CLAUSE 1.—(Restriction on Delivery for the Purposes of Home Consumption of Immature Spirits.) (Hansard, 17 May 1915)

HC Deb 17 May 1915 vol 71 cc1997-2086 1997

§ (1) No British or foreign spirit shall be delivered for home consumption unless they have been warehoused for a period of at least three years:

§ Provided that—

(a) this restriction shall not apply to spirits delivered for purposes for which they may for the time being be delivered free of duty; and
(b) subject to the payment of such duties (if any) as Parliament may determine, and to compliance with such conditions as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may impose, this restriction shall not apply—

(i) to spirits delivered to a licensed rectifier, to a manufacturing chemist, or to a manufacturer of perfumes, for use in their manufuctures; or
(ii) to spirits delivered for scientific purposes; or
(iii) to imported Geneva and perfumed spirits, and foreign liqueurs; and

(c) subject to the payment of such duties (if any) as Parliament may determine and to compliance with such conditions as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may 1998 impose, this restriction shall not apply for a period of one year after the commencement of this Act—

(i) to spirits of any sort delivered for home consumption, if they have been warehoused for a period of at least two years; or
(ii) to imported rum delivered for home consumption, if it has been warehoused for a period of at least nine months; and

(d)any period which, in the case of imported spirits is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to have elapsed between the dates of distillation and importation shall be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as a period during which the spirits have been warehoused.

§ (2) If any person procures or attempts to procure, the delivery of spirits in contravention of this Act, or acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any conditions imposed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in pursuance of this Act, he shall be liable to a Customs or Excise penalty, as the case may be, of one hundred pounds; and any spirits in respect of which the offence has been committed shall be forfeited.

§ Sir EDWARD CARSON and Mr. RONALD McNEILL
had given notice to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, "During the period of the present War."

§ The CHAIRMAN
The first Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), and in the name, of the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent (Mr. R. McNeill), are outside the scope of the Bill, They propose a new subject which was not in the Bill when leave was asked to introduce it, and, according to rulings given frequently by Mr. Speaker, it is not possible in Committee to introduce a totally new subject of that kind.

§ Sir E. CARSON
I do not want in the least to dispute your ruling, but may I call your attention to the title of the Bill, which is to "Restrict the Supply and Sale of Immature Spirits"? All I ask is to add that it should be restricted altogether during the War, and is not that restricting the supply and sale of immature spirits?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is to prohibit 1999 the delivery and sale of all spirits during the present War. That is a proposal which was not contemplated when the House gave leave to introduce the Bill, and when the House, after passing the Second Reading, authorised the Committee to consider the details of the Bill. Two rulings have been given quite recently on the subject.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
Purely on the point of Order, are we to understand you, Sir, to rule that, no matter what the title of a Bill, no matter can be introduced into it that was not contemplated when the Bill was introduced? I submit that in very recent Budgets we have had matter introduced which was certainly not contemplated when the Bill was introduced.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman puts the matter wider than I should be prepared to go. This is a Bill to restrict the supply and sale of immature spirits. The proposal of the Amendment is to impose absolute prohibition of spirits during the period of the War. I am bound to hold that that is outside the title and outside the scope of the Bill as it was introduced.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I am much obliged to you, Sir. That ruling certainly meets the point. I had misunderstood your ruling, which I thought was based, not on the title of the Bill, with regard to which you are the judge, but on the alleged fact of its being the practice of the House never to introduce into a Bill something that was not contemplated when the Bill was first introduced.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I must not be taken as going so far as that. The Committee can go very, very far indeed in the way of introducing Amendments as long as they are relevant to the Bill.

§ Sir GEORGE YOUNGER
So far as I can see from the Paper, it is not proposed to take out the words "unless they have been warehoused for a certain period," which does not actually prohibit unless they are of a certain age.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think I have correctly understood the effect of the Amendments.

§ Sir E. CARSON
My Amendment means exactly what you have said, and the only question I raised was whether, in view of the fact that I ask the Committee to say that there shall be no sale or delivery out 2000 of bond during the War, that is not a restriction of the supply and sale of immature spirits?

§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
As to introducing in Committee matter which was not contemplated when the Bill was introduced or read a second time, is it not really a question of degree, whether the new matter is of such a character that it might have influenced the House in the matter of giving the. Bill a Second Reading, as, for instance, the introduction of Woman Suffrage into the Franchise Bill?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Would it not be quite in order to move to leave out the words "three years" in order to insert the words "one month"? That would have almost the exact effect of my right hon. Friend's Amendment, and it would enable him to discuss the subject.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think that that would practically be negativing the Bill.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "delivered" ["no British or foreign spirits shall be delivered"], to insert the words "out of bond."
A large number of Members of the House the other night did not know what delivery for home consumption meant. I was amongst the number. The learned Attorney-General told us that the words had a technical meaning restricting them merely to delivery out of bond. I think it highly desirable, if that is the intention of the framers of the Bill, that that should be put in black and white; otherwise it might lead to great confusion and difficulty, because, as far as I can find, there is no statutory definition of the words "delivered for home consumption."

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon)
The hon. and learned Member has explained why he has moved this Amendment, and, listening to him, I am afraid it may be my fault. For that I am sorry, because, when I have given him the explanation which I have in the meantime obtained, I think he will agree that the Bill in this respect had better be left as it stands. The hon. and learned Member is quite right when he says that he asked me the meaning of these words, and that I made reference to spirits being in bond. I doubt, however, whether I spoke very clearly, or, indeed, quite accurately. The object of this Clause is not in any way to interfere with trade for export. Whatever be the 2001 restrictions which this Bill imposes, it does not intend to put any restriction whatever upon the manufacture, delivery, sale, and dispatch of spirits intended to be consumed abroad. For instance, there is a very large sale of British spirits in many parts of the world. Some of the spirits dealt with in this Bill go to the Argentine and many other places. There is a large export trade in British-made spirits. The object of putting in the words "for home consumption" was to make it quite plain that, whatever we found it necessary to do in the interests of our own population and for the purposes of our own efficiency, we are not concerned with the efficiency or the population of our foreign customers. That is the reason, and really the only reason, for putting in the words "for home consumption." The hon. and learned Member proposes to insert the words "out of bond." I think he will see that there would be a difficulty if we did that. Some spirits are imported into this country from abroad—because they are made abroad—in order to be re-exported immediately, and it may in some cases happen that they never come into bond at all; they come in merely for the purpose of going out. The hon. and learned Member will therefore see that we want to limit our prohibition strictly to the delivery of spirits for home consumption. If we put in the words now proposed, we might cover the case of spirits which come into this country for consumption abroad and never come into bond at all. Therefore I think the Bill is really right as it stands.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
I also raised this point on Second Reading, and I am sorry that the explanation of the Attorney-General has not removed what is a very serious difficulty, as I see it. It is largely due to the fact that when the Bill mentions spirits it does not mean merely whisky or brandy; it means everything that is defined as spirits. Amongst the things that would be defined as spirits I would mention one only—laudanum. Laudanum is within the statutory definition of spirits. It is as much a spirit as whisky; and all the other tinctures used by medical men in medicines are equally spirits. When I raised this subject on Second Reading the Attorney-General was good enough to refer me to the definition of British spirits and foreign spirits. With great respect, I think he will see that that does not carry him any further; because all that that does is to define, after spirits are defined, what are British spirits and what are 2002 foreign spirits. Under those definitions laudanum would, first of all, be a spirit. If it is imported into the country it becomes a foreign spirit, but if it is made in this country it comes under the category of British spirits. My point is that laudanum and the other tinctures are definitely included in the provision that no British or foreign spirits shall be delivered for home consumption.
That being so, we have this position. The Bill prohibits the delivery of spirits. What is really contemplated is the prohibition of raw alcohol; but what the Bill does is to say that no immature spirits—and laudanum made with rectified spirit would be immature spirit—shall be delivered for home consumption to anybody but the persons named. Amongst the persons named you have manufacturing chemists. Laudanum can be delivered for home consumption to manufacturing chemists. Spirit for making laudanum can be delivered for home consumption to manufacturing chemists. But if a manufacturing chemist gets his immature spirit and makes his laudanum, what is he to do with it? Under this Bill he cannot deliver it for home consumption until it has been in warehouse or bond for three years. Obviously that cannot be intended. Whilst I see the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with raw spirit which is imported and does not come into bond at all—that is another difficulty which he has to meet—I maintain that the difficulty to which I am referring is not met at all in the Bill. I am not concerned in this House for the moment with potable spirits at all. I wish the House had heard the last about whisky, brandy, and all those other spirits. What I am concerned about is that you should not, by means of legislation such as this, make it impossible for the practice of medicines to be carried on in this country. I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman will look again he will see that as the proposal stands nothing which is made with immature spirit can be delivered for home consumption to anybody but to these manufacturing chemists. Brandy and whisky are, of course, spirits. They are British or foreign wines according to whether they are made in this country or out of it. Perfumes and medicines are also spirits and within the definition. What the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman does is to say that first of all you shall have immature alcohol to make these spirits, but that having done that you shall not part with the spirits you have made until you have kept them in 2003 bond at the warehouse for three years. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that when he considers the definition "spirits" carries with it, he will see that he must do something to define this other phrase, "delivery for home consumption."

§ Mr. LOUGH
My hon. Friend who has just sat down has been careful to confine his criticisms to the point of the prohibition of the delivery of non-potable spirits. I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the same, or a greater, difficulty arises about some potable spirits. We have had no case raised with regard to this Bill except about whisky, which no doubt, I am told, improves on maturity. But there are potable spirits which spoil on maturity, which do not improve at all during two or three years. There is, I believe, a large trade done in the spirit called gin, about which again I know nothing whatever. [Laughter.] I suggest I am putting the same points as my hon. Friend did, only a little wider, and I am told that gin on being manufactured is perfect—that is, as perfect as gin can ever be. From the moment, however, it is manufactured it begins to deteriorate. Therefore, if you compel that gin to be kept for two or three years you destroy it.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid that point does not arise on this particular Amendment.

§ Mr. LOUGH
I was afraid of that myself.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The only question is whether the words "out of bond" should be inserted after the word "delivered."

§ Mr. LOUGH
If that is made perfectly clear I need not say I would rather have a better opportunity, and certainly a more correct opportunity—for that is in accordance with my instinct—for putting my point. My hon. Friend put his exact point. He said we are dealing with laudanum. He was speaking on the Amendment, which proposes to qualify the Clause by putting in some additional words which will make little difference in the Bill. He says that as regards laudanum the Clause is impracticable and almost nonsensical. What he has said applies also to potable spirits, and to a large class of potable spirit, and it is therefore proposed that the word "delivered" shall be altered to "delivered 2004 out of bond." I am sure this will have to be reconsidered later, though perhaps the thing ought to be amended even at this stage.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I am sorry to intervene again. I think the Committee will appreciate that the point mentioned by my hon. Friend (Mr. Glyn-Jones) does nor bear any particular relation to the point mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rawlinson). Let me deal with my hon. Friend. I recognise his considerable authority when he speaks on these technical matters from the chemist's point of view. I speak subject to correction, but I would respectfully submit to him that laudanum is not a spirit at all. Laudanum is made out of ingredients one of which is a spirit. Laudanum is not a spirit, and is not taxed as if it were. What does happen is this: If a manufacturing chemist is going to make laudanum he, needs, amongst other ingredients, spirits to make it with. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman behind me, he is so determined that he is right on this point that I find it rather difficult to convince him that my explanation is a good one, but if he will give me his attention he really will see that it is. He might first of all look at the Bill, which is always a good preliminary before criticising. At present we are engaged on the first and second lines of the Bill, which provide that:— No British or foreign spirits shall be delivered for home consumption unless they have been warehoused for a period of at least three years. But that is followed by provisos. One of the provisos is for the express benefit of manufacturing chemists, whose case the hon. Member has more particularly in mind. It is a most important case, and it, will be quite ridiculous if you are going to make it more difficult for manufacturing chemists in this country to make laudanum. We are doing nothing of the kind. Having provided that no British or foreign spirits shall be delivered for home consumption unless they have been warehoused for a period of at least three years, we go on by way of explanation to say: "Provided that amongst other things in the case of manufacturing chemists spirits may be delivered before they have reached that or any other age." The hon. Member feared that that would be on the terms that some heavy duty was imposed on the spirits that are used in making this necessary medicine. He has already had the assurance 2005 of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is not so, and an assurance from me also. I now say again that it is not so. When we come to the question of the taxes on the spirit he will find that there is nothing whatever in our proposals which will put the manufacturing chemist at a disadvantage as compared with what he was before. That is the answer so far as laudanum is concerned. There may be things to be criticised in this Bill, but really it is not to be criticised because it puts obstacles in the way of making laudanum. As to the next point put by my right hon. Friend, Mr. Lough, and on which he speaks with equal enthusiasm as my hon. Friend, but, as he says, with less knowledge, the point of gin, speaking, he says, from what he understands, it is perfect on the day it is born. That may be so, but gin happens to be one of those things which is made by a licensed rectifier, and if my right hon. Friend, instead of looking at the words about manufacturing chemists, to which I referred just now, will look to the words immediately preceding, he will see that what is true of the manufacturing chemist who is going to make laudanum is true of the licensed rectifier who is going to make gin. I do not suppose my right hon. Friend would desire that that rectifier who has a licence should be allowed to make gin on particularly easy terms, but if he is prepared to make gin with his licence, then the only way he can make it is the way I have described, so that the purity of the liquid the right hon. Gentleman has in view, in the public interest, does not suffer by this Bill.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
Can gin then be delivered?

§ Sir J. SIMON
Certainly, certainly, if anybody desires to drink it. There is but one obstacle in the way in the law to the free delivery and transfer from hand to hand of any of the spirits, and that is why we speak of "delivering for home consumption." It is the expression used again and again in the Spirit Act of 1880. Certain warehouses are certified by the authorities as proper for taking out stuff which has not yet paid duty. That is why they are known as bonded warehouses. Permission may be given for the sake of convenience, and once permission has been given, or the duty has been paid, they come into the world. Once they are there the right hon. Gentleman can make gin, and my hon. Friend can make laudanum, 2006 and anybody else may do what they like. Therefore both laudanum and gin are preserved by this Statute.

§ 4.0 P.M.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
I would not have dared to pit my authority against the right hon. Gentleman on a point of law. I accept at once what he says. But I would like him to accept me on a matter of pharmacy. The word "spirits" is not defined in this Bill. It is defined in the Act of 1880. The right hon. Gentleman said that laudanum is not spirit, but that it is a mixture or preparation made with spirit. It is right pharmaceutically, but what is the definition in that Act? Spirits, according to that definition, means spirits of any description, and includes all liquor mixed with spirit, and all mixture, compounds, or preparations made with spirits. I do not know what the law is, but I can tell you that laudanum is a mixture or preparation made with spirits, and, reading that description, I should say it was included in the definition of spirits. If the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House what spirits in this connection do include I shall be obliged. If it excludes compounds made with spirits, then it is not the spirits in the 1880 Act. That is the difficulty. I do not wish to detain the House a moment if the Government will tell me that this Bill does not prevent laudanum, however made, being delivered to anybody, because the point he made is that it can be delivered to manufacturing chemists. I admitted that, but what are the manufacturing chemists going to do with it if it must not be used for home consumption unless warehoused for at least three years?

§ Sir J. SIMON
I give him an assurance in the very plainest terms. The effect of this Clause, so far as I understand it and all those technical persons concerned in drafting it, is this: that it does not affect in the least the sale of laudanum by anyone authorised to sell it. I have pointed out that the only time this Clause operates is when the spirits pass out of the bonded warehouse, and inasmuch as no manufacturing chemist ever makes laudanum in bond, it follows necessarily that he would mix the spirit with it when it is taken out of bond.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
That is why I want it taken out.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I have given my assurance.

2007

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I attach great weight to the matter, and all that the right hon. Gentleman has said now strengthens more and more my desire to have these words in the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman slipped out twice in his last speech the expression that it only means taken out of the bonded warehouse. If it only means that, it ought to be in the Bill. I should say that not a Member of the Committee had the view which the right hon. Gentleman, very likely correctly, has given to us. I do not suppose anyone reading the Clause had the slightest idea of that construction. The Clause begins:— No British or foreign spirits shall be delivered for home consumption. British spirit is defined, as the hon. Member (Mr. Glyn-Jones) told us, in the Act of 1880, and apparently includes any spirit which is excisable, and spirit which it defined not only as pure spirit, but spirit mixed with water, and so forth. I understood the Attorney-General to say in answer to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) that the Act would not cover gin.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I do not say that at all. It is necessary to get this matter clear. What I am pointing out is that the Bill begins with a prohibition in respect of spirit not three years old and goes on with exceptions, and what I pointed out—I hope clearly—was that this is one of the exceptions, and, therefore, for the purpose of manufacturing gin, you have not to wait until the spirit is any age. All I said was that this prohibition does not apply to such cases, because there is an exception. It does not apply to spirits delivered to licensed rectifiers, and gin is supplied to them.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Then you have this extraordinary thing, that this Act does not apply to the sale of gin because it conies within the exception, and the sale of gin is not in any way affected by this proposal. That, I think, will come as a surprise to nine out of ten laymen in this Committee. It requires a very good lawyer, as the right hon. Gentleman is, to have discovered it out of this particular point. That is the first surprise. The second one is, What is the meaning of "delivered for home consumption"? Does it, or does it not, mean the sale of an article, such as brandy? That is a foreign spirit in some instances—a foreign spirit delivered, as I suggest, out of bond. If you leave out the words "out of bond," is it intended to be an offence 2008 for a publican to sell new brandy? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say it was not to be an offence at all. If it is not to be an offence, surely the words "out of bonded warehouse" should be put in. Some words ought to be put in at the beginning to define the meaning of the words "delivered for home consumption." Doubtless the Attorney-General may be right, but surely it would be simpler to put in the words "out of bonded warehouse." The only difficulty suggested is that certain alcohol comes from abroad which is intended to be exported again, and therefore never goes to the warehouse at all. Surely the Government could ask the draftsmen to put in words to deal with that exceptional case, and make this, the criminal part of the Act, absolutely clear. I press this very strongly on the Committee. Assuming that the construction is as the Attorney-General said, then if these words are put in you have this position, that it is only an offence to get spirit out of bond and is no offence to sell new spirit. I presume the stock of new spirits in England, Scotland, and Ireland is sufficient for ordinary consumption for about nine months, and then you have this extraordinary position: We are going to pass this Bill, costing millions of money, if what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about compensation is true, for the purpose of preventing, as I understand it, workmen drinking immature spirit whilst they are getting out war materials. The effect, so far as workmen are concerned, will not come into force until all the stock of new spirit in existence at the present time is exhausted, and that probably will not be until next year. That makes a pretty good difference when we come to the Third Reading whether we give it our support or not—whether we know distinctly that only spirits out of bond will be affected or whether it is meant to make it a criminal offence for the publican, directly the Bill is passed, to sell raw, immature spirit. It is a very vital matter, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will put in words to make it clear.

§ Sir J. SIMON
May I just make it clear, because no one wants to be obstinate about a particular form of words. I do not claim any superiority about this, except that I have had the opportunity of taking the trouble to study as closely as I could the existing Statute law. I should no doubt have known no more about it 2009 than anybody else if it had not been my business to look into the matter. If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the Spirits Act of 1880, he will find a good many of these possible difficulties will disappear, but I agree with him that it is very important to make it quite plain that we are not endeavouring to impose penalties under this Statute on the publican, say, or the spirit merchant who has got ready for sale to-day whisky, for all I know, which may not be of a minimum age. That is not our intention or object in the least. Of course we are obliged to keep on the high duties on spirits until we have adjusted this matter. I should like, in view of what has been said, to take the opportunity—it is very difficult to take it in the middle of debate—of consulting the experts, who in this matter are simply trying to serve the House as a whole, and not one against another, in order to ascertain whether, by some change in these words, you can make plain as you read it what I am quite confident is the effect of these words as they stand, and if that were thought right I can, perhaps, have the opportunity of consulting the hon. Gentleman. That being so, we should avoid, I think, what might be a long and very technical discussion in which, for all I know, I may be technically right, and all the time the criticism may have a great deal of force in it from the popular point of view.

§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURY
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he proposes to do that? I do not know whether there will be a Report stage or not. If there is not a Report stage, unless he recommits the Bill, he cannot do it.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I think, if necessary, we may recommit by agreement. I do not want to say there may be any change. It seems a pity to make a change simply to secure the Report stage, but I am not going to take any technical advantage. The word shall be altered if it is right to alter it.

§ Mr. LOUGH
I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for the clear explanation he gave me, but still with regard to the delivery of gin there is one point in doubt. I think my right hon. Friend has made it perfectly clear that for the manufacture of this spirit there is nothing in the Bill that imposes any restriction. That is not what I was thinking of quite, because, after the spirit is made, while it is yet young, it may be bonded, and 2010 then can it not be delivered from bond for three years? That is what appears to me in doubt unless this word "delivered" is modified. My right hon. Friend says we had better postpone that point also. I am perfectly pleased to do so, because I have no interest in the matter whatever.

§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSON
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he is going to deal with brandy. Brandy is made abroad, and it is sent into this country in bond, both in bottle and in cask. How is he to tell the age of the brandy which comes in bottle, and what sort of evidence is to be required of the age of that brandy before it is taken out? That is one of the difficulties. I think probably what the right hon. Gentleman said the other day is the case, and that there is enough out of bond now to last so as to make any amount of intoxication during the War, and, in fact, I may tell my right hon. Friend that one of the largest Scottish distillers told me he was perfectly satisfied if the Government draws the line now, and says that no more spirit is to be taken from bond until the end of the War, so that he evidently knew there was quite sufficient out now.

§ Sir E. CARSON
Will he be satisfied not to sell it?

§ Mr. HENDERSON
The Scotch distillers sell the whisky the moment it is distilled. They have nothing to do with it in bond, because the moment it is distilled it is all sold and there is hardly a cask of it in any distillery. The owner keeps it in bond as long as he likes. I am sure brandy will present a very serious difficulty to the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. COWAN
Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that all raw spirits are injurious? If that be so, I fail to see why the Government should facilitate the production of spirits by these licensed rectifiers of gin which may possess all the impurities and injurious effects of immature spirits—

§ The CHAIRMAN
That point will arise at a later stage on this Clause, and it does not arise on the present Amendment.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Sir J. D. REES
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "three" ["at least three years"] and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
2011 I understand the feeling of the Trade is that they are prepared to accept a two-years' age limit but not three years. It is quite obvious that if the Trade had two years to prepare for this change, there would be less contraction of business than must necessarily result from the immediate adoption of a three years' limit, although, in either case, an increase of capital would be required. The Trade is, no doubt, prepared to find the necessary extra capital, but my information is that they are not prepared for this three years' bonding period. The fact is that there is a very limited quantity of three-year-old whisky consumed compared with what is bought by the ordinary public. Owing to the intense pressure of rates, which never seems to be appreciated by hon. Members of this House, and the exceedingly high Licence Duties and rent, the retailer is driven to buy and sell only the cheapest kinds of whisky. The people I have in mind are selling whisky between nine months and eighteen months' old, and if this limit of three years is introduced, as there is not the necessary amount of whisky in being in stock, business of those interested in this whisky trade will suffer an exceedingly severe blow, if, indeed, in many quarters it is not entirely brought to an end. I submit that the necessity for three-year-old whisky has never been proved. I do not want to refer to the Royal Commission, but their expression of doubt upon the matter must not be too much regarded. I do not dispute that whisky is better old than new, but it is a question how far it is absolutely necessary to restrict the age, and there are plenty of people who are rather fond of whisky who like it with a bite about it, and do not appreciate whisky that has been in bond a long time. Those who like to drink old port must recognise that by age it has lost many of those qualities which would be regarded as essential by the popular consumers of new wine. There is a similar trend of thought with regard to whisky. It must be within the knowledge of everyone in Scotland that some of the finest men in the world, both physically and mentally, in fact, some of the finest specimens of the human race, are in the habit of drinking neat whisky without asking whether it has been in bond three years. The whole movement which has led to the adoption of this particular Clause was founded upon the hysterical denunciations of the liquor 2012 trade, followed by the statement made quite recently that the House of Commons quails before a crowd of Irish distillers, which is a most unjust criticism. Such criticisms are utterly unjustified, because they represent this nation before other nations as a drunken nation—a description which we in no wise deserve. I do not know with what standard the Government have been comparing the people of this country—

§ The CHAIRMAN
Is the hon. Gentleman speaking of the Bill as a whole, or is he discussing the Amendment?

§ Sir J. D. REES
I think there is ample precedent on the part of those in high places for my going a little beyond the four corners of my Amendment.

§ Sir J. SIMON
The matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised is, of course, a question of degree, and nobody can contend that the choice of three is necessarily and in itself ideally right and the preference for two is necessarily and inevitably wrong. It is all a question of balancing the consideration involved. I hope I shall not be taking too high a tone, or speaking with undue dogmatism about it, when I say that the figure of three in the Bill has been given a great deal of consideration, and I ask the Committee to take up this position: For the purpose of this Amendment we must assume that there must be some minimum age prescribed. It is no good on this Amendment arguing the very large question as to whether there should be any limit prescribed at all. There may be people who think it is not worth doing, or that the evil we are treating would bf better corrected by other ways. I do not want to shut them out, but this is not the proper time to discuss them. Starting from the point of view that there must be restrictions as regards the minimum age, the question comes, What minimum age? The hon. Gentleman has put his contention extremely clearly. He has said that by choosing so high a figure as three we are doing something which is unnecessary, and which is, at the same time, inflicting a difficulty on a great and important trade. But is that really so? It is not surprising that there should be some inconvenience connected with it, and there may be considerable dislocation; but I do not think the Committee will expect me to argue at any length on the point that if the object we all have in view, namely, to secure greater efficiency on Government work, may be attained by pre- 2013 scribing a minimum age at all—I do not think anybody will dispute that proposition—no provision can be regarded as harsh which is clearly necessary to achieve this result. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson) made an observation which I should have thought was more immediately relevant to this Amendment. He told us that there were abundant supplies of whisky available, and, as I understood him, he said that even if the whisky tap was turned off the people for whom he was speaking would have no reason to complain. These cases have to be dealt with on their merits, and no doubt by anticipating such legislation as this there is a very great quantity of such whisky available, and no doubt, to some extent, that is an unfavourable argument as to the wisdom of this particular policy as a whole. It may be said if the whisky is out of bond it is no good shutting the warehouse door after it has escaped. In this Amendment we are proceeding on the assumption that you must have a limit, and I urge the Committee to make it three years as a minimum, subject to the modifications contained in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) put the case of the Irish distillers the other day, but their difficulty would not be got rid of by the difference between three years and two years. Therefore it is no good arguing that the difference between three years and two year is going to overcome the difficulty.

§ Sir J. D. REES
That is the Irish case.

§ Sir J. SIMON
Yes, I was referring to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, Dublin, who presented the Irish case the other day. I do not believe that the three years' limit is going to impose such a restriction as will really interfere with their business to an extent which two years would not, and that being so it is very much better that we should stick to the three years' limit.

§ Sir J. D. REES
Has the right hon. Gentleman come to the English case?

§ Sir J. SIMON
All that I am saying for the moment is stated from a much broader view than that. I am looking at it as broad as you please; I am putting the Imperial case. We must, for the purposes of this Amendment, assume that the laying down of a minimum age below which whisky is not to be consumed is of national advantage, and that it is really going to help and increase the production 2014 of munitions and of high explosives which we have in the last few days had good reason to feel are urgently needed. I do not for a moment accuse any hon. Member who takes a different view of being one wit less keen about these overwhelming necessities than the rest of us, but we have looked into this thing quite seriously. The hon. Member is probably quite right when he says that the Scottish, and, it may be, the English distillers would prefer two years, and when I presented the Bill I never said that it was an agreed Bill. I was most careful to say nothing which could lead to that misunderstanding. I asked the Committee very earnestly to leave the three years where they are in this part of the Bill. We have thought it right to make exceptions that will enable spirits, in some cases two years old, to be brought into consumption, and in other cases spirits which are quite new. The hon. Gentleman sitting behind me (Mr. Glyn-Jones) mentioned the case of laudanum. There will be no obstacle put in the way of the sale of laudanum, however new. We are not talking about medicines and poisons, but about potable liquors.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
You do not include gin?

§ Sir J. SIMON
The right hon. Gentleman will remember, from his knowledge of these matters when he was at the Treasury, that gin has always been treated with this fact in mind, that it is in competition with an article imported from abroad, and is always expected to be consumed without any heat.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
It is made from rectified spirits.

§ Sir J. SIMON
It is made from rectified spirits, and consequently there has never been the slightest intention that you should keep it for any length of time. Whatever may help to defeat the Germans the shutting of gin up in warehouses most certainly will not. No one has suggested that gin should be treated in that way. It may be that I have spoken inconclusively and have not produced a series of definite arguments. You cannot in the nature of things produce cut and dried arguments in favour of three years as against two, but I can assure the Committee that three years was put in as a maximum after a great deal of consideration and after consultation with those who advised us, as public servants, and whose one desire in 2015 the matter was to give us the best guidance they could. I quite recognise that it involves in some cases inconvenience, and, it may be, real commercial disturbance, and I can only say that in a time of crisis we must, as far as may be, agree to those things and deal with them as best we can. I know that it is very easy for somebody who is not personally going to suffer to urge patience in suffering upon others, and I do not say it in any sanctimonious way or from any superior point of view, but, as a plain matter of fact, we stand at a moment when we ought not to whittle down the provisions of a Bill—assuming it is otherwise satisfactory—which, if it is passed at all, is passed to put some limitation on the age at which spirits are sold in order to increase the efficiency of our people. I would therefore urge the Committee to keep the three years in the Bill.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I represent no vested interests of any sort or kind, but I want to make quite clear the peculiarity of the position. My hon. Friend suggests changing the three years into two, and, if he were called upon for an argument in favour of doing so, he would probably say that as we have to pay compensation it would be much cheaper. What would be the harm of reducing three years to two? This is a measure merely for the purpose of increasing the output of munitions of war by preventing people drinking immature whisky. By the next Clause, which has not been definitely referred to, whisky two years old is allowed to be brought out of bond for twelve months after the Act comes into force. Therefore, supposing the Act comes into force next week, you will be able to get as much whisky two years old out of bond as you choose, and you will be able to do that for the whole year. Therefore, the alteration of the three years to two years would have no effect upon the next twelve months. At the end of twelve months, if the Bill is not amended, the three years' limit will come into force, and afterwards you will only be able to get spirits out of bond which have been in for three years. It is a long time before the whisky so got out of bond will be drunk by the working people. It is therefore rather strange to say that the three years' limit, which cannot come into effect at all for more than a year hence, and which the trade will undoubtedly anticipate, or may probably anticipate, by taking as much whisky out of bond as they can—

2016

§ Sir J. SIMON
They would have to pay more duty.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Whether they anticipate it or not, at all events it is not to come in force at all for more than a year. Is not that taking a pessimistic view of the length of time the War is likely to last? Would it not be possible to say that, if a year hence the same state of affairs exists, then would be the time to put any such Amendment as this upon the Statute Book? I am rather frightened that under the guise of a war measure we may be letting ourselves in for an amendment of the law, possibly an advantageous amendment, which has nothing to do with the War, and I am very much inclined to watch all these special Bills very carefully and make sure that any amending Bill is only for the term of the War and does not effect changes, however beneficial they may be, after the War, more especially in the case of a Bill like this where compensation is going to be paid.

§ Mr. LOUGH
Where does compensation come in?

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
We have had the assurance of the Government on two occasions that compensation would be paid.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
Is the hon. and learned Member right in that statement? Was not the assurance that the matter would be referred to the Compensation Committee? That is not quite the same thing.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Is it not?

§ Sir J. SIMON
At any rate, do not let us go into that matter.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
There is a subtlety about the hon. Member's remark, but I will not deal with it as the question does not arise. I am in favour of the Amendment because, if the limitation cannot, come into effect for more than a year—

§ Sir J. SIMON
If I found that the difficulty would be met by inserting a provision that the Bill should only operate for the War and a reasonable time afterwards, I would certainly consider that proposal most favourably.

§ Sir E. CARSON
I would like to point out that what the right hon. Gentleman has just said would not be of the least use. It would be necessary for all these distillers—at least, it would be necessary so far as the one firm I know in the North 2017 of Ireland is concerned—to build an enormous warehouse by reason of this Bill. Hitherto they have been selling whisky very much according as it was made. They have made no objection to it, but they will have to spend at least £500,000 in putting up warehouses, and once they have established themselves in that way it does not make the least difference to them really whether the measure is for the period of the War or not. It would be far better to let them know that this question of bonding was really being settled now once and for all. That is not the objection the distillers, so far as I know them, are making. They have been perfectly reasonable about the matter, and what they want is not so much the temporary nature of the Bill, as time in which they can carry out what is necessary under the Bill.
It is an unfortunate thing that during a period like the present what ought to by an emergency Bill, and so framed, is not framed as an emergency measure at all. You are not really doing anything that is going to be of any benefit during the War, but you are trying to enact something which will settle a long-standing question and necessitates, at the very worst time, an enormous expenditure. We all know, and personally I am very sorry for it, that there is enough whisky taken out of bond now to feed all these munitions areas and all others for the next twelve months with this immature spirit. You are allowing another year, and therefore this three years' limit will never come into operation so as to affect the matter at all during the War. If you are going to do this at all, you may as well finally settle the matter, because it would be far more expense again to alter the system and restore things to their present condition, and you would also raise a new controversy as regards this matter. I do not in the least object to your making the Bill operate as a settlement of the whole of this bonding question. My real objection is that you are not giving these men, who are perfectly willing to join in this settlement of the bonding question, time to do what is necessary, and you are putting them, at a very inopportune time, to enormous expense, even in making the effort to keep their trade.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
There are some Amendments to this Bill in my name which are not there because I have any objection to the Bill as it stands but only in order to facilitate the working of the 2018 Bill without hardship. The suggestion which is now made does not seem to me, with great respect, a useful one. The Government, in order to remove difficulties in these munition areas, have brought in a Bill which prohibits, with certain exceptions, the use of immature spirits. In order to do that, they have to set up a huge machinery, and they have to interfere, however careful they may be, with a number of interests. As to the suggestion of compensation, all I have to say is that I hope, if compensation is to be paid, it will not be paid for securing what is apparently an improvement for the community only for the period of the War. I agree that the Government would not be justified in taking this matter up now were they not satisfied that the indiscriminate sale of immature spirits at this time is doing mischief, and that that is the fact which leads them to take it up now. They should not say "we will confine its beneficent purposes only to the period of the War." If the House declares it will not let workmen have immature whisky because it makes them bad workmen, is it going, after the War is over and compensation has been paid, to come back and say, "We are at the end of the War, and we will let the workmen have as much deleterious and immature spirit as they want." I cannot help thinking that the proposal to limit the operation of the measure to the period of the War is not a sound one.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
When this matter was under consideration the other day I made an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, I am sorry to say, did not meet with as considerate a response as has usually been given to our suggestions of late, nor was it met, as I hoped it would be, in the spirit and temper to which I moved it. It is, however, quite impossible for me to contemplate for one moment that, in the position in which we now stand, in the midst of a great national struggle of this character, I should needlessly say anything contentious here, and it is still more impossible for me to contemplate the idea of dividing the Committee on any question of this kind. But I would ask the Committee to bear with me for one moment while I place before it my view upon this subject. I think the discussion we have just had shows how very difficult it is to reconcile the measure which we are discussing with the aims which are equally close to the hearts of us all. The hon. Gentleman who 2019 last spoke (Mr. Glyn-Jones) deprecated confining the operation of this measure to the period of the War. He said we must assume, as the Attorney-General invited us to do, that the sale of raw spirit is so deleterious to the people as to be a very grave cause, if not the gravest cause, of our difficulty in the output of munitions of War. If the sale of this spirit has such bad effects then, said he, "for heaven's sake don't let us, after the War, drop back into the position in which we are to-day." I must say, as temperately as I can, that the case against what is called immature or raw patent still spirit is not made out. I believe that the munitions difficulty in so far as it is attributable to the drinking of spirits, arises from the drinking of undiluted spirit, or from the drinking of such spirit at the wrong time or without food, or from the drinking of it in too great a quantity. But it is not, in any appreciable degree, shown to be due to the fact that the spirit is new. In this I base myself, not merely on the absence of evidence to the contrary at the moment, for I know there is a widespread feeling to the contrary effect—but I base it on the report of a Commission which devoted a great deal of time to the investigation of this very subject—and which was certainly as competent a body as we could have had to investigate the matter. That Committee found in the sense which I have just expressed.
But the House has accepted the Second Reading of this Bill, and we are considering how it shall be applied. Just consider the position in which we are. The Bill is an emergency measure to promote the supply of munitions and the good conduct of people during the War. But we are solemnly told there is already enough of this raw spirit out of bond, and therefore unaffected by the Bill, to last us for a year, while, during the course of the year, the supply of immature spirit may be enlarged as rapidly as the trade chooses. In fact, the professed purposes of the Bill cannot take effect until after, I suppose, something like two or three years from the date of its passing. If I am at all right in holding the views I do, the Committee will understand I am not very hopeful of any great result being achieved by this particular measure. If no great result is to be achieved, then I am reluctant, by the use of this particular method, to inflict a peculiarly unequal and most serious hardship on a special section 2020 of the trade. I confess I have never been enthusiastic about the proposal which, underlies the Bill, or very hopeful about it. I think, however, if it were determined that some such restriction should be applied, there is a better way of trying to secure the object, and, having thus given my opinion against what I do feel to be a great injustice to a particular trade—a trade which is in danger not of being stopped altogether, but of being transferred to others who are their rivals and competitors—I think I have said all I have a right to ask the Committee to hear from me, and I shall carry my opposition no further.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
It is some satisfaction for me to speak with regard to a Bill in which I have no personal interest, because I am not a distiller and I have no interest, so far as I know, in any distillery. But I have for some time taken considerable interest in this question, because I was a member of the Royal Commission—Lord Peel's Commission—and signed the Majority Report on the subject of immature spirits. That Commission definitely stated their opinion that there was no difference between old and new whisky so far as its chemical constitution is concerned, but that there is all the difference in the world in drinking it so far as its physiological effects are concerned. I have the honour to represent something like twenty-three distilleries in my Constituency, and I have risen for the purpose of saying that they very strongly support the proposal for a three years' limit in this Bill. They are, of course, pot still distilleries. I dare say it is just possible their whisky is only drunk after it has reached the age of three years. It is very infrequently drunk at an earlier period. It is always, I fancy, mixed with other whisky because it is a blending whisky. These distillers are certainly in favour of this proposal. But so far as the patent still distillers are concerned, while I think they want to restrict the limitation of this Bill to two years, I gather they make no objection to the Bill allowing a certain margin over a certain period. I do trust, however, if any really serious injury is done in this matter, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the interests of those who are affected.
I heard the Irish case stated the other day and I certainly was astonished that a case of that kind existed. It seemed tome that a very strong case was made out by my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson), and that the Chancellor of the 2021 Exchequer was very much impressed by it, it would, however, be very unfortunate indeed if a great improvement were deferred too long in consequence of that. Some way I hope may be found to meet the difficulty. I trust that whatever is done will be done once and for all, because it is a terrible business for the trade to be under what may be called the Sword of Damocles for ever, never knowing when it is to be interfered with, or when its arrangements may be upset. This Bill undoubtedly will involve a considerable addition to bonded storage. It will involve no doubt a large outlay of capital. Indeed, everything that the right hon. Gentleman proposes in connection with the liquor trade always does involve a great amount of capital, and I have complained on previous occasions of the effect of his proposals in this direction. If, therefore, the trade are called upon to face this outlay ns a result of these proposals, I hope the new arrangement will be adhered to after the War is over, and I am sure it will be found to be beneficial.

§ Sir T. WHITTAKER
I am a little concerned at what we have heard with regard to the question of compensation. The statements have been very vague and very indefinite, but the t's have been crossed and the i's have been dotted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a manner which has made me a little uncomfortable.

§ Sir E. CARSON
I said nothing about it.

§ Sir T. WHITTAKER
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to it on a previous occasion, and to my mind what he then said suggested a very serious liability indeed. I agree there is force in the suggestion that this is not quite the time to deal with a general problem. We are now dealing with war emergencies. By an Act already passed you have given to the Government power, in the munitions, shipbuilding, and transport areas, to do almost anything they like in connection with this trade, and I cannot help thinking that the whole case could be met without this Bill at all, if the Government simply announced, or even without announcing—if they took steps in those areas where that evil is stated to exist as a result of the use of immature spirit, to forbid the sale of any spirits less than three years old. That, it seems to me, would deal adequately with the question in the munitions, shipbuilding, and transport areas, which is all we are really con- 2022 fining our efforts to. In that case the question of compensation would disappear and the rest of the country would be left open to the trade as it is now. Even at this late hour, in view of the difficulties which may arise in connection with compensation—which I do not like sanctioning at all in this connection—I do suggest that that is the best solution of the difficulty.

§ 5.0 P.M.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
We have wandered a little away from the Amendment, which is to substitute two years for three. I wish to point out that if the Amendment is accepted, it will not make any alteration in the Bill, because in a later Clause it is enacted that for a period of one year from the passing of the Bill only whisky which is two years old shall be sold. If, as I have always understood—I do not agree with my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) upon this matter—this is a temporary emergency measure, if, as we all hope, the War will not last more than a year, and if, during that year, two-year-old whisky be sold, then the Amendment does not alter the Bill. It is true it makes the Bill consistent, because the Bill's three years' limit is inconsistent with a later Clause. It is not a very important matter, but in the interests of consistency I should like to see two years inserted instead of three. As regards the other matters raised in the Debate, I do not believe the Bill is going to make the addition of a single shell or round of ammunition to the work that is now being done. I will not go into that because it might be out of Order. We have seen in Scotland, where they have Sunday closing, that if the people are inclined to drink whisky, and want to get it, they will get it. They will get it whether this Bill is passed or not. My hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) has twenty-three or twenty-four distillers in his constituency. I do not pay special attention to that.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I do.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
My belief is that they would make money out of this Bill. With that Scotch instinct, which leads so many men to the Front Opposition Bench and the Treasury Bench, they, looking after their own interests, do not object to this Bill. I hope we shall not, under the guise of a temporary measure, do something which will be far-reaching and remain in operation when the War is over.

§ Mr. COWAN
I am a little puzzled to understand why no reference has been 2023 made in the Debate to the possibility of maturing whisky by artificial means. That is a perfectly relevant point on the question whether whisky should be kept in bond for two or three years. I am against the Mover of the Amendment. If distillers had taken advantage of the researches of modern science, they would have been able to produce a whisky with all the merits of maturity and age practically instantaneously by adopting the process invented and patented by Professor Hewitt many years ago. That process has the advantage of getting rid of the aldehydes which are the injurious elements in raw whisky. Testimony is paid to its result by competent scientific men—I have already quoted the name, and I will quote it again of Sir Lauder Brunton, whose authority will not lightly be set aside by anyone. He vouches for these facts, and I do not think his opinion will be lightly disregarded. However, if the Bill is required because the Government have come to the decision that only age will mature whisky, the Committee ought to be told why raw whisky, which is so injurious to those who drink it and has such a retarding effect on the production of munitions, is going to be sold in this country during the next nine or twelve months, which is the most critical period of the War.
This Bill, if it is to do anything to protect the workers of munitions from the effects of immature or raw whisky during the War, ought to be in operation during the coming year, and unless it is it will be of no value or utility whatever. It is only another fragment of the better and larger scheme presented in the House, and is only put forward to save the faces of those who have been unable to carry out the larger scheme. The only proper course to adopt with this Bill is to frankly withdraw it. It is not going to do what it is intended to do; it is not an emergency measure, and it is not fair to the Committee to ask it to pass a measure which, perhaps, will not come into operation until the War is over. I do not venture to form an opinion as to when the War will end—we believe it will last at least nine or twelve months. During that period we desire the utmost efficiency in the munition factories. We shall not get it if raw and immature whisky is available. Therefore, the right course is to abandon the Bill, or introduce some other provision—I know it is difficult to do so—dealine with the stocks of raw and immature whisky at present in the country out of bond.

2024

§ Mr. R. McNEILL
It is a very curious circumstance that we are going to pass this Bill as practically an agreed measure owing to the appeal made to us by the Government, although, so far as I have been able to follow the Debate, speakers have risen from different parts of the Committee and not one of them has yet approved of the measure.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I did.

§ Mr. McNEILL
My hon. Friend is the sole exception. It is not very difficult to understand the reason why. My hon. Friend has the privilege of representing a very considerable body of pot still distillers. It seems that the difficulty has arisen because the Government are mixing two things together—I do not mean a blend of whisky, but another blend—and have become confused. The Bill is presented to us as an emergency measure for a definite purpose. My hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) remarked just now that he did not believe its result would be to increase the output of munitions of war by a single shell or a round of ammunition. That statement was received with approval by Members in all parts of the Committee. It appears to be the general consensus of opinion that whatever the measure may do for good or ill, it will certainly fail in the object for which it has been pressed upon our attention. Speeches have been made, some urging that it should be made specifically a measure confined to the period of the War, and purely a temporary emergency measure, while others have urged exactly the opposite—my right hon. Friend is among them—saying that if the measure should be passed at all, it should not be a temporary measure but a permanent reform of our system. That shows the hopeless confusion between the arguments in favour of an emergency measure and those in favour of a permanent measure. The real fact of the matter is pretty plain. This Bill is not going to increase the output of munitions of war. Therefore, it is hardly fair for Members of the Government to make the sort of appeals they sometimes make in this House and outside it in regard to the pitable appearance of the House of Commons in discussing a measure of this sort, and as to the contemptible attitude of a few Irish distillers. These expressions are out of place, in view of the fact that it is not generally admitted in the House of Commons that this measure is going 2025 to have any effect on the output of munitions of war. It is said, and it is undeniable, that there is an amount of whisky already out of bond which will make it almost certain that the Bill cannot be operative in any degree while the War lasts, or nearly until the end of the War.
The fact is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I do not say this by way of reproach—started some little time ago with very ambitious proposals, and very large ideas as to the methods by which the temporary evil of drink in our workshops ought to be approached. He has found difficulties which he did not expect. He has humorously expressed those difficulties to the House, and has said he was unable, on account of the opposition from one faction to carry one proposal, and because of opposition from another faction he was unable to carry another proposal. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman wants us to pass this Bill, not because it will increase the output of the munitions of War, but because it will save his face. I do not say that by way of reproach. It is a very natural attitude on his part. I sympathise very much with some of the larger proposals he has not been able to carry, but surely the right hon. Gentleman at this period of the War has sufficiently the confidence of the House of Commons and the country to put himself on a higher plane than to attempt to pass a measure merely for the sake of being able to say that he has done something. Let the right hon. Gentleman candidly admit that these various proposals, when they came to be threshed out in an entirely sympathetic House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—yes, the Attorney-General admitted just now that we were all equally anxious, whatever our views were, to increase the output of munitions of war.

§ Sir J. SIMON
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. McNEILL
Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a sympathetic House of Commons, and having the confidence of the House and the country, as I think he has, say, "I quite misapprehended the number of difficulties to which I should be put. I find the object we had in view in proposing this as an emergency measure will not be carried out by the Bill, and I am not going to press it on the House any longer." If the right hon. Gentleman insists upon pressing it forward, he puts some of us in a very difficult position. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) 2026 has forcibly expressed what many of us feel. We do not like to persist in opposition when the Government make an appeal on patriotic grounds. If they say that this was brought forward without sufficient time and without being able to give sufficient notice to the various branches of the trade so that the matter could have been placed on a generally equitable footing, in those circumstances I should have little to say. But we feel strongly that if we want to respond to the appeal put forward by the Government, we can only do it by inflicting serious hardships upon one particular selected branch of the trade for the benefit of their trade rivals, and especially injuring those interests which are grouped and concentrated very largely in the part of the country which I do not represent in this House, but in which I have a very large personal interest, and which is represented in this House by my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson). We are put in a very difficult and unfair position in view of the general consensus of opinion that this Bill will not carry out the one object with which it is legitimate to make such an appeal to the patriotism of the country.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
The Debate has gone so far beyond the limits of the Amendment that I am really not quite sure to what extent I shall be in order in referring to the Amendment at all.

§ The CHAIRMAN
For my own protection, I think I had better intervene. It is perfectly true that the discussion has gone in ever-widening circles since the Amendment was first moved, but it is really remarkable that the suggestion which came from that bench, opening the question as to whether this should be a temporary or a permanent measure, gave rise to the discussion. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be entitled to reply to anything which has been said.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It is perfectly true that this is just salvage.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
It was not even part of the original cargo.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree it can hardly be recognised as part of the vessel, but, at any rate, to a certain extent it is a prohibition of a kind of spirits. I should have gone very much further, and I still regret that it could not be done. It would 2027 have been a very great opportunity, but, after all, there is no question so strewn with lost opportunities as the temperance question, and this is one of the greatest opportunities we have ever missed of doing something which will not merely help munitions of war but put us in a very much better position, when the War is over, to repair its damage. However, I do not want to go into that—I wish I could. I must only treat it as, I agree, a very poor percentage of the original proposal, but still, I think, worth preserving. It has been tried in Australia with success, and I think it has been tried in Canada with success. The Australians undoubtedly think it a very valuable part of their liquor legislation to stop the consumption of immature spirit. It is perfectly true that they gave time and notice there. I want to say quite fairly that it is because we cannot afford to do that, because if we gave time and notice we should not have the advantage of it during the War, that we have to do something which looks like the infliction of loss upon a certain number of distillers and those otherwise engaged in the trade. Otherwise we should be able to say, "Six months or two years hence we shall bring this into operation." We cannot afford to do that. I think the right hon. Gentleman is underrating the value of this. The case was very well put by the Leader of the Opposition. If you ask scientific men what the particular chemical quality is which either disappears or is introduced by this process of keeping in bond for two years, they are unable to tell you, because there is nothing which is so elusive as the qualities of alcohol. But they all say that they have not the faintest doubt from their experience and observation, that it makes an enormous difference. The evidence they gave before the first Commission is very striking testimony, and it is very remarkable that the majority and the minority agreed that the consumption of raw spirits, apart altogether from the larger question raised, was in itself an ingredient in the evil of excessive drunkenness in this country. That was the view of both parties.
They said another thing in which both sides concurred. It was a more violent form of drunkenness, and there is the famous case of the two monkeys, which is not merely a sort of myth or legend. First of all you gave monkey A mature whisky. 2028 He got drunk in due course, but was friendly. You gave to monkey B immature whisky, and he was very violent and spat. After a week they changed and gave the raw whisky to the friendly monkey and the mature to the other. The first monkey, who was so kindly, so benevolent, so mellow when you gave it the mature whisky, instantly became as violent, offensive, and disagreeable as any man I have ever heard attacking a Minister on this bench. Then the other one got the same sort of kindly, benevolent, philanthropic feeling, the result of the mature whisky sold by the hon. Baronet's constituents. That really represents the kind of evidence which was given by chief constables about the effect of these various qualities of whisky. I do not think we can altogether ignore the evidence of people who have been observing these cases. Some of them were scientific men, who said they had no doubt at all about the greater intoxicating properties of the raw whisky. They could not analyse it. They could not tell what the particular ingredients were. All they could say was that there was no doubt at all about the fact. We cannot ignore that. Here you have France dealing with the more offensive and dangerous form of spirits, and the Foreign Office sent me to-day a passage from a document which shows that Germany has done exactly the same thing. They are introducing all sorts of restrictions on the sale of spirits, including raw spirit. They are actually going to suppress some of the houses that sell spirits. If every country in the world is doing that sort of thing, this is the very least we can do. I agree that it is insufficient, but is as far as I can go. I accept everything the hon. Member (Mr. R. McNeill) said, but I can assure him it is not really to save my face. I should, without any hesitation, throw the Bill over if I thought it would be no use at all. I do not say it would be very much, but it will be something to help. The evidence given to us is that it is the drinking of the cruder and more fiery whiskies which is producing the worst results, more especially on the Clyde, and I think the North of England. They drink them sometimes hot without dilution. That is very bad. It is bad with any spirit, but it is very much worse when the spirit is raw.

§ Mr. McNEILL
Is there any scientific testimony of that? We know there are numbers of popular fallacies as to the 2029 effect of this or that food upon the human constitution, and of course chief constables may say it is due to the drinking of immature spirits, but is there any real scientific evidence?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes, I thought I said so. If the hon. Member will look at the evidence taken by the Royal Commission, the monkey case was a scientific experiment, and Dr. Mason gave very valuable evidence, and there was a professor. One piece of testimony is rather remarkable: The Commission of 1890 reported against it, but they submitted the results of their enquiry to two high authorities. Sir Lauder Brunton and Dr. Parry, who agreed that old spirits were more wholesome, and these authorities thought that the extra wholesomeness must be due to some change not yet understood. There is really a good deal of scientific evidence. I admit there is also evidence on the other side.

§ Sir E. CARSON
Is it not proved that the fact that the patent still whisky, even when it is produced, is just as good for drinking as pot still when it is two years old?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The right hon. Gentleman has some right to say so, and he can quote evidence in support of it, but what I want to put to him is this. On the one hand you have the evidence of scientists who say undoubtedly it has injurious effects. Other scientists will say it has not a greater poisonous effect. That is all. But you have, in addition to that the experience of men like chief constables and others who witness the effect of the two. When you put that on top of the scientific evidence, I think on the whole that is quite enough for us to induce us to accept the scientific evidence of the men who say it makes people more drunk. I do not think these scientists said the intoxicating qualities were not greater. They said there was no poisonous ingredient in it which you could not find in the old whisky. That very well might be.

§ Mr. McNEILL
The Commission of 1890, which contained amongst its members Sir Henry Roscoe, said that analysis could not detect any difference in the alcohol.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Toxicity. I think I have already said the other scientific men said they could not analyse it, but all the same they came to the conclusion that there was a very considerable difference.

2030

§ Mr. McNEILL
The right hon. Gentleman was alluding to another Commission when he talked about toxicity. This is what the Commission of 1890 said: It would appear, from the elaborate experiments of Dr. Bell, that the higher alcohols and ethers did not materially alter or lessen by age. As for analysis, old and new spirits show little variation in the percentage.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree. I have already quoted the fact that the finding of the Committees was submitted to two other gentlemen who came to the conclusion, in spite of that Report, that it was more unwholesome. All I can say is that men who have used their observation say there is no doubt at all, whatever the chemical or scientific reasons may be, that a man who drinks the raw whisky is a more difficult man to handle. Under these conditions I think the Government are bound to deal with the matter, especially as the reports which they have had show that a good deal of the trouble comes from drinking raw and immature whisky. On the other point an hon. Member said there is enough of this stuff which has been taken out of bond to last a year. The hon. Member (Mr. Cowan) seems to know all these things, so perhaps he will supply me with the figures.

§ Mr. COWAN
It is common knowledge.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Common knowledge is not quite good enough for the Exchequer. If what the hon. Member says were a fact, all would have to pay 14s. 9d. a gallon. I do not know how it has got out. It certainly has not paid 14s. 9d. a gallon to the Exchequer.

§ Mr. COWAN
Before the Budget Resolution was moved.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Does not the hon. Gentleman know that even before the Budget 14s. 9d. a gallon was paid—or at least ought to have been paid? How did this get out of bond? Of course you have not got enough out of bond to last a year or anything approaching it! You must remember that we drink, I think—I am speaking roughly—about thirty million gallons a year. Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that we have thirty million 14s. 9d. anticipated in the way of forestalment? Of course we have not. There has been a considerable increase, but it is a matter of something like three or four million pounds. That is the whole of the forestalment. There is nothing like enough in hand to last a whole year.

2031

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
The best proof is that I get letters every day from people who say they cannot fulfil their orders because they cannot take out the whisky.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If the case suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Cowan) were correct, there would be no money coming to the Exchequer during the whole of the next twelve months. That is an impossibility. My hon. Friend who has very strong convictions upon this subject, has evidently not taken the trouble to verify his facts. He is sine that he has got some specific that will cure the whole evil. I have no doubt he has, but let him try it on the House of Commons. He has got to carry it through the House of Commons. I dare say he might succeed where some of us have failed. I am quite willing to give him the chance. How much support does he think he would get for all these proposals? In these things all you can do is to do the second best. You never can do the best. Under present conditions you must produce something that will carry the whole House of Commons with you in the main. That is perfectly clear. My hon. Friend's proposals are very drastic and very sweeping, and I have no doubt he would find that I should support him in the Lobby, but we should have a very empty Lobby; very agreeable company, but, with all due respect to him, I should like it to be diluted with a few more. Under the present conditions it would be quite impossible for me to propose some of the very ideal proposals which he made. I think I have now dealt with most of the matters which have been referred to in the discussion. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson) that there will be some trade which will be very severely handicapped in consequence of this Bill, and had it not been for the period of the War in which we are engaged and the need for bringing it into immediate operation, he would have been entitled to say that we ought to give notice. I am bound to recognise the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) has met the Government on this occasion. He has recognised that the responsibility in a case of this kind must be with the Government, and, if they think it is necessary, it is a serious thing for any section of the House to refuse them any power they think absolutely necessary to assist them in getting the munitions of war. I know he takes 2032 a different view about this particular matter. He would have preferred a graduated scale.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I would prefer, first of all, to deal with it under the Defence of the Realm Act as a local problem in the munition areas, and secondly, after that, I would prefer to deal with it by a sliding scale.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I refer to the matter raised by my right hon. Friend (Sir Thomas Whittaker). The difficulty is that once you let these immature spirits out of bond, you will find it impossible to follow them. That is the real trouble. I have gone into the matter very carefully. If I thought it were possible to exclude the raw spirit from the munition areas, once you have got it out of bond, then a good deal might be said for my right hon. Friend's proposition, but I am firmly convinced that you never could trace it afterwards. You would have to have a ring of customs houses round it. So long as it is in bond you know its age, and you can refuse to let it out. Once you let it out it is impossible to trace it except by all kinds of chemical analysis, and other means. That is the reason amongst others why we prefer to take this step, because we stop it in the one place where you are certain you can stop it.

§ Sir E. CARSON
I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to announce that he can in any wise meet the particular case which I brought before the House when this Bill was here on Second Reading. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must know, as I know, that the hardship is not merely a hardship that will be inflicted upon two or three distilleries, but there are an immense number of blending houses whose businesses will be, if not altogether closed, certainly very seriously affected by this Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman has told us is a Bill which he has had to bring in without giving any notice in the matter, although it is impossible for the trade to adjust itself unless they get notice. As regards the gentlemen whose case I became interested in because I thought it was a hardship, I should like to say that they have not put forward unreasonable claims in any single respect. They are all driven to an enormous expenditure. One gentleman told me that he would have to spend £250,000 in the necessary extension of warehouses, and in the purchase 2033 of casks for the storage of the whisky. But they make no point of that, nor have they made a point of objecting to what they might have objected to, namely, that the principle of bonding should be brought in at all as an emergency measure, seeing that it is a long-standing controversy. More than that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, they have no objection to a considerable Sur-tax being put upon immature whisky, and they are willing to pay that even though it means handicapping the trade.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
made a remark which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.

§ Sir E. CARSON
I have a paper here in which they have said they are quite willing to accept the 1s. Sur-tax, which is a very large Sur-tax when you compare a year with two years. I say that now because there may be time to reconsider the matter even now. They are prepared to do that. They do not object to the Sur-tax, but what they do object to is that the Bill should be passed in such a form as to prevent them going on with their business. The Bill has given a concession for one year in regard to selling whisky which is two years old. Therefore, we need only deal with the question of whisky two years old—pot still whisky. That concession suits a very large number of people, amongst others my hon. Friend behind me, who has twenty-three distillers in his district, and who is perfectly satisfied that they have got that because they have two years' stock in hand of pot still whisky. He knows perfectly well that when he has ousted us out of the trade that he will get all our trade; and he comes forward and tells the House of Commons that he is perfectly satisfied. Those who have put their case before me would not object merely if their trade was being interrupted for a short time. They might get over that. That might be merely a question of compensation or the loss for the time being. But what they do object to, and what they consider an injustice, is that if you stop them now for two or three years, which you will do if they have no stock, they will at the end of those two or three years find the whole of their business transferred to those distillers in regard to whose limitations my hon. Friend behind me has expressed himself perfectly satisfied.
I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I am not going to give persistent opposition to the Bill, because, in 2034 the first place, my conduct will be entirely misunderstood, and, in the second place, because I do not in the slightest degree wish to make it appear for one second, so far as I am concerned, that I shall be any party to thwarting anything that is necessary for providing munitions of war. What I want to ask the Chancellor is whether he cannot find some way out. Admittedly for the next few months you cannot stop the sale of this whisky unless you do it under the Defence of the Realm Act. You cannot stop the sale of this whisky—which you say is so important to stop that you go so far as to stop it to the injury of individual members of the trade—for the next few months, which are the most vital months. When these months are over what is it you are going to do? You are going to say that the case is so strong about this immature whisky that you will allow a number of people who are engaged in a legitimate trade to be ruined. For what? In order that you may substitute for the immature patent still whisky two-year-old pot still whisky, which, I venture to say, an expert will tell you is far worse than the immature patent still whisky six months or a year old. Therefore, the whole injury is going to be done in order that you may substitute for patent still whisky, one year old, pot still whisky two years old. Is it worth committing such an injury for that? If it is worth it, of course, it must be done, but I think I have a great right and every right to make a strong protest against its being done to the sacrifice of these particular traders, when others are not asked to sacrifice anything. Is it worth it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says—and no one can help sympathising with him when he says it— What a terrible thing before breakfast to drink this whisky raw. It is a horrible thing. I admit it. No one feels stronger about it than I do, but it is just as horrible to drink before breakfast a glass of this pot still whisky two years old as to drink a glass of patent still whisky one year old. There is no difference. You have not gone to the root of the question. The man who takes that pot still whisky will be as much affected in regard to turning out good work as the man who drinks this patent still whisky. Therefore I say that, with the power in their hands of stopping the sale of whisky altogether in the munitions area, there is no necessity for and no collective advantage in doing an injustice to these people. I make the very strongest protest I can on their behalf. From what I know of the gentlemen for whom I am speaking, 2035 having been convinced of the injustice of what is proposed, I am perfectly certain that they would not wish me to raise this as a controversial measure in such a way as to divide the House and bring up bad feeling over the matter. I have, therefore, to leave it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All I can say is that, to my mind, you are going to do a very grave injustice, and I do not believe that you are going to get any sufficient benefit in attaining the object which you have in view to entitle you in the circumstances to inflict that injustice.

§ Mr. LOUGH
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no allusion in the Debate to the word "compensation." We understand from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that he is satisfied, in regard to this matter, by the statements made on the previous day that any injury done to business would be amply compensated under the provisions which already exist in the Defence of the Realm Act. I think that we are entitled to much more candour in regard to this matter. We have this idea of compensation and settlement running all through the Debate, especially in this Amendment on the question of two years or three years. We who are opposed to this idea will all have to vote for the Amendment if there is to be compensation, because it will save one-third of the amount. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there will be one-third less compensation paid for two years' than for three years' damage. I do say that, as we have been allowed to look at the matter broadly, the Government ought to deal with some candour with those of their followers who are most anxious to help them in everything that they can possibly suggest as necessary for carrying on the War, and they ought to deal with us in an explicit manner on this question of compensation. I believe that the reason of the silence on the subject of compensation is that, if nothing whatever is said about it, then there will be a complete case for compensation, and a claim can be put in for all the injury that is suffered under the Bill, and the Government will have to pay. That appears to be the position all through the Debate. If so, this Bill differs from every other Bill in that respect. In the other Bills in which compensation is given it is made to apply to certain particular cases. The work is in the very capable hands of the hon. Member for Exeter. 2036 He is to look into the particular businesses that are damaged. No business will be taken without the authority which takes it having some idea of the amount which will have to be paid. So in all the other Bills the compensation is limited. But if this Bill is passed, the moment it becomes law there will be a general claim for compensation from everybody who has suffered any damage under this Bill.
That is a question which the House ought at some stage to consider. There is nothing about it in the Bill. Reference has been made to-day to the proposals to provide that in a general Clause, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not repudiated it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, who knows his business well, and has argued his whole case in a most admirable way, not in the least offensive or troublesome to the Government, has put forward his claim for his friends and has got his answer with regard to this matter of compensation. This is a gigantic point which ought to be dealt with seriously by the Government. It is simply being ignored by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is going through sub silentio. It may involve the question not of hundreds of thousands but of millions of money, of unnecessary expenditure. Let us consider how narrow the field has become. Everyone on both sides of the House agrees that the Government, having taken complete authority for the munitions areas, could, within these areas, prohibit the sale of spirits. They have been appealed to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and by his learned follower to do this, and to protect these munition areas by means of the Bill which they have already got. Then no question of compensation would arise, and this House would know exactly what it was doing. The Government say: "No; though we have these drastic powers, we will have this Bill and we will have this general compensation." That point ought to be made clear. I do not wish to prolong the Debate, and I will not break away from the spirit displayed by everyone else in discussing this matter. But if I am wrong, my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Simon) can correct me in the same way as he corrected me about gin an hour ago. If he will say that there will be no compensation then all opposition on this side of the House will disappear; or if he will say that compensation would be carefully restricted, and that it will not be possible for everybody to put in a claim, there again our 2037 opposition will be to a large extent above it. But no announcement is made, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University is satisfied. If this principle is adopted, then in future when a claim is made for compensation we say that you are admitting a principle which may be carried to a tremendous extent.
The last time we were discussing this question the Chancellor pressed us to do what we would all like to do—not to continue the Debate and to let the proposal pass. We did. I refrained from putting down an Amendment, and I refrained from speaking. What happened? The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London got up and gave us a lecture on economy, and told us to save all we could. "Let the Government save, let the municipalities save, and let the private individual save"; and, having delivered his excellent sermon, he went away. The Chancellor of the Exchequer highly appreciated those arguments in favour of economy, yet here he is going to waste millions, perhaps, as we think, on most improper expenditure. I must leave that matter now and refer to one other point. There is no need for anybody to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to save his face. That is a most ridiculous expression. Whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may do with regard to a particular Bill of this kind, he has rendered such distinguished services to the country in the speeches which he has made about the War and in all the work which he has done to enable the country to fight the War as to entitle him to the lasting praise of all his countrymen who are deeply interested in this matter, and particularly of the Members of this House. Therefore my right hon. Friend is quite strong enough. His reputation does not depend upon a wretched little Bill of this kind. He can deal with this matter in a single moment without losing a single vestige of authority, and put the matter clearly before us. Let us know how far the question of compensation is to be carried, and I press my right hon. Friend to give an answer to the question, On what principle will the compensation be settled here—for this Bill is very different from all the other measures which you may have had—and what will be the probable cost?

§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)
The question of the cost, after all, does not arise. The Amendment before the Committee is as to whether the period is to be 2038 two or three years. These matters are more pertinent to the Third Reading of the Bill than to any Amendment in Committee.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
The question of compensation is surely exceedingly relevant to the length of the period inserted in the Bill? The difference between two years and three years evidently makes a difference in the amount of compensation to be paid, and I submit that the question of compensation does arise on this Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I cannot agree with the hon. Member.

Mr. DENNISS
My hon. Friend below me said that nobody has spoken in favour of this Bill except the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps that is true, but the hon. Baronet below me (Sir G. Younger), from interested motives, more or less, he said—

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
made a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Mr. DENNISS
At any rate, I am very strongly in favour of this Bill myself, because I think that it is a very much needed reform. I was very much astonished to hear that this was to be considered merely as a temporary measure and not as a permanent one. I hope that it will be a permanent one, for the working classes of this country have suffered for many years from the vile stuff, which is nothing less than poison. It seems to me that the patent distillers have given away their whole case because they say that they have no stocks of whisky on hand. The whole of their whisky is sold at once and is drunk at once by the working people in the worst possible condition, because I believe that the evidence is that immature whisky is extremely bad for the brain and body of anyone who takes it. That being so, I am quite clear that these gentlemen ought not to have any more compensation than is necessary, after having supplied poison of this description to the working classes for so many years. I think that the question of compensation does not arise at all. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University make a very eloquent appeal to this House on behalf—of whom? On behalf of these patent still whisky distillers who have been poisoning the working man for so many years. I should have expected him to make an appeal on behalf of the working classes of this country, whom the 2039 Bill will greatly benefit. I am, and always have been, heartily in favour of any measure for improving the quality of the drink supplied to the working classes, and therefore I hope that this Bill will pass into law.

§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSON
In reference to the amount of raw whisky that has been taken out of bond, it has been said that it will not be consumed for the next five or six months. I have not the slightest doubt myself that there is enough of whisky—raw, unmatured—to last for a considerable time.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
How long?

§ 6.0 P.M.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
About six months. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think so. One of the largest distillers in Scotland said to me that he would be quite content if the Chancellor would draw the line so that nothing more would be taken out of bond until the War is over. We may be perfectly sure that there was a great deal out before he said that. I am entirely with the Chancellor, and with the original proposal of the right hon. gentleman the Member for Dublin University, in favouring the stopping of spirits altogether, and I am quite agreeable to the effort that is being made under this Bill. But what would it do, after all? There is a great quantity of spirits out already which you cannot stop; there is any amount of gin being made which you cannot stop.

Mr. DENNISS
It is rectified spirit.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
Never mind; we all know that gin is just as great a cause of drunkenness as whisky. As a matter of fact, I have been shown the number of bottles of whisky and the number of bottles of gin sold in a great many places in London, and I know that gin very nearly comes up to whisky. All that is done, and you cannot stop it. We know that when beer does not get a man far enough on, he adds gin to the beer; that is a very common drink. And if you cannot stop gin, what about brandy? I am perfectly certain you cannot stop brandy, which is sent to this country in cases and barrels. So far as I know, there are no means of obtaining its specific gravity, as in the case of whisky, which can be tested very closely. I do not see how you are going to test brandy. My right hon. Friend talked about taking spirit out to 2040 make laudanum, but if you can take it out for laudanum you could take it out for a number of other things, and there would be a number of very peculiar spirits put on the market, instead of whisky. I do not believe in that monkey story, and scientific investigators, if they cannot prove a thing in one way, will obtain monkeys to show exactly what it is they want to prove.
I have seen cases of drunkenness on immature whisky, on mature whisky, on wines, on champagne, and it all depends on the nature of the man as to whether or not he will turn out a quarrelsome fellow when he is drunk. The good-natured man may become very violent when intoxicated. But it does not matter very much whether it is mature or immature whisky that a man gets drunk upon. There is quite enough intoxicating power in mature whisky, whisky ten years old, to upset our munition works. When you come to the question of compensation it is alarming. Are you going to allow the hon. Member for Exeter and his Commission to go into the question of the whisky sold, or the spirits sold; are you going to begin with the distiller, and are you going on to the blenders, the merchants, and the publicans? I see no reason why you should not. What are you going to do? You will have a Commission which will last as long as the Valuation Commission which is not half done yet, though it has been inquiring for some years. I am almost thunderstruck that the Government should suggest such a settlement of this question. After all, this business is damaged in consequence of legislation which is necessary, owing to war. What did you do with the trawlers? You commandeered 1,100 trawlers for mine-sweepers.

§ The CHAIRMAN
This is not the occasion for a discussion on that question. It is, perhaps, appropriate to the Third Reading of the Bill, but not to an Amendment simply reducing three years to two.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
I will limit myself to the question of two or three years; as a matter of fact, it will be almost too late on the Third Reading to go into the merits of that subject; and what I want to say, with regard to this two or three years' question—and I put the point particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I believe he is wedded to it more than anybody else—is that the Government shall consider whether it is worth 2041 while to launch into this proposal for the sake of stopping not all raw spirits, but only a portion of raw spirits. This Bill practically refers only to immature whisky, while gin and brandy will be free and a great quantity in bond. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has really drastic powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and I submit that he should not launch out on this enormous compensation, which will be altogether out of measure with any good result to be obtained.

§ Sir J. D. REES
In asking the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment, I have to express at once my regret and satisfaction that the rule enforced against the Mover of the Amendment was handsomely relaxed in the case of other speakers, who almost all supported it. I hope the Government will imitate my conduct, in withdrawing my Amendment, by withdrawing the Bill, for which hardly anyone in any quarter of the House has a good word to say, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer personally defended on the classic ground that it was only a little one. Or, alternately, the Bill should be amended so as to have effect—as the Attorney-General said he was willing to do—for the period of the War. On the point of compensation, I think it would be well if the representative of the Treasury would repudiate the sinister suggestion made by the Member for Rushcliffe. Claims for compensation when favourably reported upon should be entitled to favourable consideration. I know that it is deplorable and avoidable extravagance, because this Bill is utterly unnecessary; but, if the Bill be passed, as a matter of justice the compensation should be paid to those to whom it is due, and I hope that point will be considered by the hon. Gentleman representing the Government on the Treasury Bench.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "duty" ["delivered free of duty"], to insert the words "or mixtures, compounds, or preparations which have been chargeable to duty in respect of the spirit contained in them, or used in their preparation or manufacture."

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
I understand that these words are being suggested in pursuance of a promise by the Attorney-General to meet a difficulty raised by an hon. 2042 Gentleman opposite on an Amendment which we proposed. If those words are inserted, there will be no difficulty about any duty on such a compound as laudanum and other compounds, and in regard to this particular point, so far as I am concerned, I think it is met. But as to how much further those words will go I am not in a position to say, as I can only speak for the point which I raised. They do seem to me to go considerably further, and might include mixtures and compounds which were not contemplated, but as far as my point is concerned I think it is met.

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
I beg to move in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the words, "to the payment of such duties, if any, as Parliament may determine and."
Of course, in putting down that Amendment, I make it quite clear that there shall be no extra duty placed upon immature spirit used in the manufacture of medicines; and we now have it quite clearly stated by the Government that any new duty which they propose will exclude medicines. With that I ought to be satisfied. But I at once say that I am not satisfied in regard to other compounds. As I understand the proposal of the Bill, it is for the purpose of prohibiting immature spirits from being used for certain purposes. But there are certain purposes for which the framers of the Bill are satisfied that people have had the right to use immature spirits. But why, if the Government are satisfied that the purposes for which they are going to allow immature spirits to be used are right and proper purposes, why should they be taxed? I would point out to the Attorney-General, who has just come in, that these words do not affect medicine, because he has told us that the Government are not going to put a duty upon them; but if there are other purposes for which the Government are satisfied that immature spirits may be rightly used, why should they be taxed? It is not as if the Government were raising revenue out of immature spirits by putting a tax upon them; they only allow immature spirits to be used for the purposes for which it is proper that, they should be used, and I cannot understand why it is necessary at all, being careful about the persons by whom and the purposes for which immature spirits 2043 may be used, to put an extra tax of 1s. 6d. upon them. I have heard one explanation, and it is that if you do not put an increased duty of 1s. 6d. on immature spirits it would be unfair to the distillers and the vendors of mature spirits, and that you would be giving an undue advantage to immature spirits over mature spirits. What reason is there for saying that, "although immature spirits is the right spirit to use, we will not allow you to have it unless you pay the cost of mature spirit, and you will have to pay the difference by way of an increased tax? The right hon. Gentleman has assured me that they do not apply to medicines, and I have no doubt that the regulations will make it quite clear. Still, I think we ought to understand why it is necessary that the new duties should be placed on any immature spirits which are only to be used by special persons for purposes for which the Government are satisfied they ought to be used. I beg to move the Amendment in order to get an explanation.

§ Sir J. SIMON
My hon. Friend puts the special case which he has in mind with a great deal of force and clearness, but I must ask him to remember that there are other cases besides his case and that this Bill is not designed specially to deal with the case of manufacturing chemists, but that it is designed to deal with a lot of other things. Will he be so kind as to look at the Bill, and will he after that say that in order to meet his case it is proper to leave out those words?

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
I really have not said so. What I said was that there are purposes for which immature spirit are to be used, and if the spirits are given out for those purposes I ask why it is necessary that those special purposes should be taxed.

§ Sir J. SIMON
Let me give an instance. When we are dealing with whisky which is intended to be drunk it is to be stored and warehoused for three years. That involves certain expenditure in the way of warehousing, maintenance, rates, rent and other things of that sort by the persons who have that article to sell. There are other persons who have certain other commodities which they sell, such as Geneva and perfumed spirits and foreign liqueurs, and one or other of those could be sold as soon as it was made. We propose to equalise the position of the man who has 2044 got to store the whisky with that of his competitor who is selling those other things, and we do so by putting on a small Sur-tax such as exists for other purposes in connection with gin and other spirits. If you do not equalise the position in that way you are not only throwing upon the whisky distiller the burden of providing a warehouse, rent, rates, and other expenses, but you are putting him at this further disadvantage that all the time, on the other side of the warehouse, there are other people selling Geneva and perfumed spirits without any restriction at all. It is perfectly obvious that you must arrange some method by which these people will stand more or less on equal ground, and that is done by putting on the Sur-tax. My hon. Friend, I hope, will see that that has got nothing to do with his question of medicines. When I come to the special case he has in mind, as I told him, we hope to make provisions, and I hope to have the opportunity of consulting him on the matter. Those provisions, we hope, will provide that the making of medicine and other things in connection with the art of healing shall not be prejudiced by our proposals. Under those circumstances it would never do to leave out the words mentioned in the Amendment. Therefore I hope my hon. Friend will give his help when we come to see that we do not do anything with regard to manufacturing chemists, and that he will give us the power of making the position equal as between the people who sell whisky and those who sell Geneva and those other things.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
As I understand the position, the right hon. Gentleman is afraid that since as a result of this Bill matured whisky will cost 1s. 6d. per gallon more people, instead of drinking that, wilt take to gin or other things, and, as that would not do, he proposes to put on 1s. 6d. on those other things. That appears to me the danger he fears. Under the circumstances I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (b) (i), to leave out the words "licensed rectifier to a manufacturing chemist, or to a manufacturer of perfumes for use in their manufacture, or," and to insert instead thereof the words "all persons, firms, or bodies corporate licensed for the purpose, for use in the making of such products, including 2045 medicines and perfumes, as the Commissioners of Customs of Excise may determine."
This Clause determines the class of people who are to obtain immature spirits. The Attorney-General pointed out that they are subject to the words "and to compliance with such conditions as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may impose." I am afraid as those words stand that any person who claimed to be a manufacturing chemist or a manufacturer of perfumes would have the right to demand that immature spirit. It is true it would be upon conditions, but I do not think the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, as the Bill stands, would have the right to define what is a manufacturing chemist or a manufacturer of perfumes. If a man claimed to be one or other I presume the matter would be settled by the Court. The pharmaceutical chemists of the country say that, at any rate, they might be a class that certainly would not be regarded as manufacturing chemists, and if the Bill passed in its present form it would be quite open to the Commissioners to say to them, "You are not manufacturing chemists; you are retail pharmacists. You use this alcohol in your business certainly for making medicine, but you are not included in the Bill, and the Bill does not give us power to so include you." I am sure that cannot be intended. It would be a fatal thing to the practice of pharmacy generally if the retail practising pharmacists could not obtain this spirit for the purpose of making medicine without being driven to go to the manufacturer to get it, for the reason that he would be the only person who could get it. My Amendment proposes to give full power to the Commissioners to issue licences, and the purposes for which the immature spirits could be used could be specified in the licences and the thing could be perfectly safeguarded. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that my proposal does not in any way weaken the Bill, but in fact strengthens it and makes it clear what is its object.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I desire to ask a question, and that is, Whether the Attorney-General is perfectly satisfied that after the spirit is delivered to a rectifier care will be taken to see that it is used for the purpose for which it is taken out, namely, for the purpose of being rectified? Rectification is an expensive process. The raw spirit might be used, or I think the term 2046 is compounded, with all sorts of essences for a form of drink which is not the drink that it was intended to be used for when the spirit was taken out. I only want to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is quite satisfied that precautions will be taken to see that these spirits are really used for the purpose for which they are taken out. Personally, I have no doubt that that will be so.

§ Sir J. SIMON
That is essentially a Departmental matter upon which I cannot express any opinion of real value. I have, however, observed the possibility of that question arising and have made some inquiry about it. The view of the Department is, I understand, that they really will be able to have an effective check, but I will communicate with them again. With regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, there are more ways than one of drawing every Statute, but it does not always follow that an Amendment to a Bill will really improve it. I hope my hon. Friