the Defence of the Realm as respects the restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquor are hereby declared to have been duly made in accordance with those powers.

Sir GEORGE YOUNGER

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "twelve" ["twelve months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "six."

I do so for the purpose of inquiring from the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he regards it as necessary to continue this temporary measure for so long a period as twelve months after the War has concluded. I had given notice of three months, but that appears to me to be probably too short a period, and, therefore, I propose in substitution six months, which gives quite sufficient time and opportunity for any arrangements which require to be made for the re-transfer of those businesses, more particularly as I rather think the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not desire anything of a permanent character done under this Bill. The arrangement is temporary and confined strictly to the period of the War itself, and as soon as possible we should try and get back, whether on the same basis or not it would be afterwards to consider, to the existing condition of affairs.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

This is inserted in order to give Parliament an absolutely free hand at the termination of the War. We are now simply taking purely temporary powers. The moment the twelve months expires all the powers of the Government under this Bill cease, and they could not exercise any control. That will force whatever Government is in power to come to Parliament for further directions as to what to do under the conditions. That is exactly the object of this. Let me put to the hon. Baronet exactly what my point is. I consider six months too short. Supposing we had peace, say, at the end of August, at the end of the Session, then you could not possibly get a Bill through. There must be conflicting views to consider, and at that time there would probably be much more important matters than that for consideration. The time of Parliament would probably be fully occupied with those very urgent matters for some months after the termination of the War. It would be hopeless for anyone to endeavour to get a Bill dealing with a matter of this kind through in less than twelve months.

Sir G. YOUNGER

What is the need for it. Why not return to the status quo.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I do not know that you would. Parliament ought to be free to consider that, and why should not Parliament be free to do so? And you should not tie the hands of Parliament as to what ought to be done at the end of the term. Surely Parliament ought to be allowed to consider what is to be done in these cases. There may be all sorts of things which may arise as a result of an experiment of this kind, and no one could guarantee a Bill of the kind within less than twelve months, because there would be so many more urgent matters to deal with.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY

I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us his reason for this. It is the reason which I always thought was probably the true reason. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that after the twelve months he wants a Bill. What does he want to get a Bill for? This is a temporary measure to deal with a certain crisis which has arisen in certain trades, and now we find it is not a temporary measure at all, but part of another scheme which will be amplified and enlarged later on when the Government, which is in office after the War, has had the opportunity to consider what they should do. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division on this Amendment, because it is really a very important matter. It may be right or it may be wrong to consider a general measure, and I myself think it wrong, but we ought to know what we are doing and whether we are considering a temporary emergency measure or a ground for temperance legislation hereafter. I am personally opposed to anything at the present moment being taken which has not to do with the War, and which is not entirely temporary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us most openly that he is contemplating bringing in a Bill.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

That is not so, and the hon. Baronet has said so for the second time. I never said anything of the kind. I never said I contemplated bringing in a Bill. What I did say was this, that a Bill might be necessary and that all sorts of things might arise in connection with this matter which we cannot foresee, and you might require some measure, and there might be a Bill necessary.

Sir F. BANBURY

I do not see that I misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that a period of twelve months was necessary, because it was necessary to give Parliament a free hand, and the bringing in of another Bill might be necessary and that twelve months must elapse in order to give Parliament that free hand. I say that Parliament does not want any free hand. There is no necessity, and can be no necessity, for bringing in a Bill. This Bill only deals with a contingency which has arisen owing to the War. The moment the War is over we revert to the status quo ante, and there is no necessity to have any Bill of any sort or kind. There is no necessity that this prohibition should go on in any area for twelve months, or even for a fortnight, after the War. If Parliament in its wisdom should, after the end of the War, desire to bring in a Bill, it would have plenty of opportunity of doing so without having this provision in this Bill. I can see that it would be very much easier to bring in temperance legislation if you make this particular Bill last for twelve months after the War, for then people will be able to say: We have got to do something, as this Bill is going on for twelve months after the War. And those who desire to curtail the sale of spirits will say: Now that we have gone so far we must go further. That is what I object to, and what I did not understand that the House was being committed to. I thought the House was being committed merely to a temporary measure to meet a temporary situation.

Mr. LOUGH

I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press their objection on this particular point. The hon. Baronet speaks of the moment the War is over, as if that were an easy moment to fix. A great war like this will be a long time coming to a conclusion. There may be armistices and so on. There will, of course, be a moment when there is a cessation of hostilities; but after that there may be a great many discussions as to whether peace should be confirmed. We would all hope that peace might be confirmed. But the troops will be in all parts of the world, and it will take many months to get them home; therefore the twelve months' arrangement seems to me most reasonable. The point urged by my right hon. Friend, which has been taken advantage of somewhat unfairly, I think, was that this may be an interesting experiment. There may be results quite different from those which Members on either side expect. Parliament should be left free to consider the results of the experiment. Hon. Members may learn something they did not know before.

Sir F. BANBURY

That is very easy.

Mr. LOUGH

Then why should the hon. Baronet exclude himself from the opportunity of considering the circumstances which arise? On the whole, I think the period mentioned in the Bill is most reasonable, and I do not think the Government ought to be pressed to accept the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said that he hoped the Mover of the Amendment would go to a Division. Personally, I hope that no Division will be necessary, but that we may, by a spirit of sweet reasonableness and compromise, come to a unanimous decision. I confess I find it hard to justify the Bill as it stands, and it seems to me that a reasonable compromise is offered by the Amendment. I think that the right hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) had not very carefully considered the matter before he spoke; because he said there might be armistices and negotiations, which might take a long time. That is quite true, but what has that to do with the question before the Committee? The War does not end until the Treaty of Peace is signed and ratified. The longer the negotiations lasted, the longer would the Powers endure, because the state of War would not have come to an end. The only point we have to consider is how long after the state of war has been definitely terminated by a Treaty of Peace it is necessary that these special provisions should prevail. I do not want to anticipate future discussions on the licensing question. I have a certain hereditary interest, if I may say so, in any proposal of public control over the retail sale of drink. Had the proposals which my father earnestly advocated in the early part of his Parliamentary career, and to which he secured the assent of the Corporation of Birmingham, approved themselves to Parliament at that time, when there was not a tied house in the country, the solution of the problem might have been advanced very considerably beyond the point we have reached to-day. Therefore, I do not speak as one hostile to public management, still less as one hostile to disinterested management; but I do say that these are questions which we cannot touch without grave danger to-day.

All we have to do at the moment is to give the Government such powers as are necessary for the specified purposes for which they ask for them. They ask for them in order to regulate the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor in any area where they think it should be controlled by the State, on the ground that War material is being made, or loaded, or unloaded, or dealt with in transit. That is the primary and the great ground of necessity put forward. As the Government were bringing in a Bill, they included any area where any great number of troops are assembled; but I venture to say that the reports on the conduct of the troops are such that the Government would never have thought of bringing in a Bill for the troops if they had not been bringing one in for the civil population. It is really in connection with the supply of munitions of war that this Bill is introduced. When the War comes to an end that special necessity will come, to an end; the real reason for the Bill will be at an end, and the sooner we can stop our liabilities in the matter the better it will be. I think my hon. Friend has given the House of Commons quite reasonable time to turn round and make its arrangements. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept that offer, and not press upon the Committee the period of twelve months, which I think really goes beyond anything that is justified by the plea which the Government themselves have put forward.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I have shown throughout that I am very anxious to secure agreement. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have pressed this proposal upon me, especially having regard to his traditions in this matter. It does not give the House of Commons an opportunity of considering how the thing has worked, or on what conditions it should restore the status quo in these particular areas. It really denies the House of Commons the opportunity of reviewing the experiment and considering the conditions on which the status quo should be restored. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as I know he is open to reason, to consider the question of transport? I can conceive conditions under which the troops will not return within six months; it might be a little longer. The worst and the most dangerous conditions are, I am sorry to say, in the ports. I can hardly tell the Committee the dangers which have arisen in the ports. It is difficult to say what has happened in some of the ports without giving information which might be useful to the enemy. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press us to curtail the period of twelve months by a single day. But I say frankly that I am not going to force a Division; it is really a question on which we ought to meet each other. I should be sorry to press any part of these proposals to a Division. Carry them by means of a party vote I certainly will not; I will not take the responsibility. I am anxious that the House should share the responsibility in these matters. I again plead with the right hon. Gentleman to allow the twelve months to remain. The transport question is a very important one.

Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER

I ask the Committee to consider this matter from the point of view of what is to occur when the troops are coming back. We shall not get the troops back for a good many months after the War is over. We shall require the most careful regulations in the ports and certain other districts while the troops are coming back. Therefore it seems to me very desirable that there should be this ample limit of time. There is no compulsion on the Government to keep the thing going for twelve months except in the districts where they think it necessary.

Sir J. D. REES

I desire to enter my protest against the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Member for West Islington, that at this time any legislation could be passed in order to allow experiments in temperance reform. That is an altogether wrong attitude to take up. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to get these proposals by agreement, he would do well to muzzle the right hon. Member, whose short speech—I do not know how it affected other Members, but it certainly inclined me to vote against the Government, especially as the Bill just introduced by the Attorney-General is unexpectedly, and I think, unnecessarily, drastic in character.

Sir EDWIN CORNWALL

I hope that the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be responded to, and that right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree to the twelve months. It is not only Parliament that may want time to look into the matter. On that point I have no strong views; I rather agree with the hon. Baronet opposite, that we do not want to do anything which opens up new questions now or then. But it is not only Parliament that may be concerned. The people in the areas may be very much concerned in the arrangements that have to be made. I do not see how you can revert to the status quo at once. Under this Bill a large number of alterations will be made; there will be all sorts of arrangements between various people; houses will be closed for a time; arrangements will be entered into between various interests. I do not see how you can be sure of dealing with the matter in six months. You might do very serious injustice to the local people themselves. It is only a question of time. No one wants to retain a period which would be unfair to anyone. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite are unwilling to accept the twelve months, they might agree to a period "not exceeding" twelve months. That would not make it obligatory if the matter could be dealt with in less than twelve months. On the other hand, twelve months may be absolutely necessary in the interests of all concerned. Therefore I hope the Committee will not agree to reduce the twelve months to six.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I find it very difficult to resist an appeal such as the right hon. Gentleman made to us now. I cannot say that we are wholly convinced, but we do not like to press our point after such a speech. I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept an Amendment which would make the powers run during the continuance of the present War and such period not exceeding twelve months thereafter, as may be found to be necessary.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite for the way in which they have met the appeal of the Government. I will certainly accept such an Amendment. We do not want the provision for longer than is necessary.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)

Does the hon. Baronet withdraw his Amendment?

Sir G. YOUNGER

I am quite ready to withdraw my Amendment, but I am not altogether convinced by the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the right hon. Gentleman finds that he has a bad hare running he generally starts another. He did so in this case. He turned from the munition areas to the transport areas, and he made an effective appeal to my right hon. Friends, who are softer-hearted on this question. Therefore, in deference to the general opinion, I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "a period of twelve months thereafter," in order to insert instead thereof the words, "such period not exceeding twelve months thereafter as may prove to be necessary."

Mr. ANNAN BRYCE

What exactly does that mean?

Mr. HEWINS

I would like to ask my right hon. Friend below me to whom shall it be proved?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The last thing that I wish to be is to be treated as the Minister in charge of the Bill, or, perhaps, I should say in charge of an Amendment to the Bill, but I should imagine that this will be taken to mean such period as may reasonably be shown to be necessary for the purpose set out in the preceding words of the Clause. If it is so proved it is for the House of Commons to bring the Government to book if they exceed their instructions.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

Mr. JAMES HOPE

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words,

"Provided that if the local authority in any area or part of an area to which the regulations apply represent that the continuance of such regulations or any of them is inexpedient, such regulations or regulation shall not have effect after one month from the date of such representation in that area or part of an area, unless a public local inquiry shall have been held during such month by a Commissioner appointed by His Majesty, and the report of the said Commissioner shall have been received and published. For the purpose of this Section the expression "local authority" means for any area or part of an area comprised within the county borough or borough the council of such borough, and in every other case the council of the county in which the area or part of an area is comprised."

I have framed my Amendment on the supposition that it is necessary, as I think, that in some form or other there should be a check upon the possible arbitrary action of officials who have the carrying out of very difficult, very invidious, and absolutely new duties. The check I suggest is a very moderate one. First of all, it would not prevent the Regulations being started in any area. If the times were normal I should have liked a preliminary inquiry in every locality. That, of course, is impossible. I recognise it, and I do not propose it here. In the second place, my Amendment only insists upon an inquiry on the demand of the responsible local authority, and not in consequence of private representations. In the third place, although my Amendment asks for an inquiry, it does not absolutely bind the Government to accept the results of the inquiry. It only says there shall be an examination of the circumstances of the neighbourhood in reference to these Regulations if the responsible authority so demands it. I do say something of the kind is necessary, because there is a real danger, under present conditions, of officials rather taking the bit between their teeth.

There is need for the facts to be ascertained in matters of this kind. Even as it is, on the whole of the case, we are by no means certain what are the facts. Listening to the Debates which have taken place we do not know the extent of the evil. We do not for certain know the extent of the lost time. We do not know for certain the causes from which the time has been lost. Various statements have been put forward, no doubt perfectly bonâ fide, but Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side have brought forward on the other side a statement of other causes, so that we do not know exactly how the matter stands at the present time. I do ask that the difficulties we have been in in discussing the whole question here may not be repeated if local trouble arises. I can well understand an official going down to an area of which he knows nothing to make arrangements for carrying the Act into operation. He may very likely, for instance, see some employer who has a considerable local position, who may hold his own views very strongly, though they may not be the views of the neighbourhood at all or the views of the workpeople—

Mr. BOOTH

Hear, hear!

Mr. HOPE

I do suggest that this official, who may perhaps be inspired by an honest and biassed opinion, should not prevail over the real wishes of the locality. I have endeavoured to surround this power to the locality with every possible check. I ask that if the neighbourhood, whether it be a county borough or other defined district, does come to the conclusion, and convinces its own local authority, that this or that regulation is working badly, that there shall be a public inquiry into the facts. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman was well advised when he said the other day that we could not in matters of this kind go ahead of local opinion. I desire, in moving this Amendment, that local opinion should be consulted, and if that local opinion is with the Government, their scheme will be far more successful than if they tried to overbear with the mere weight of official power.

Sir HENRY CRAIK

Nothing but the very strongest conviction set against the great respect that I have for my hon. Friend who sits below me would lead me now to declare the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not yield to this Amendment. Were it not for that great respect that I have for my hon. Friend and for his colleagues the other hon. Members for Sheffield, I should have thought that they were perhaps inclined to yield a little too easily to facile utterances and charitable compliments to the local authority which we are all too prone—

Mr. HOPE

No.

Sir H. CRAIK

We have something else to do than to pass any such compliments or eulogies, or to accept any such surpassing trust in the wisdom of these local bodies. The evil that this Bill is intended to deal with may, no doubt, be confined, or largely confined, to certain localities, but the danger that this Bill is meant to counteract, and which it must meet, and which is the only justification for the Bill, is an Imperial danger, and is to be settled by Imperial considerations and not by local considerations. We know perfectly well what local feelings are, and how easy it would be for this man or that man who has certain interests to stir up and put forward a specious case. That case would be supported by many apparently fairly sound arguments, and local opinion would be put forward in its favour. Envenomed dissension would spring up, and there would be wrangling and fighting between the two sections of the locality. The result would be that if the provisions of this Bill were enforced they would only be enforced after envenomed fighting in the locality, in which all sorts of personal considerations were brought in.

Is it possible that my hon. Friend who advocates this Amendment desires to see local objections of that sort or to prevent such friction in the working of the Bill which, if it is to be agreed upon at all, is to be agreed upon only as one of urgent, imperious necessity? We all know how these local inquiries are conducted. An amount of fair argument may be brought forward on behalf of the objectors, and a rankling feeling of wrong is spread throughout the locality. What in the world can a county or a borough council have to say to grave questions which we are dealing with in this Bill, and how far evil is to be dealt with by drastic measures? We have had some experience of the action of local authorities hitherto. Under previous emergency Bills local authorities could have very considerably counteracted opportunities for drink. What have they done? I do not hesitate to state—because I have fortunately no county council which I am obliged to flatter—that these local authorities have failed to act on their responsibilities, and have not enforced with sufficient drastic authority the powers which we gave them by the emergency Bills. If a local inquiry is to be held, let it be held. I am perfectly certain that the hon. Gentleman does not suppose that the Government central body would act without ascertaining the local opinion in the proper way. Let these local conditions be ascertained by an emissary sent down from the central body, appointed by them and responsible to them, and not moved by any kind of opinion in the locality. It is by that means, by action which I am perfectly certain will be observed, by having thoroughly good men sent down as your emissaries, that you will ascertain far better the real justice of the case as regards the local conditions and opinion, and you will not take out of the hands of the central authority, which has to decide, these very drastic powers to be used in case of emergency. You will not let that pass from that authority into the hands of the very doubtful and very confusing eddies of local controversy and local ideas which might impair the whole. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment, ably as it has been proposed by my hon. Friend.

Sir J. SIMON

I think everybody will agree that the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University has made a very powerful speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] He has put as fairly as they can be put the large consideration which it seems to us must be borne in mind in considering this proposal. The proposal itself is quite attractive, because everybody is attracted by the idea that before you interfere by edict in the ordinary daily life of some local area you ought to ascertain the facts, and realise that in that local area there are local authorities who claim, quite fairly, to speak for those by whom they have been elected. The answer to all that is, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, that this is a case where you interfere in local areas, not for the sake of the local area, or for the sake of those who live in this local area alone, but for the sake of the country as a whole, and for the sake of great national interests that are in the charge of all of us. And it would plainly be wrong to allow the view which is expressed in the locality—not wrong, of course, to take it into account, but wrong to allow it to control the policy which, from a wider point of view, ought to be adopted on behalf of the nation at large. I hope the House will observe that this is not a proposal that you should consult the locality or that you should do what you can to ascertain local opinion, either through the local authorities or otherwise; this is a proposal that if the local authority—I presume by any majority; by a snatch majority on the town council any day of the week, even if it succeeds by a majority of one—says it objects to any regulation, that decision by that local authority is to operate in order to stop a regulation which, in the national interests, it is necessary to enforce. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see, in the circumstances, that is a thing which really we cannot agree to do.

Mr. HOPE

It operates in the sense that it makes a public local inquiry necessary.

Sir J. SIMON

I am sure I do not wish to misrepresent what he proposes, but it makes a public local inquiry necessary. Though I have had something to do with public local inquires and do not wish to say anything against them, I do say this with confidence: they are a very slow method, and I should think them wholly inappropriate to a matter which is essentially urgent, immediate, and national. With every desire to consult the opinion of the locality, the view we feel bound to take is that really the responsibility here must be regarded as a responsibility of the central authority, acting on behalf of the nation as a whole. The hon. Gentleman who makes this proposal very truly says that we shall not get on if we run counter to informed local opinion. That is no doubt true, and it is for that reason my right hon. Friend the other day said that which I now repeat, that the first thing we should do before we impose stiff regulations in any given area would be to inquire and ascertain what is the view which is taken by those best qualified to judge inside the area, representative of the area, and speaking on their behalf. That is a very different thing from saying that, in a matter which is essentially national, essentially Imperial and essentially a case of emergency, you should give, in the first place, a power of veto to the local authority, and, in the second place, have to indulge in the rather slow-moving machinery of a public local inquiry. Therefore, while we certainly shall not forget the importance of consulting local opinion and acting with local opinion, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not desire to press further upon us that we should substitute the view of a majority, after, it may be, much acrimonious controversy in some local body, for that which must be the deliberate decision of those who are primarily responsible for defending our shores and for defeating the foe. After all, you cannot use a town council or county council in order that their view may overrule the view of the War Office or the Admiralty.

Mr. HOPE

No.

Sir J. SIMON

Well, that is what is involved, because consider what the effect will be in an area if you first, by a small majority, have a public inquiry. Those who have supported that majority will persist at the local inquiry that they are right and the War Office is wrong. If the War Office has good reason for its view, however unpopular it may be locally, they must persist in their view, and, as the result of long controversy in a public local inquiry, you will find there will be only more acrimony, more contest, and more disputes than before. Surely the right thing is to consult local opinion and act with it as far as you may, but the responsibility here is a national responsibility resting, in the first instance, on the Admiralty and the War Office, and it is that responsibility which they must discharge in the interests of the nation as a whole. For those reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.

Sir J. D. REES

I submit, among the Imperial considerations, one is that no subject should be placed under any unnecessary restriction, and I submit that the Amendment—I do not know whether my hon. Friend means to press it to a Division—is suitable for the circumstances of great cities like his own constituency, and indeed others. Take the case of a city, the chief characteristic manufactures of which are stockings and nets, stockings being always necessary, and nets being recently necessary owing to the poisonous and barbarous methods of warfare in which our enemies indulge. Under this Bill it might very likely happen in the case of a great city that one part of it would be properly obnoxious to the provisions of this Bill and another part would have no particular concern. Under the Amendment it would be quite possible to divide the area, as I understand, leaving the general and Imperial considerations operative in the part to which they apply and making immune from such considerations that part of the area to which they need not apply. In that case I confess I cannot quite see that all the objections which the Attorney-General instances apply to the case. My hon. Friend's Amendment allows a month, and I do not quite understand why it should be held that any inquiry under this Amendment necessarily amounts to a stand-up fight with the War Office. I do not think it has that meaning, but only that, if it were shown that these restrictions, which no doubt are extremely drastic and severe, were not necessary, an inquiry might be held with a view to exempting the area concerned from their operations. I submit there are good grounds for the Amendment.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS

I think local authorities, though grateful for the good intention, would certainly not be grateful for the result of the Amendment if it became the law of the land. I cannot conceive any town or county council viewing with other than abhorrence having this responsibility put upon them. It is a purely exceptional war measure, and the more you detach it from the ordinary process of local government and put the responsibility where it must be—on the authorities for national defence—the better. I am confident there is no demand by local authorities to have this power given to them.

Mr. HOPE

The right hon. Gentleman opposite argued as if the effect of this proposal would be to stop regulations being applied. All that it was intended for, and all I think it would do, was that, if regulations had been applied and were found to be working badly and defeating their own object, there should be some means of securing a revision by the central authority. It by no means takes it out of their hands. However, seeing that the Government is against this proposal, I will not at all press it, but I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that, not only in the first instance before regulations are applied, but that the body, whoever they may be, will be instructed to keep their ears open and their eyes open to see whether these regulations are really working properly, and, if not, that there will be some machinery for their revision. That is the whole object I had in view.

Sir J. SIMON

I know that is the intention of the hon. Gentleman. Of course, it may turn out that the regulations as first made will be found by experience not to be wide enough; in that case it will be necessary to add to them.

Mr. HOPE

Certainly.

Sir J. SIMON

On the other hand, it may be found after experience that the regulations are unduly wide and in some respects are not producing the results intended. That will be a case for contracting their scope. Both the one and the other must be matters for consideration by the central authority, and it is certainly our intention that the one, no less than the other, should be borne in mind.

Mr. HOPE

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "selling or supplying, or" ["the power of selling or supplying, or controlling the sale"].

I would like to ask the Attorney-General what is the motive of the Government for changing the form of the Bill where they first deal with the control of the liquor traffic in Sub-section (1). In that part they say that in those areas where the Government deem it desirable that the trade should be controlled by the State certain regulations shall be made, but when they come to Sub-section (2) they are not content with taking the power of controlling the sale or supply of liquor; they ask for the power themselves to sell or supply liquor. My Amendment would have the effect of giving to the Government complete control of the supply of liquor in any area. They could make any regulations as to the sale of liquor, as to the sort of liquor, as to the people who sell it, and as to the houses in which it is sold—any sort of regulations they thought desirable they could make if my Amendment is carried. What they could not do is themselves to carry on the selling or supplying of liquor; and I do think, before the Government ask for power to embark upon an experiment which the Government in this country have never yet tried, some substantial reasons ought to be given why they think those who at present supply and sell liquor are not competent to sell and supply liquor under the new regulations which the Government propose to lay down. I feel bound to point out to the Government that this proposal does arouse very considerable opposition among a large section of the community. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has alluded to the proposals put forward by a late honoured Member of this House in regard to the Gothenburg system a great many years ago, but at the time the right hon. Gentleman's father put them forward there was a hot controversy in the country, and there is still a large body of opinion which is not at all converted to the view.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

It was killed by the temperance reformers.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. LEIF JONES

That is a facile way of attacking the temperance party, and I am sorry he should have done it to-day, as I am not dealing controversially with the matter at all. What I am saying is that a respectable and numerous body of opinion in this country think it an undesirable experiment, and I put it to the Government they have no right to jump the country into experiments upon this matter. The House, putting aside the personal opinion of Members and constituencies in this matter, is willing to give large powers to the Government on recognised lines; but, at any rate, the Government, if they themselves are going in for the sale and supply of liquor, will be doing so in opposition to a strong, and as I think a not unwise body of opinion. Passing from that, the Government have no experience in this matter to guide them; it is purely an experiment. They are proposing themselves to go into what I regard as a most difficult trade to carry on. I am not one of those who blame the men who have carried on the trade for all the evils caused by it. I think it is an extremely difficult trade to manage, and there is nothing to show that a body of whom we know nothing, through a Committee whose constitution we do not know, will be a better body to carry out regulations of the Government to sell liquor than the present sellers of liquor if the Government issued their demands to those sellers. I do not think the Government have made any case for this at present. Whom are they going to employ to sell and supply liquor? Are they merely going to turn the present sellers into Government sellers, or are they going to create a new body of persons to sell liquor in the country? Who are the men who are going to manage the places in which the Government propose to sell? The Chancellor of the Exchequer exhibited great impatience yesterday when someone on those benches asked how many glasses of liquor he was going to allow to be supplied in these houses, but these are questions which the Government will have to determine, and if they are going to employ their own servants they will have to give them instructions how many glasses are to be supplied; they will have to tell them where to buy the liquor, which breweries they are to patronise, and whoso whisky they are to sell. These are questions which the Government are not competent to deal with, and they had far better leave it in the hands of those who have been accustomed to selling intoxicating liquors and place such restrictions upon them as are necessary. By doing that we shall be fulfilling the first Clause of the Bill and at the same time meeting the necessities of the case. It woud be far wiser to prescribe the regulations, and let them place in every one of these houses which is to be left open a military officer, or someone who, on behalf of the Government, will see that the regulations are carried out. That is already being done under the Defence of the Realm Act, with the greatest effect, in various places, and that is one of the most effective methods of stopping drunkenness. My suggestion is to place a military officer in or near these public-houses, in order to see that the men who ought not to go in do not enter, and see that the men who go in are not supplied with more than is allowed. That is already being done, with the greatest possible success, and the places where this has been tried are at the present moment far and away the best managed places in respect of the liquor traffic that are to be found. I say that no case has been made out for the Government taking this trade into their own hands. We do not want to try social experiments in regard to which there is any controversy during a war. What we want is that the trade should be so managed as not to lead to the evils of which the House has been speaking during the last few days, and if the Government accept my Amendment they will be able to do everything that is necessary by prescribing their regulations and seeing that they are carried out.

Sir J. SIMON

The Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved is, I think, similar to an Amendment which he has lower down on the Paper, which is to leave out the words "including, if thought fit, the supply of intoxicating liquors."

Mr. LEIF JONES

Not at all.

Sir J. SIMON

I thought it was, and I should have thought that the principle in the one proposal is exactly the same as the other.

Mr. LEIF JONES

In the case of canteens at the present time there is no Government sale of intoxicating liquors. The liquor is supplied and sold by contractors under Government control. At the present time there is no Government sale or supply of liquor in this country.

Sir J. SIMON

I only wanted to ascertain what the hon. Member's view was, because if the two proposals were intended to raise the same point, I thought we should not need to discuss them twice. It appears, however, that this is not the same point. My hon. Friend contemplates that under this Sub-clause you should take away the proposed power of selling and supplying liquor, and yet at the same time leave the Government with power to establish canteens, and amongst other things give the canteens the power of supplying intoxicating liquor.

Mr. LEIF JONES

No.

Sir J. SIMON

It is either the same point or a different one, and I do not mind which. I understand now that the two points are quite separate. I submit that this Amendment will make perfect nonsense of the Bill. I should have thought that if there is any part of this scheme which is generally approved in all quarters of the House, it is the proposal that, in view of the special temptations which are offered to workmen in munition areas by the sale of drink immediately at the doors or near the places where they work, you should in case of need shut up some of those houses on compensation terms, and run them as Government canteens. I should have thought that that was a proposal which the House generally would accept. If you are going to establish such a canteen, it is to be for the special benefit of the men engaged in producing munitions of war in places close to where they are working, and under conditions which are not likely to interfere with the efficiency of their work, and at the same time supply them with reasonable refreshments. Does anybody really suggest that those canteens are not going to sell intoxicating liquors? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, they must supply intoxicating liquors, and they will be canteens which the Government wish to see provided, supplying food as well as drink, tea and coffee, and other refreshments as well as intoxicating liquors. That must be so. If that is going to be done I am quite unable to understand that there is really any point in urging that the Government is not to take Power in these cases to sell and supply intoxicating liquors. If, of course, the principle is that the Government should never soil its hand by selling directly or indirectly a single drop of intoxicating liquor, I can quite understand that is a proposal which is perfectly logical itself, and certainly I shall use no hard words about it. My hon. Friend and others who are supporting this Amendment are most honourable and distinguished for the courage and persistency with which they have urged this principle, but if there is to be a Government canteen in which workmen are going to get what they want to drink and eat under fair and proper conditions, is there any point in saying that we must remove the power of selling and supplying intoxicating liquor? Really, if we were to do this with our eyes open we should be guilty of something very much like the making of a pretence, because what is the good of saying that the Government must not have the power to sell or supply intoxicating liquor and at the same time allow them to set up a canteen, and put in a manager who may sell and supply intoxicating liquor?

Mr. LEIF JONES

Is the contractor going to sell Government food? Is the food going to belong to the Government, or is the manager going to arrange with contractors to supply food?

Sir J. SIMON

The Government already has power to buy and sell food, and we do not need any special power to do that. The Government buys large quantities of food every day, and it is quite beside the point to say that because there is no express power to sell sandwiches or buns that therefore the Government has no power to buy sandwiches and buns and sell them. This is practically the undertaking by the Government of a new function, and it is quite right that it should be examined carefully, and put into plain terms in the Bill, because by so doing the position will be really understood. Our position is that amongst other things power is needed by which we might be able to set up in munition areas places of entertainment where food and drink may be obtained, and it may well be where they may be supplied without the temptation in the proprietor to push the sale of one article. It is by that means you can hope most effectively to supply the worker with what he wants and at the same time see that it is supplied in a way which is not going to interfere with the rapid and efficient production of munitions of war. I hope my hon. Friend will see, when he is laying down that under no circumstances shall the Government have power to sell intoxicating liquor, that it is an essential part of his own scheme.

Mr. LEIF JONES

No.

Sir J. SIMON

That is our view, and we certainly could not consent to give up the power of selling and supplying intoxicating liquor, because we think that if we did give it up a great deal of the efficiency of what we are proposing to-day would be really hampered. If we were engaged in times of peace trying to alter the public taste, and endeavouring to teach the British workmen that tea and coffee are much better for him than whisky and beer, and if we had plenty of time to do it I can understand that we ought not to take power to sell beer and whisky; but we are in the middle of a war, and we have to do this thing quickly, and this is not an occasion when we ought to try to change the public taste and beat the Germans at the same time. We are doing what is calculated to promote the rapid and efficient production of munitions of war, and even though that may involve taking power to sell and supply intoxicating liquor, it is a power which we must obtain, and it will only be used within the limits which are necessary having regard to the exigencies under which the War is carried on.

Sir F. BANBURY

I sympathise with the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) in his anxiety at the Government being licensed to sell and supply intoxicating liquors to be consumed on or off the premises, for I am sure the hon. Gentleman never thought he would live to see the Government do that—

Mr. LEIF JONES

I have not in the least attacked the Government for selling and supplying intoxicating liquor in those places at the present time. The point I am dealing with now is whether the liquor sold is to be Government liquor.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that his own Government were to be licensed to sell intoxicating liquor to be consumed on or off the premises, and that is where I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I have myself a little hesitation in supporting the Government on this particular part of the Bill when I remember what took place a short time ago when we were told that, probably, after the expiration of the War there would be another Bill, and it is possible that the Government may find it so profitable to stand behind the bar in white aprons—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) would look very well—that after the War they may desire to continue that operation.

Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL

I am bound to say that I am very much surprised at the speech that has been made by the Attorney-General. I have had a very great deal of experience myself of working men and their employment, and I never heard of any Bill being brought into the House of Commons to try to prevent drunkenness, and the evils arising out of the sale of liquor, and at the same time for the Government to engage in it themselves as provided in the words suggested in the Bill. It is the most astonishing proposition I have ever listened to, and, if this experiment and what the Government is forecasting here is carried into effect, you will not discourage the evils of which you are complaining, but you will increase them. I know a very large number of works—steel works and engineering works—where no drink at all is permitted to enter, and the workmen do not drink during the time they are employed at the works; they drink after they come out of the works. I speak from very great experience, because I can tell the House that in my young days I was for seventeen years a steel worker myself, and for ten years out of the seventeen I worked as an absolute teetotaler. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the other seven years?"] There is no man living unless he has gone through the experience who knows the temptation working men suffer in having to pass public-houses going from the works to their homes, but I am thankful to say with regard to those seven years that I did escape the temptation, and, if I had not escaped it, I should not be a Member of Parliament to-day. I make that confession openly.

I feel very strongly about the sorrows, the poverty, and the crime arising from over-drinking. I have been a magistrate for many years, and you can see it in the Courts. You can follow it to the asylums. There is, in fact, no man acquainted with the question who is not bound to come to the conclusion that drink is the greatest curse with which we are battling to-day. I am bound to confess I am surprised that I should have lived to see a Liberal Government undertaking to sell drink or to control the sale of it, either through public-houses or through canteens. I should much prefer that they should do what has been done under the Act of 1904. Under that Act we have reduced 14,000 public-houses. We have destroyed 14,000 licences, and in no case has it ever been suggested that we should supply the place of those public-houses which were destroyed by canteens. I know towns in the north of England where we have destroyed as many as fifty-four licences under that Act. There has never been a suggestion by anybody that we should replace them by canteens or anything of that kind.

Sir G. YOUNGER

Because they were redundant houses.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

They were redundant houses, because there is now a different idea as to the sale of drink. In former years these houses were not redundant. They were established in the years 1860–70, and they have had to take the licences away. I am arguing that when you destroy a public-house you do not replace it. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are the clubs!"] In some of these towns there are very few drinking clubs indeed. You have therefore the destruction of a number of public-houses without replacing them. The Government will find that the troubles which I suggested yesterday will come upon them. I know working men fairly well. A man acquires a taste for drink—it is more habit than anything else—and if you sell drink within the reach of that man's employment he will not be satisfied with one or two pints; he will demand more, and I ask the Government how much they are going to restrict that man to receive during the day's work? All these are factors which will have to be considered, and I do hope that the Government will reconsider this matter, especially with regard to the canteens, and that they will not undertake the sale of intoxicating drink. I have in my hand the account of an excellent example of a canteen in one of the shipyards on the Tees, where they supply no intoxicating liquors whatever. They simply supply non-intoxicating beverages and hot food. These firms would do all this if the Government were to request them, but, if the Government undertake this experiment, it will, in my opinion, lead them into great disaster hereafter, and I venture to say that they will very much regret the passing of a Bill like this, which, instead of decreasing, will increase the temptation to our working men.

Sir G. YOUNGER

The hon. Member, as far as I can make out, suggests to the Government that they should take advantage of this emergency Bill to enforce prohibition in the various areas they intend to schedule. That would be a most dishonest proceeding on their part, and I am a little surprised that any suggestion should be made to put the Government in the position of having to discuss the matter at all. I do not think the consciences of hon. Members ought to be seriously disturbed by the proposal of the Bill. They are already partners in the trade. As taxpayers they are being relieved of burdens by the taxation of liquor, and it is extraordinary to me that they should discriminate in the one case and not in the other. They rejoice in any taxation of drink because they know that it relieves them of some of their burdens. There is no one more unwilling to see his business arrangements interfered with than myself, but, while I can see that very serious derangement and great difficulties will arise for everybody connected with this business in those areas where the Government are going to act, I do not see how the Government are going to carry out the control without the powers for which they ask, and I should myself be dishonest if I did not say so. I have said that I accept, and that the trade accepts, the principle of this Bill. They are willing that the Government should have this control. They could destroy the Bill by supporting and accepting the hon. Member's Amendment. Therefore I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it, because I have already said that we accept this proposal of the Government, and I am not going to do anything which would counteract a pledge which I myself have given.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR

I confess I am rather surprised to hear from the hon. Baronet that this Bill would be destroyed altogether if these words were taken out. I should have liked the hon. Baronet to have given some reasons for his statement. His statement surely amounts to this, that it is insufficient to give the Government powers of control and regulation over the licensed trade. If it amounts to that, does it not carry us a step further and mean that the licensed trade at the present moment would not be prepared to accept restrictions which the Government might properly put upon them? Is it not a fair statement of the case to say that if the Government were satisfied that certain restrictions ought to be given effect to, those restrictions could be carried out effectively if the licensed trade would fall in with them in the spirit in which they were made? I put that point to the hon. Baronet because his statement amounts to this, that no restrictions of any kind would be effective unless you had the power to sell and supply.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I do not admit saying anything of the kind. I say that this is not a prohibition Bill, and the Government know perfectly well that they cannot make it a prohibition Bill if they expect it to work, because the trade would not accept it.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR

That is a different point. The point of the hon. Baronet was that no restrictions of any kind would be effective unless you had the power to sell and supply. If the licensed trade were prepared to come forward in the spirit which they have suggested and help the Government, they would accept any restrictions which were thought necessary to carry on the trade at the present time. Surely, if this Bill means anything, it means that you are giving the Government power to control the trade in any way that they think fit, and if the hon. Baronet does not include the shutting up of public-houses and the prohibiting of the sale of liquor in some circumstances, I cannot understand the Bill.

Sir G. YOUNGER

Of course I do!

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR

Under the Defence of the Realm Act, already passed, absolute powers are given to the Government to close any public-houses, and I understand that this Bill is not intended to limit the powers of the Government—although I believe it will—but to carry them further. I cannot therefore understand the suggestion of the hon. Baronet. Surely no case whatever has been made out why the Government should not accept the Amendment. The Captain Superintendent of the Clyde and other well-qualified authorities go a great deal further and suggest prohibition. There is no reasonable restriction that is required which cannot be effectively enforced under this Bill without the Government itself actually selling or supplying liquor. So far as the houses which are going to be taken over are concerned, I would distinguish, for a moment, between the case of the canteens put by the Attorney-General and the case of the other houses which are to be taken over and controlled. Take the case of a house outside certain works which it is proposed, under certain circumstances, to acquire and run. What objection is there to this house being placed under regulations, and to the present occupiers continuing their business under the restrictions which the Government think it right to lay down? When you are dealing with the question of compensation, surely it is a proper thing to suggest that the present owners, or occupiers of the premises should be allowed an opportunity of continuing to run the business, while the Government makes such provision as it thinks fit for any loss that may be sustained, such loss to be computed on the reduced takings. This so far as houses in the hands of the trade are concerned. The Attorney-General suggests it is necessary to go further, and he tells us the main purpose of the Bill is to establish canteens. Let me ask the House to consider, first, the position of Government works. I understand that the Government already has ample powers to establish canteens in their dockyards and workshops; indeed, in many cases they have already done it. Am I right in saying that?

Sir J. SIMON

Certainly.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR

The right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that they have ample powers already to deal with Government dockyards and workshops. We are now dealing with the cases of private firms. A question was asked in the House the other day whether this provision could not be made by private firms, and an illustration was taken in this particular instance from what was done in Germany. Although I do not suggest that that is an example we should necessarily follow in all respects, I should like at a time like this, when employers are earning such large profits in their works, to appeal to them to come forward and take their share by making some provision of this character. I believe that many would be willing to do it. It would not involve a very heavy burden, and it is appropriate to suggest that they should do it. If it is desired to go further, what objection is there to provision being made for giving all necessary powers to the employers to do this in their works, or in some suitable house immediately outside? I suggest to hon. Members that in the great majority of cases it will be possible to find licensed premises immediately outside the works which will be suitable to be turned into canteens under the control of the Government, while they remain in the hands of the present owners. As a matter of fact, there are too many licensed houses immediately around the works, and you could easily set up canteens outside the works in premises at present occupied by licensed owners. [An HON. MEMBER: "Disinterested management!"] No. I suggest that the restrictions which are laid down by the Government and enforced on the present holders of licensed premises are all that is necessary in this case. The Government should lay down their conditions and restrictions, and enforce them on the present holders. I sincerely hope that the House will consider seriously, before accepting the Bill in its present form, the desirability of limiting its provisions as suggested in the Amendment.

Mr. RIGBY SWIFT

The Attorney-General, in replying on the Amendment, moved by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley, seemed to indicate that it had something to do with canteens.

Sir T. WHITTAKER

Please attribute the Amendment to the right quarter.

Mr. RIGBY SWIFT

I should have said the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones). I apologise to both hon. Members. It seemed to be thought that the Amendment had something to do with the question of canteens, and I rather gathered that the last speaker was under the same impression. But, to my mind, in discussing this Amendment, we have nothing whatever to do with the question of canteens. This Amendment is directed at the first of the empowering Clauses of the Bill, and the question of canteens comes up quite separately in another part. I certainly should not oppose any suggestion the Government is making as to taking powers for selling or distributing intoxicating liquors in canteens which they think it necessary to put inside any works. They have provided in the Bill for doing that, and they have also expressly provided that they may do it without taking out any licence. I can see no objection to the adoption of that course. But in the part of the Bill to which this Amendment is directed they are seeking far wider powers than merely selling to workmen engaged in the manufacture of munitions inside the works. They are seeking powers to hold and run public-houses in any part of the country where they may think it necessary to do it, and they are not even asking this House to allow them to do it without being licensed, as in the case of canteens. I presume, and I shall continue to do so until I am told I am wrong by a higher authority, that a Government servant selling intoxicating liquors in an ordinary public-house would require to be licensed just like anybody else. If it is not so, I can only say that no provision has been made for that.

Is the drink problem going to be helped in the slightest degree by converting the present licensed victuallers all over the country into Government servants, or by casting them out and putting Government servants into their places? Yet that is what this Bill enables to be done. I do not say it will be done. I should not think it would be done to any extent. I cannot conceive it being done to any very large extent. Still, the Government is asking power in the Clause to which this Amendment applies, not merely to control the sale of intoxicating liquors, not merely to to make regulations as to the sale of them, not merely to be allowed to distribute intoxicating liquors, along with food, to men working in munition factories—and to that I have no objection—but they are asking to be put in the position of the ordinary publican, in the ordinary public-house, and to be allowed to sell intoxicating liquors in the ordinary way. I hope that the Attorney-General, having separated in his mind these two questions, may see his way to agree to this Amendment. I trust that in this, as in other matters, we may arrive at some compromise which will avoid the necessity of taking a Division on this Amendment. I should be very loth indeed to give a vote, or to seem to acquiesce in any proposition which, in these days of emergency and crisis, would have the effect of turning the State into the owner of licensed public-houses.

Sir T. WHITTAKER

It is very desirable, in discussing this extremely important portion of the Bill, that we should clearly distinguish between two questions—one which is raised, and one which is not—and I will say, with all respect to the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire and to the hon. Member for Stockton—

Mr. J. SAMUEL

The point was also raised by the Attorney-General.

Sir T. WHITTAKER

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait a minute. He does not know what I am going to say. I was remarking that he and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire had been discussing a question which is not raised by this Amendment, and, although he interjected that the same thing was done by the Attorney-General, that does not do away with the fact that the discussion was proceeding on wrong lines, although it may constitute some excuse for confusing the two points. But let us get back to a discussion of the real issue. The provision of canteens in works is not the question at issue in this particular part of the Clause. We are now discussing how we can best deal with the liquor traffic in the areas outside works devoted to the manufacture of munitions, as well as in military centres, and also—and to my mind this is especially important—in ports. There are two things you can do. One is to prohibit the sale and thereby remove the temptation; but, although I agree very largely with those who wish that to be done, I must admit that what we have to discuss at this moment is what is practicable, and, with all my desire in the direction of prohibition, I realise it to be an obvious fact that you cannot now have anything like widespread prohibition throughout these areas. You would defeat your own object if you attempted to do anything of the kind, and you certainly would not get the output of munitions which it is the desire of all of us to obtain. Therefore, I say, that anything like widespread prohibition is impracticable. Some control under stringent regulations is, however, admitted to be necessary.

How are you going to provide it? The Government are taking powers which will enable them to close a certain number of houses. I have no doubt they would do so, but that would still leave a number of other houses easily accessible to the men, and unless you have very stringent control of the remaining houses which are open only a little further away, you will be defeated in your object. What are you going to do with these houses? You cannot effectively control them unless you are practically the actual masters of them. We have had all kinds of legislation and regulations for the control of public-houses. I ventured to say only yesterday that if the present law were enforced with regard to drinking the condition of things would be very different from what it is; but being in the position you are with the trade in existence, with men whose business and livelihood depends upon it and who are bound therefore to push the trade as business men, it follows that, as long as you have those conditions, your regulations will be evaded. You cannot possibly help it. The Government suggestion is halfway between universal prohibition and leaving the trade to run alone. They ask power, where necessary, to take over these houses, to make the men serving in them Government servants for the time being, and to keep them under Government control. I am satisfied that, except under the conditions enacted here, you will not get the control you desire. This is altogether apart from what you may do afterwards. Our good Friends here are so frightfully sensitive, so very anxious to prevent something which they dislike, that they are often found preventing things which would be very useful. But I feel you will have to give the Government this power if you are to exercise that real control which is necessary, without attempting to go in for anything like total prohibition, which would, I feel sure, result in a revulsion of feeling against you. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) suggested that the trade might be found very profitable. That is raising future issues. I would remind him in this connection that it was in Russia, where they did prohibit and where they derived such a large revenue, that they ignored the revenue. Therefore the suggestion of the hon. Baronet amounts to this, that the people here are not so patriotic and sensible, but are more selfish than the people of Russia. My fears do not run in that direction. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) suggested something about the military officer being put on duty in public houses, I presume to watch the publican and the trade.

Mr. LEIF JONES

If it is necessary.

Sir T. WHITTAKER

That would not be an excellent arrangement. It would lead to considerable difficulty, and would be much resented by working men. It is a very different thing from carrying out regulations after a local vote or an expression of local opinion. This is not the time for that kind of thing. We are legislating under war conditions and at times when we are liable to friction and difficulty. We do not want to rouse severe controversy and difficulty in the localities. Therefore I suggest that we should do well to give the Government this power, because it is essential to the control they desire.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

The speech of the Attorney-General rather suggested that it was intended to supersede entirely all other supply or sale of liquor, except in canteens. Unless that speech is modified I shall be very much inclined to agree with the Amendment to strike out the words "selling or supplying." Although undoubtedly canteens are very desirable things, and I should be only too glad to see them at all the works with which I am connected, because you cannot have them to too great an extent, yet supposing you have canteens near the works, or, say, near the Liverpool Docks, are you going to establish half a mile away a number of canteens, or will the people there have to walk the half-mile to the canteen, or are the canteens to be established in the rest of the locality? If the Government get the power which they have of controlling the sale, the best thing they can do is to make use, as far as possible, of the facilities which now exist. Have control as much as you like, and keep that control in such a way that the moment you find a house is not doing its duty you can close it, but when you establish the principle of yourself selling and supplying, what will be the effect? Selling and supplying with canteens means closing the houses. The first thing you do is to render a number of honest men who are doing their duty very anxious about their livelihood. If canteens are to supersede these houses, these men will go out of employment. They will not necessarily be taken on for the canteens, and you will have to arrange to compensate the people for the loss of employment. You might put into the canteens men who are not so expert in their work as those who are now employed. An important point is, whose beer are you going to buy when you sell and supply. When I heard the speech of my hon. Friend below me (Sir G. Younger) and heard that he agreed with this proposal, I thought he must have made a nice little arrangement with the Government.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I do not rise to make any remark about that, but to point out to my hon. Friend that he entirely misunderstood what I said about the Attorney-General's speech on this subject. I do not think he is representing the Attorney-General's speech accurately at all, or that he said anything like that.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

I thought the hon. Gentleman said that he came from the brewers, and that they were absolutely satisfied.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I did not say that.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

I understood you to say that.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I said the Government control.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

The hon. Baronet said that the trade and the brewers were satisfied, and an hon. Member on my right heard the same thing. We were rather surprised that he should say so, because we did not know upon what system the Government were going to select the brewers from whom they were to get their supplies. Giving them the power of selling and supplying raises a very difficult question. If the canteen business is to supersede the other houses, it means that you close the other houses. To which brewery are you then going? Many of these houses are attached to breweries which are not in the area which is going to be dealt with. Many of them may be attached to the Burton brewery, and many of them in Liverpool may be attached to the Warrington brewery. Are you going to say you will buy your beer only from breweries in the area? If so, the breweries outside that area will have their property confiscated, because, as appears from the Bill, the compensation is to be limited to the area.

Sir G. YOUNGER

No.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER

If my hon. Friend will look at the next page he will see it is confined to the area, and that there is no compensation payable in respect of those breweries which are outside the area. If the Amendment to strike out "selling or supplying" goes to a Division, I shall certainly vote for it. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division put the case very fairly, not at all from the teetotaler's point of view, but from a purely business point of view when he said that selling and supplying should not, and must not be in the hands of the Government. It means a lot of jobbery. The selection of employés, brewers, and wine and spirit merchants is a most undesirable thing for the Government to undertake. When the Government are taking powers of complete control and power to establish canteens—with which I am thoroughly in accord, and I will do my best to urge their use wherever I can—they should use existing interests and pay as little compensation as possible, and should keep those already in the trade still there to carry it on, and thus do what we are all agreed should be done, namely, deal fairly and rightly with the various interests involved.

Mr. BOOTH

I am a little astonished at some of the speeches made from the benches around me. When the Bill was before us on a previous occasion, I ventured to support the Motion that the consideration of the Second Reading should be adjourned, and I was surrounded for the time being by howling remonstrances from a good many Members who are now getting up and making Second Reading speeches directed against this Bill. I quite see the purport of this Amendment. It is no use hon. Members getting up to ask why these words are in the Bill. This is a deal between the two Front Benches. When I supported the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) in his motion for an adjournment for a few days, I said then that if the Debate were adjourned it would be seen that there would be a large amount of opposition manifesting itself. The Prime Minister saw fit to differ from me. As on some other occasions when the Front Bench have differed from me, I proved to be correct. I knew exactly what would occur. I complained that the voice of the teetotalers had not been heard in the land. We are hearing it to-day. Strange to say, it was not heard very frequently on the Second Reading of the Bill, where it ought to have been heard. I should have voted with them if they had gone to a vote against the Second Reading, but I cannot understand why there should be a unanimous Second Reading of the Bill, and then hon. Members should try to defeat its foundation principle. It is quite true the foundation principle is a bad one, but it was agreed to unanimously.

I am more than astonished that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker), whom I have often heard in my youth on temperance platforms, laying down the law and waxing eloquent on the devilish and destructive drink traffic, should support this Clause on the ground of disinterested management. The whole object of the Bill is interested management. We are told by the Government that it is necessary for a critical object that they must have the power to buy and sell their own beer. That is interested, and not disinterested, management. The Government are going to be publicans and bar-tenders. Why should they not invent a cocktail? Why should we not have a new "Cabinet Cocktail" or a "Temperance Government Gin," or "Haldane's Lager of real German taste," or "Wines from McKinnon Wood," or anything else? That is what the Clause is for. They are to have the power of selling or supplying, and if you take those words out the Bill is gone. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] Certainly that is so. I do not mind voting for them to go out, because I do not think this Bill will do much for the munitions of war—it will certainly not make for an increase of 1 per cent. If you carry this Amendment, you will be like vetoing the Second Reading. You can now control the sale and supply, because, in that respect, the present Act gives as great powers as this Bill gives. The Government can put a man in khaki in every public-house where it is suggested that men are loitering. They could have done that under the present Act six months ago. Directly the trouble began they ought to have nipped it at once, and they could have done it with courage. Any officer in khaki who had seen the workmen sitting down drinking could have persuaded them to go to work, but could have been given ample power to arrest a man who was acting against the rules, and arrangements could have been made for the supply of Bovril and other beverages and sandwiches. What they cannot do under the existing Act is to act as purveyors and publicans. The Government have set their minds on that. It is true that the whole of the party have to turn round.

Mr. PRINGLE

No.

Mr. BOOTH

Well, practically the temperance supporters must.

Mr. PRINGLE

No.

Mr. BOOTH

I remember a very keen contest in this House in which the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) took part on the Scottish Temperance Bill when these very questions were discussed, and the Government stood firm against them.

Mr. PRINGLE

Not very firm.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. BOOTH

I know that, after a great deal of wobbling, they eventually stood firm, and went round and told the hon. Member and others that they would make it a question of confidence in the Government and that the Government would stand or fall upon the question. While the hon. Member was busy in the House, the emissaries of the Government were interviewing me in order to induce me to appeal to my hon. Friends on the ground that the Bill would be wrecked. I remember the occasion very well. A distinguished Colonial Governor at that time was supposed to be his chief mentor. What is the position now? It is that the whole of the supporters of this Government are to vote for this Clause in order that they may act as publicans and stand behind bars. There is no doubt about it. It may be right, but, at any rate, let us know what we are doing. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do it, but I do not think he will do it by innuendo, but will do it direct. He will not pretend that it is something else. My right hon. Friend fancies himself as the manager of these houses—at any rate upon the Tyne and the Clyde—and I dare say he can do it a good deal better than the trade. The hon. Baronet opposite thinks he can.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I do not. I deny that.

Mr. BOOTH

I am not surprised at the rebuke of the hon. Member (Mr. Swift). Actually we have the champions of the trade in this House appealing to the Government to come in and manage their own business because they can do it better. I do not know how the hon. Member can reconcile that to his conscience. He may reconcile it to his pocket.

Sir G. YOUNGER

That is a most offensive remark. I have nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. BOOTH

I will certainly withdraw the remark. I mean that I do not think he can defend it upon the ground of loyalty to his trade. He may defend it for financial reasons—I do not mean personally to himself. I hope the hon. Baronet will accept it that I am withdrawing any reference to himself personally. With regard to the trade, I do not see how they can reconcile that with their advocacy that they are the people who know this business and know how to manage houses. If that be so, why did they so readily give them up to an authority that is ill-defined? I see very great danger in that. The one great danger is political. They are only willing to do it because they have been met on the point of compensation. That is the whole secret. If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Swift) can speak for very many Members of his party he will get a certain amount of support on this side I do not think the time is ripe for the Government, in the midst of a great war, to plunge so very far into this drink business, and I think they have had a warning in the discussion to-night. I am hoping to hear from the Government an assurance of a different character. If they will say they are not going to plunge into it in this wholesale manner, but are going to administer this simply and solely from the standpoint of munitions of war, it puts a very different construction on it, but that has not been the debate in the House. Hon. Members who have spoken on both sides have not been taking that line at all. They have been discussing it simply and solely with regard to its effect upon the habits of the people and upon the trade, and if it is going to be administered from any standpoint such as that I think the Government will be in a great deal of trouble. But if the Government are to have the Bill at all it is no use stripping it down to mere control, which they have in the legislation already-passed Either we are going to trust them over this experiment or not.

One warning in closing. I want to know how this legislation is going to be administered from the political standpoint. It is all very well to say it is important whose beer they buy. It is very important whom they put into the house or the canteen as managers, and if they are going to be nominated by Members of Parliament or by people who have a political interest we are in for colossal trouble. That is the one reason why I shrink from any national dealing with the question. The Leader of the Opposition told us that this was a huge Bill. It would deal with a very large part of the country, and I want to know, when it comes to appointing managers of public-houses, will they be politically nominated? Will a political Government have the power to nominate these people, or shall we have some independent board, like the Road Board, stepping in between? If they are to be political appointments I consider it will lead straight to disaster. I know that some of my hon. Friends on this side say that from the party point of view there will be improvement and that there may be a chance under this scheme of getting more favourable management. I am generally opposed to that. I shall be very sorry if one single man can be appointed to any one of these houses simply because he has political sympathy with the Government, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to assure us that in this very complicated question he will see that no political consideration will ever apply to the management of these houses.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I think my hon. Friend has been addressing himself rather to a great scheme of nationalisation. That is not the proposal here at all. This is a proposal merely to obtain complete control in munitions and transport areas during the period of the War where necessary. He asked me whether it was intended for that purpose alone. That is undoubtedly the purpose. Had it not been urgently necessary that we should establish this complete control, I can assure him that, in all the enormous responsibilities and burdens which are cast upon us, we should never have touched it, and I assure him also that I should not have proceeded with it in the face of all the difficulties and perplexities of which the drink question is always the centre had it not been that we are firmly convinced that we must have this complete control; otherwise we cannot be responsible for the successful conduct of the War. Some of my hon. Friends have objected to the words "selling or supplying." If they object to that and it is struck out, I say frankly that the Bill is no more. If the House of Commons took the same view, I should certainly at once withdraw the Bill. Either the House of Commons will allow us to make provision for the adequate reasonable refreshments for the men in these districts or they might as well withdraw the Bill altogether. I am fully alive to all the conscientious suggestions which my hon. Friends urge, but the idea that you are not to touch the unclean thing when, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer we are touching £60,000,000 and to that extent relieving the duties on tea, sugar, and everything else, I have never been able to appreciate. You will not touch it direct, but as long as it goes through the refining fires of the Exchequer you can take it. That is an argument which I do not care to describe. I am not going into that at all. We are proceeding with this scheme on the grounds of absolute urgent necessity during the War. The Bill comes to an end as soon as the War is over. It is purely a war measure. If we simply have control we have no power to make provision for supplying adequate refreshments in these areas, the Bill is perfectly worthless, and I hope my hon. Friends, after having made this protest, will not press it beyond that particular point. I can assure them that if they do they are accepting a very serious responsibility. The emergency is a grave one—we know how grave it is, and expedition is so vital—I hesitate to say how very vital it is, but any man who will look at the circumstances of the last few days will know for himself what it all means, and any man who impedes any measure which on due reflection is thought to be necessary in order to help along munitions of war and the transport of troops and material, is accepting a responsibility which I certainly should be very sorry to share with him. I hope the Committee will allow us to get this authority and not take the responsibility of destroying the measure.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, rendered a service to the Committee by calling our attention to the real gravity of the case and bringing us back to what is indeed the real subject matter of our Debate and away from theories which we shall have plenty of time to argue, discuss and quarrel about when the War is over but which we cannot afford to discuss and quarrel about now. If I had had any doubt about the course I was to take before the right hon. Gentleman spoke, I should have no doubt now. After such a statement as he has made with the responsibility which falls upon him as a Minister, and with the knowledge which is partially shared by all as to the urgency of the problem, as to which he has a knowledge much greater and much more immediate than any of us can possibly possess, I cannot believe that the House will refuse to him a power which he presses for with such urgency. Let me make one other observation. There have been discussed on this Amendment two questions which some people have said were the same and some have said were perfectly distinct, but which are at any rate related. The question we are immediately discussing is whether the Government should have power to supply and sell liquor in the licensed houses which they have taken over and the question which is related is whether they should be able to establish a canteen in which to supply liquor. I understand that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment wishes to have the public-house and the canteen discussed separately, but proposes to move an Amendment to refuse the Government the power to supply liquor in canteens, when he comes to the canteens, just as he now proposes to refuse them the power to supply in a licensed house.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I have that Amendment on the Paper, but I submit that it really has no relevancy to the sole question raised by this Amendment, whether the sale and supply of liquor in the house is to be Government sale and supply, or whether the Government are to be content with the power which they already have of allowing the sale and supply of liquor in places which they control.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I was right in my facts though the hon. Member thinks I am wrong in my inference. On that point I submit myself to the Committee. If the question be not the same, there is relevance in it. The proposal of the hon. Member when completed is that neither in public-house nor in canteen shall the Government sell any liquor, but that is not the policy which commends itself to some of those who were inclined to support the hon. Member on this particular Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir T. Whittaker), if I understood him rightly, said he agreed with the hon. Member about canteens but differed from him on public-houses.

Sir T. WHITTAKER

Canteens in works.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Canteens in works. He differed from him about public-houses. The Member for one of the Divisions for Liverpool took the opposite view. He did not like to see the Government selling liquor in a licensed house, but he was quite prepared to see them selling it in a canteen without licence. I confess that to my less acute mind the moral aspect of the question is the same in both cases, and the practical question is the same also. If it is permissible for the Government under the special circumstances of the case to do it in one case, it is permissible for them to do it in the other. The practical difficulties which my hon. Friend (Sir J. Harmood-Banner) spoke of are not slight; he put them very fairly. The practical difficulties are very great, but if they are insuperable in the case of a licensed house, they are insuperable in the case of the canteens. If I understand the proposals of the Government rightly, my hon. Friend was mistaken in a material point. He thought that if you interfere with the brewer's trade in a particular house which you take over by buying the beer from another brewer you cannot compensate the brewer for loss of his trade under this Bill unless the brewer himself has his brewery within the scheduled area. I do not so read the Bill. I think that is contrary to every declaration of policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, and my hon. Friend will find that the Government will confirm me, and that it is their intention and that they have the power to compensate for the trade which is lost by every interest.

If that is cleared up, then I submit to my hon. Friend that if there be reasons sufficient for doing this thing at all, we have got to face those difficulties. The difficulties of deciding from whom you are going to buy your beer, and from whom you are going to buy your spirits, will arise as much in the case of the canteen as in the case of the licensed house, and I submit that it would really be absurd to say to the Government, "You may close a public-house which stands just outside the gates of some great works, you may establish just inside the gates of this great works a canteen in which you may sell liquor under conditions and regulations which you lay down, but you may not use the public-house which stands outside to supply the wants of those inside." I hope I have done nothing to carry the discussion away from the real issue raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to invite the Committee again to go into questions which are of great importance and which divide us, no doubt, profoundly, but which, I think, are not really material at this moment, when our whole object is to provide a temporary remedy for a temporary evil, the urgency of dealing with which no one can deny, after listening to such an appeal as that just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. LEIF JONES

No one could listen to the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer without feeling the responsibility of pressing this Amendment. Certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought his very heaviest artillery to bear—the War, the national peril, and so on. Both the Chancellor and the Attorney-General, in speaking on this Amendment, have absolutely refrained from saying one word in defence of the merits of the proposals of the Government. The Attorney-General's speech, if I may say so, almost made it appear to me that he really did not understand the effect of the Amendment. It was some time before the House realised what was the real issue raised by the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared that it is absolutely necessary that the Government should have the right to sell and supply liquor themselves, not to sanction the sale and supply by others, not to regulate the sale and supply by others, not to limit or enlarge the sale and supply by others, but he has declared, on his authority as representing the Government, that it is absolutely necessary that the Government should sell and supply their own liquor. Why? Not one single reason has been given. Are we not entitled to have a reason? This does cut across the deepest convictions, and are not we entitled, before laying aside those convictions and turning our backs on the past record of the Government, to have some reason why this sale of liquor by the Government is absolutely necessary? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for an answer, He may say: How can you run the canteen unless the Government can supply them with liquor. There are many canteens in the country now, and in not one of them do the Government supply liquor. [Ministerial indications of dissent.] Do not they contract out? I think in practically every case it is done by contracts with traders.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Does my hon. Friend consider that where the Government set up a canteen and supply through a contractor that that is not supplying liquor. Is that his view?

Mr. LEIF JONES

Not at all. Had the right hon. Gentleman been here he would have known that that was not my view. I have pointed out that in most cases where the Government are dealing with canteens they are not selling food there. It is not Government food. In most cases it is food that is contracted for.

Sir J. SIMON

What is the moral difference?

Mr. LEIF JONES

I am not raising the moral issue. I think it very undesirable that the Government should supply liquor themselves.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am trying to get to know what is the view of my hon. Friend. Does my hon. Friend object to the Government selling direct, and will his objection be removed if we let it out by contract to somebody else?

Mr. LEIF JONES

Part of my objection will be removed. The hon. Member for Liverpool gives very good reasons for his views. I do not think the Government are fit to go into this liquor business. I think it is the most dangerous and difficult business in the world, and I do not like my right hon. Friend to become a purveyor of liquor in the country. Moreover, I do not understand the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) admitting that the trade is so incompetent.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I said nothing of the sort. Perhaps I had better explain my position, because it appears to have been misunderstood both by the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. My view is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer met a deputation from the trade at which I was present. He told them that the Government ought to have control of these areas and control of the drinking facilities there, and he said he proposed to take over the particular licensed houses in those areas and to compensate every interest. There was no trader there who did not dislike the proposals, but they thought for patriotic reasons that they were bound to accept what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was necessary, and it is because of that that I said that I would vote against an Amendment which would destroy the Bill.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I am not sure even now that I understand the position of the hon. Baronet, whether he bows to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or whether he thinks the Government can carry on the business better than the present men do. I submit that no argument directly on the merits of the Government case have been addressed to the House, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend now to tell me the reasons why the Government themselves should go into this trade instead of controlling it from above. Why should they go into it as partners instead of ruling it as the country has ruled it for four hundred years with a strong hand from above? I cannot withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. PRINGLE

I regret very much that my hon. Friend has not seen his way to withdraw this Amendment. I thought that when he and his Friends accepted the Second Reading of this Bill that they were willing to do violence to certain very strong opinions which they hold in order to preserve the unity of the country for dealing with this great national emergency. I thought that on the Second Reading of the Bill they had accepted this principle, and that, under the special circumstances now prevailing, the Government would be allowed—first, to sell and supply as it is proposed in this Sub-section, and, secondly, to set up canteens as is proposed in a later Sub-section. Now, however, I find that my hon. Friend and certain other Members have reserved their opinions upon this matter. It seems to me somewhat difficult to understand the principles of this objection. My hon. Friend is quite prepared to allow the Government to let the supplying of these canteens to contractors and the contractors are to be allowed to sell, but the Government itself is not to be allowed to sell. That is surely an extraordinary refinement of principle on the part of my hon. Friend. We have heard a great deal as to the general principle underlying this proposal.

Remembering certain actions which I have taken in support of this principle in the past, I welcome the attitude which the Government have taken up at the present time, and I am glad to find converts to that principle sitting on the Front Bench in the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) and in my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate (Mr. Munro). Holding the views which I do, I think that the proposal put forward by the Government both in this Sub-section and the proposal for setting up canteens can be defended on their merits, and if the defence of their merits had not been entered into at length in Committee this afternoon it has not been for want of a defence of the merits, but simply from a desire to obtain a speedy passage of this measure without any unnecessary controversy. The defence of the merits is simply this, that if it is necessary to continue this trade it can be continued with less harm to the public when there is no private motive in pushing the sale, as under Government management, than when a private motive exists in the trade, as in the case of the private licensee. That is a very simple principle and I did think that the lesson of last Thursday would have sunk into the minds of my hon. Friends when it was made obvious in this House that the one great obstacle to a comprehensive dealing with the liquor traffic in this country was the existence of the vast private interests of the trade. Having had that object lesson, I should have thought that there would be a tendency to modify even the most strongly preconceived opinions and to take also a lesson from the action of Russia, which shows there what we cannot see in this country, strong drastic action being taken in regard to the trade because the Government alone were concerned and no private interests had to be consulted.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I certainly hope that in the few words that I shall address to the Committee I shall help to get this matter settled and not to raise controversy. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment has complained that no reason has been given for the particular proposal to which he objects. It is perhaps rather difficult for those of us who, like the hon. Member who has just sat down and myself—at all events it is true of myself—who have always been of the opinion that the only real chance of temperance reform in this country is some system of disinterested management, to put ourselves in the position of the hon. Gentleman who has always opposed that, and therefore to see as he sees and to judge the proposal solely on the ground of necessity. In other words, the fact that some of us like the proposal makes it more difficult for us to sympathise with the objections of those who thoroughly dislike it. We have no right to urge the Government to carry out their proposals because we like the principle. In the same way, I am prepared to say to the hon. Member and his Friends that they have no right to object to the proposal, if it is good in this particular emergency, because they object to the principle. I would like further to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, if I may do so without offence, that one of the things that strike me constantly in this House is the length to which at all times my hon. Friends and myself are compelled to sacrifice our principles in the general emergency of the position in which we stand. And yet we constantly find on small questions that the supporters of the Government will not trust the Government. I do not think that that is right.

In my belief the real justification for pressing this particular proposal is this, that without it you might as well have no Bill at all. I will tell the Committee why. One of the things which have been made perfectly plain in all the discussions about the drink evil is this, that the evil is not entirely due to the supplying of drink, but that it is due also to the want of facilities for the supplying of food which should be taken at the same time. What is the principle on which the Government are acting? They are setting out to meet with this difficulty and to supply food as well as drink. How are they to do it? The whole principle of the Bill is to set up a Board of Management to carry on that business. Would anyone who was looking at the thing on its merits as a practical proposal think that this managing committee is to be set up to supply food, and that they are to have all the machinery to buy food and sell it, but that whenever it comes to drink they are to be helpless, and that they will have to go hunting round for somebody else, and say, "at what price will you undertake the sale of drink in this canteen, or whatever it is?" That is the ground on which we must allow the Government to have this proposal. It is the only practicable way of dealing with this measure, so that the same general committee which controls the supply of food should also control the supply of drink.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has made a really helpful speech. If that is exactly what the Government mean, and no more than that, then a great deal of what I have said would fall to the ground. Would the Government accept that statement of their position?

Sir RYLAND ADKINS

May I make one more appeal to my hon. Friend below me, from a point of view quite different from that which the right hon. Gentleman has urged? Any proposal to give the Government or the country the power to supply and to provide intoxicating liquor is to me, as it is to many Members of this House, exceedingly distasteful. But I do agree with the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman made a minute ago. We are bound, more bound on this side of the House than hon. Members are on that side, to trust this Government in a time of emergency when they ask for powers in the way in which they do in this Bill. I appeal to my hon Friend for this particular reason, that if he goes to a Division the result of that Division must be to strengthen the opinions which are against him and to weaken those which he holds, because many of us who dislike this method, and who only accept it in an emergency, and during a war period, will be obliged to give a vote which will strengthen that view permanently and weaken the one for which my hon. Friend stands. Therefore, in the interests of fair play for his views when peace comes I respectfully urge him not to put this House to a Division.

Mr. OUTHWAITE

I should not have risen were it not for the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] He said that while Members on his side of the House sacrificed their private views in order to support the policy of the Government, hon. Members below the Gangway on this side have sought to embarrass the Government. The importance which attaches to this Clause in the mind of the Government is due to the fact that the Government were defeated on a wider scheme, which was opposed by the Leader of the Opposition from the other side of the House, and consequently it is necessary for the Government to stand by this Clause and promise the country something as they have been doing. But it does not lie with the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion to make such a charge as that which he has made.

Mr. LEIF JONES

At the present moment I cannot take the House to a Division. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I beg to propose, in Sub-section (b), to leave out the words "and either."

In dealing with the point raised yesterday on the Second Reading, as to the permanent acquisition of houses, and in moving to leave out these words "and either," I presume that that raises the whole question of the omission of the word "permanent" which comes up later on. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made very merry at my expense yesterday, because he said that he thought that I should have been only too glad to buy up public-houses and close them permanently at the end of the War, and he could not therefore understand my backsliding in refusing to accept a permanent settlement of this matter. I know my right hon. Friend well, and I know that he is most dangerous when he is happy and when he has got a victim at whom he can poke fun as he did yesterday at me, I must say to my own enjoyment as well as of that of the rest of the House. I know that at such moments as those the Chancellor of the Exchequer needs most careful watching. He said that he was surprised that I do not welcome prohibitioin at the end of the War. Is that what he means? Is he only going to buy up houses in order to prohibit them? If he will give me a pledge that he is not going to carry on trade after the War in any house which he buys up, that would in some degree modify my objection. I object strongly to buy any article unless I know what I am getting, what is the price which I have to pay, and what is to be done with the article when I have got it. I submit to my right hon. Friend that we do not know what we are going to buy, or what is the price to be paid, or what is to be done with what we have bought when we have bought it.

Will my right hon. Friend answer me one or two simple questions? Is he going to buy up licensed values only? Or is he going to buy up houses and property? Or is he going to buy up breweries, and the right of manufacturing the liquor therein? I must point out to my right hon. Friend that in this matter he ought not to be the man to accuse me of backsliding. I turn again to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman which has always been an inspiration and a delight to me, and which was delivered a few years ago. This is the language used by my right hon. Friend on this very question after the defeat of Mr. Goschen's compensation proposals. [An HON MEMBER: "How long ago?"] Twenty-five years ago. My right hon. Friend has no reason to regret his words, and the House I am sure will enjoy hearing them now. He said:— I do not understand the compensation question. I am not a man of the world. I do not know its ways. I do not profess to understand its principles.

Mr. R. McNEILL

He is wiser now.

Mr. LIEF JONES

I am a simple Welsh lad, taught, ever since I first learned to lisp the accents of my wild tongue, that whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. This traffic having sown destruction and death, must reap for itself a fruitful harvest of desolation and ruin. The simple Welsh lad of that occasion spoke as eloquently as the powerful Minister to-day, and I think more truly. I cannot help wondering whether my right hon. Friend at this very moment may not be murmuring to himself the words of the poet Hood:— And now, 'tis little joy To know I'm further off from Heaven Than when I was a boy. I am still where the simple Welsh lad was twenty-five years ago. I do not want to buy out this liquor traffic. I think that we in this country ought never to be put in the position of having to buy out the liquor traffic. At any rate, personally I do not want to buy out the liquor traffic. Therefore I ask that my right hon. Friend should not have raised this grave issue on this emergency measure. Let him be content to take the emergency powers which he has got for the period of the War and for twelve months afterwards, and not ask us to sanction the permanent acquisition of this trade. I think that my right hon. Friend might meet me upon this point in particular, having got his way so far as the emergency powers are concerned. I am well aware of the difficulty put yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, but I think that he will admit that it is not insuperable. It is said that the houses will be altered while the Government are in possession, that they will have their trade destroyed—that is the very object of it—and that at the end of the time there will be nothing to hand back to the traders. I am afraid that that is not true. Even a new licence in these districts would have a very large monopoly value at any time, and the value of that new licence will always be in the house even though it has been altered. Therefore it is not the case that although you might have done a certain amount of injury to a certain class of traders in this country you will have really destroyed the value of these houses for their purposes. I only want to impress upon my right hon. Friend that this is not the time in which to engage in liquor purchase, and that he should limit in every possible way the power which he is taking, and I would ask him to limit it if possible to the period of the War.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

In reference to the concluding words of my hon. Friend, as to limiting during the period of the War the amount of capital expenditure as much as possible, I agree with him, but I think that the use of the word "permanent" is not at all inconsistent with that object. We shall only purchase what is actually necessary for the purpose we have in view. Supposing we have to acquire premises and we have to pay twice as much for them as you would pay by acquiring the whole interest and selling them at the end of the War, it would be better to take over possession and pay for them. After all, these matters must be considered from a business point of view. We might lose money heavily if we simply have power to obtain the premises temporarily, and it might be better to buy up the business and the whole of the premises, lock, stock and barrel, and be in the position to sell again at the end of the War. I want my hon. Friend to realise that under this Bill we cannot permanently acquire premises to trade. We might want to acquire premises which are not licensed premises at all, but which might be the best place for the establishment of a refreshment room. This applies to licensed houses. My hon. Friend says that we should not acquire permanently, but that we should acquire temporarily. That might be bad business from the point of view of the Government, and unfair to the man who sells, to buy, break up and tear to pieces the premises, and then at the end of the War say, "Here you are, take back your premises, and we will pay you compensation." He would say that we had actually destroyed his premises for the purpose for which he would be able to use them, and that we had destroyed his business. It would not be fair to the man himself and it would not be good business for the Government.

Therefore, in some cases, it would be infinitely better to purchase out-and-out than to acquire temporarily. The thing my hon. Friend wants to be assured about is that we are not purchasing for trade purposes. We cannot do that under the Bill. If you look at the terms of the Bill you will see that we cannot possibly do it. I really think that he is unduly alarmed about it. He quoted some lines and referred to what I said a quarter of a century ago, but I can assure him that if he looks back at what has happened since then, and the progress that has been made, he will see that in proceeding along the road to heaven one is very apt to be shillelaghed on the way. I trust that my hon Friend will realise the difficulties which beset this question; we have to settle all sorts of interests. Everybody is agreed that somehow or other you must put a stop to excessive drinking, but it must not be the particular liquor that they are interested in; it must not touch the particular interest with which they are concerned, whether it is great or small. The thing ought to be done, but of every conceivable way of doing it you must not take some particular one. That is really quite impossible. The difficulties are not coming from the trade; I have said so once before. I have been met in the fairest possible manner by representatives of the trade, and they have not interposed insuperable obstacles. My greatest difficulties have been with those who have fixed ideas, and who think that in these munition areas it would be better to allow things to continue as they are than that we should depart in the slightest degree from those fixed ideas. I ask my hon. Friend on this occasion to realise that it is not good business to deprive the Government of the power to acquire premises permanently and to sell them again at the end of the War. If they acquire temporarily, at the end of the War they have nothing to sell and they might lose money. We should have full power in these cases to acquire temporarily or otherwise, and that would be undoubtedly fair to those who have to sell.

Mr. CHAMBERLIAN

I agree with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, and I only want to say one word of caution to him. I think this is a business matter, and that we should regard it as a business transaction, taking premises temporarily, paying compensation, or buying them right out and not paying any compensation. You can conceive that this is not a very simple problem when you come to consider what these cases will be. Take the case of licensed houses which you want to close. You want to close some of them temporarily; you can close them without taking over the premises permanently, and then compensate. It may be that when the place is closed you hand the owner over the house at the end of twelve or eighteen months; in the meantime you have destroyed his goodwill, you have driven his trade from that district into other channels, and your compensation to him will not stop at the moment you return the house to him. You have got to compensate him for the necessity which he will be under to work up again the goodwill which you have destroyed. The hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) will see that this is perfectly true.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I do see that perfectly. I quite see that at the end of the period there might be a difference in the value of the house from what it was when taken over. My point was that it was better to pay that difference in compensation than acquire the property permanently. I must confess, however, that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said has somewhat modified my view.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not think the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be of economic application to cases of which we do not know the facts. I would express the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not buy premises unless he feels that it is necessary, but I want him to have the power, other things being equal, to acquire properties, but the Government should not lay down money to acquire them unless it is necessary, and the less you have to buy the better it will be. I hope therefore, from a business point of view, that power will be given in those cases where, as a business proposition, it is clearly better to buy right out than to hold them temporarily and pay compensation.

Mr. LEIF JONES

If the right hon. Gentleman really expresses the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "licensed" ["any licensed or other premises"], to insert the word "business."

I should like to see that word introduced into the Bill. The premises generally belong to one man and the actual licensed business belongs to another. I should hope that it might be more desirable to buy his business, and not in the least necessary to buy his premises at all.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I should have thought that the words as they stand give full power to buy under those conditions.

Sir G. YOUNGER

You have to buy the license business, and there is no power, so far as I can see, under which you can buy the license without buying the premises.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The words are "licensed or other premises in the area or any interest therein." If those words do not cover the premises, I will look into the matter, which is rather a legal point.

Sir R. ADKINS

Where the premises are bought it may be that the Government will carry on some business during the period of the War, and it may be where the premises are bought out and out that they are no longer licensed premises, and the licensing authorities will have to license them afresh.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

In that case, of course, we should have to pay compensation for the full value.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I rather doubt, though the right hon. Gentleman's opinion is as good as mine, whether the words of the Sub-section would cover the license of business.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Unless we acquire the business as well, then it is no good, and therefore it is clear that the word must be put in, if that is not already covered. I will undertake to consult the law officers, in order to see whether the word should be inserted.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I am merely trying to limit your responsibility.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I beg to move, in paragraph (c) to leave out the words, ("including, if thought fit, the supply of intoxicating liquor").

7.0 P.M.

This raises the question of the supply of liquor in canteens, which the Government are to open. It does seem strange in fighting against an evil of this kind to adopt the homœopathic treatment of giving small doses. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider the other Amendments which are on the Paper. There is one Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire East (Mr. Cowan) which provides that spirits shall not be supplied in these canteens. There is another proposal by an hon. Member (Mr. Raffan) which suggests that you should have a dry canteen alongside a wet canteen, and that 50 per cent. of the houses should be dry as against 50 per cent. of wet houses. That consideration is also worthy of my right hon. Friend's consideration. I venture to think that a great deal of drinking which goes on is due to the fact that there are not coffee or tea houses where the people can obtain tea or coffee. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider that proposal, and by no means to suppose that the Government is to sell intoxicating liquor in all the houses.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The suggestions made by my hon. Friend are worthy of consideration and acceptance, but not in the Bill, as I think it would pin us down too much. We hope to make an arrangement to induce bodies which have very successfully coped with difficulties of this kind to set up canteens. I can see how very important it is that you should give alternatives and attractive alternatives, and I have great hopes that they will be so, and very well done, and will succeed in those areas. But I think to deprive us of the power of selling intoxicating liquor would be to defeat its own object; it would drive men to go outside the area and we would lose their services altogether. There are many of them who would be perfectly satisfied if they knew they could get the beer, but if they were driven outside there would not be any control over them. I have got the same objection to the other Amendment. It is one of the points which I would rather the Board of Control would consider, that is, as to the supply of spirits. I am now referring to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen- shire East, because it is more or less germane to the Amendment we are discussing. I understand that in Government canteens they do not sell spirits, and that the same thing applies to military canteens, and that beer and porter are only sold. I dare say the same view will be taken by the Board of Control, but I should not like to express an opinion as that is a thing they have got to consider. I think it would be a mistake to deprive them of the power altogether, but I think the supply of spirits in the area ought to be completely under their control. I have no doubt at all it might be desirable to discourage the sale of spirits, but I should think my hon. Friend would be well advised to leave the Board of Control to consider it.

Mr. RAFFAN

I have no desire to have a particular percentage of refreshment rooms set down in the Bill, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to carry his assurance further and to tell us that in every area provision will be made for the setting up of refreshment rooms, where intoxicating liquors will not be sold. I think it cannot be alleged that those who profess temperance principles have been unreasonable throughout this Debate. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that there are many homes where young people are being trained and instructed under no circumstances to enter places of the kind. There are many cases where men are total abstainers, but are struggling with temptation. It is extremely desirable that there should be in every district some provision made for the wants of those men, so that they may not be compelled to enter houses where intoxicating liquors are sold. I should not, personally, press my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would give us the assurance that he would establish those dry canteens.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that anyone, of course, can provide refreshment rooms of the kind now. What he is asked to do is to run Government tea-houses against private houses, and that would be not only Socialistic legislation but a monstrous injustice to those people.

Sir JOHN MacCALLUM

I desire to support the Amendment. The system of dry canteens is already in existence in Scotland. We have fifty different camps where we have refreshments without liquor being sold. I think an arrangement of that kind could be carried out on the some lines in England and Wales. It has been a great success in Scotland, and has prevented drunkenness.

Lord C. BERESFORD

May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should run the proposed new canteens in exactly the same way as the naval canteens, in that case we have certain rooms where no liquor is served, and men who earnestly and honestly wish to have nothing to do with the liquor can go into those rooms and have whatever else they like. That would meet the difficulty. It solved the difficulty we found in the Navy.

Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN

A remark was made by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) that provision for those who did not intend to take intoxicating liquor might be looked upon as Socialistic.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I only meant separate, and not attached provisions.

Mr. C. DUNCAN

What I want to do is to meet the difficulty that exists. This is a point that concerns me. I have had a letter from Enfield Lock to which thousands of extra men have gone. There are people, it is true, who make some little provision for providing food and tea and coffee, but nobody here would suggest for a moment that anybody with a grain of common sense is going to build great institutions at Enfield Lock to make provision for those men when in a month, or six months, or a year, the whole necessity may disappear and the whole provision would instantly collapse, and all that those people have spent would be an entire and absolute waste. I suggest that the Government would be doing the right and proper thing to make provision of the kind. It is a very great grievance and a very great hardship on those people who are working enormous hours that they cannot get the food they want, as the Financial Secretary to the War Office will see from the letter which I have sent him to-day. With regard to the supply of spirits, I would say this: I am a life abstainer, and if I had my way I should not sell it at all. There is a difficulty here about the men. Looking at the thing from the point of view of a life abstainer, I would say, if you do not make this provision for those people, they will go somewhere else to get it or they will not work in the district. If you want those men to work you will have to make an arrangement of the kind; and you will not have their services in supplying munitions and building ships if you drive them away from lack of making this little provision.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR

I am rather surprised at the speech we have listened to, because I understood that the hon. Member was prepared to deal with the whole problem with a desire to avoid introducing any fresh element of danger. I cannot understand how he desires to put the canteens which are to be now adopted in a different position from those in the Army or in the Government dockyards. I would submit to the House that a real case has been made out, and which, I hope, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider, for at least excluding spirits. The White Paper and the whole facts of the case proves that there has been excessive consumption.

Mr. COWAN

Is the hon. Member in order in discussing an Amendment which I have on the Paper, but which I have had no opportunity of moving?

The CHAIRMAN

I was appealed to in order to allow those three Amendments to be taken together. It seemed to me it might save time.

Mr. COWAN

I do not know whether my assent was required or not, but it certainly was not asked for.

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member rises, he will probably catch my eye.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR

I understood we were discussing all the Amendments together. May I submit that this point is one which can be settled quite readily upon the mere statement of the case with regard to what exists in other canteens to-day? It would be an extremely retrograde step for the Government, in asking for powers to deal with canteens, to go further than they already go in the dockyards and in the Army and Navy. This is a matter which can, and ought to be, decided by this House and not left to any other authority. After all, the House is legislating in regard to the necessities of these cases and as far as possible laying down principles upon which the authorities ought to proceed. I appeal very earnestly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Cowan), because if he allows spirits to be introduced into these canteens it will be regarded generally throughout the country as a very retrograde step.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accept any limit on the freedom of the Board of Control. I am not sure that hon. Members opposite realise how very objectionable this Bill is—to my feelings, for instance—quite apart from temperance considerations. I dislike almost every line in the Bill, and in ordinary peace times I should certainly put down Amendments considerably limiting the power of the State in undertaking a great piece of trading of the most socialistic character. My hon. Friend seemed to think that if it was confined to tea it was socialistic, but that as long as it was concerned with beer it was not. I think this is a very socialistic proposal—if you are to talk about Socialism at this time at all. I should be most reluctant to see such a measure tried on this scale in time of peace. But it is one of the advantages of the present situation that we can afford to allow the Government or the Executive to do whatever it thinks necessary for carrying on the War without compromising any of our opinions. I assent to this Bill, not believing in many of its principles, doubting extremely whether even in the present circumstances it can be made to work; but I am quite ready to allow it to be tried, and I wish it to be tried with the fairest possible chance of success. That can best be secured by giving the greatest possible elasticity to the Board of Control in the management of the business. I should regret to see any limiting Amendment. The best chance of making the Bill work is to leave it quite at large. I assure right hon. Gentlemen opposite that, as far as I am concerned, and I believe I speak in this matter for every Member of the House, we shall never quote or allow to be quoted anything done at this time as any precedent for anything that may be proposed in the future.

Mr. COWAN

I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after having massacred so many Amendments, most of them no doubt deserving the treatment, might have spared mine, not because I propose it, but because it is such a very little one and so peculiarly unobjectionable in character. The proposal in the Bill appears to be that intoxicants, including spirits, may be sold in these munition area canteens, and, I take it, within the munition works, whereas in military canteens spirits are not allowed to be sold. If there is an argument for excluding spirits from military canteens I think it applies even more strongly to munition area canteens, because it is intended to supply intoxicants in the canteens in munition works during working hours. It is well known that alcohol taken during a man's working hours is much more injurious to him than alcohol taken at any other time. I should like to quote Sir Lauder Brunton, possibly the greatest living authority in this country on the physiological effects of alcohol. He stated in a paper published in the "Lancet" in March last that alcohol enables a man to call on his reserves, and might enable him to make a spurt which he could not do without it; but if the exertion was to be long continued it simply accelerated exhaustion. He summed up the whole matter by saying that meat extracts and coffee, when they can be obtained, are not liable to the same objection as alcohol. I think, therefore, when you have on the one hand the established practice in military canteens of supplying only beer, and on the other the highest medical authority objecting to the use of spirits during working hours, a strong case is made out for excluding spirits. I see no reason whatever why it should be left to the discretion of any body or Board of Control; it is a matter which ought to be decided here and now in this House. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is indisposed to make a concession which could not by any possibility reduce the value of the Bill, but would be very gratifying to many Members of the House, and would find support in many different quarters.

Mr. R. McNEILL

It appears to me that some hon. Members opposite lose sight altogether of the object of the Bill. They seem to be afflicted with an incurable desire to do good. The object of this Bill is not to do good, but to do harm. Instead of doing good to our own people it is to do harm to the Germans. Authorities have been quoted as to the damage done by alcohol. It appears to me that the real common sense of the matter was put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. C. Duncan). What we want is to get more munitions and to enable men to work under conditions which will enable them to do their work well. What is the use when you are supplying the wants of the men, of not giving them what they want?

Mr. COWAN

The whole object of the Bill is not to give the men what they want under conditions which will restrict the output of munitions.

Mr. McNEILL

The sole object of the Bill is to see that men shall get what they want, but in such quantities as shall not do them any harm. If in a certain area men find that they can do their work better with beer, they are entitled to get it. If in another area another class of men get on with spirits, why should they be refused the right to have them? The whole administration is to be under the control of a Board appointed by the Government, and it will be the duty of those responsible to see that drink is not given out in such quantities as to incapacitate men for their work. In these circumstances ail the arguments which are relevant on the general question of temperance are entirly irrelevant on an emergency Bill, the sole object of which is to enable men to work exceptionally long hours under trying circumstances, and to supply them in reasonable quantity, not with the liquor which Members of this House may think best for them, but with the liquor which the men want.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. RAFFAN

I should like to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the assurance for which I asked?

The CHAIRMAN

In that case the hon. Member had better move his Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I suggest that the hon. Member should put his question on the Clause.

Mr. COWAN

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) (c), after the word "liquor" ["the supply of intoxicating liquor"], to insert the words "other than spirits."

I do not know whether or not the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to give me my Amendment. He has not opposed it, and I still cherish the hope that he will agree to it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I hope my hon. Friend will not press it. I think we must leave this matter to the Board of Control. It might be in the interests of temperance that it should be under the control of the Board.

Mr. COWAN

Under the circumstances, I cannot press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Pratt)—["This Act shall not apply to Scotland"]—ought to come as a new Clause.

Mr. CLYNES

I beg to move, in Subsection (2) (d), after the word "interested," to insert the words "or employed."

My object is to make sure that the interests of employed persons are fairly covered and safeguarded by the regulations contemplated in connection with any Order in Council. I would therefore ask whether the words "persons interested" cover the interests of persons employed who may be disturbed in their employment as the result of any Order in Council?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

It is necessary to have this power in order that the Board of Control may be free from any existing tie in respect to the purchase of beer from any particular brewery or elsewhere. With regard to the question of persons employed, they certainly have no power to deal with those. That is a matter for the Commission to which I referred yesterday. It is not necessary to insert words giving them power in the sense intended by the hon. Member. At any rate, they would not come in here.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. RAFFAN

I am greatly obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the assurance he has given; but I would like to get the assurance carried to this point—that he will give instructions that in each district it is desirable that there should be set up rooms where intoxicants are not supplied.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

I would like to ask whether, in the case of the destruction of a licence or the doing away with a public-house, it is the intention of the Government under this Bill to compensate the brewer for the loss of the sale of beer in that particular housed? Under the Act of 1904 compensation is paid for the value of the licence, but there is no compensation for prospective loss by the non-sale of beer or spirits.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

In reply to the first question, arrangements are being made now to set up rooms of the kind referred to. I think it would be undesirable to give a pledge limiting the discretion of the Board of Control in any particular area. The question has been dealt with in a practical way in other directions. There is the suggestion made by the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) that you should have in a particular canteen a room where you sell tea, coffee, milk, and other temperance beverages, and relegate non-temperance beverages to another room. I am not at all sure that that is a desirable thing from the point of view of temperance. I should not like to express an opinion at this stage. I think it is desirable for those who drink nothing but alcoholic beverages to be accustomed to men in the same place at the same time ordering other refreshments. That has been the experience of the Army. The Army discarded the system of separate compartments. They found it was very much better, from a temperance point of view, that men should be accustomed to see the others ordering their milk, coffee, and so on; there is less sense of shame when they order things of that sort if they see other men doing it.

Sir TUDOR WALTERS

It is like setting up a lot of elementary schools.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I think it is desirable, on the very important question of policy, that I should leave the Government unpledged. From whatever point of view we look at it it is desirable to discourage excessive drinking of alcoholic liquors. That is the point of view which those who organised these things in the Army took, and there is a very considerable improvement in that respect in the Army. Now I come to the other question put to me, with respect to setting up the Commission here for the purpose of considering the question of compensation. The only instructions we shall give to them is that they should pay fairly, the trade, and all those who lose by our action. If we began to lay down rules of compensation then, undoubtedly, the other side might say something. We should have discussion, and practically by means of that discussion would be settling at once the things that we have left to the Commission to decide. I hope the hon. Member will not press me for an answer to that particular question, otherwise I might be driven to lay down the whole principle of compensation, which is the last thing the Government wish to do when they have set up so able a Commission to consider it.

Mr. J. SAMUEL

There is no understanding?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Not on that point.

Mr. BUTCHER

Referring to the point mentioned by the hon. Member opposite, supposing an employé in one of these houses is discharged, as might very well happen, is it very certain that the question of compensation to him will be considered by this Commission? I entirely agree that the first matter to be considered is the better preparation of munitions of war, but it may be that for that purpose there may have to be discharged some of the employés who are engaged in the trade. Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer give us an assurance that in cases of that sort, where a man is discharged through no fault of his own, in order to make the working of this Bill more effective, that his right to compensation will come under the purview of that Commission that is being set up?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The Commission will have the fullest powers to deal with that case.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of this Bill," put, and agreed to.

Sir F. BANBURY

had given notice of the following: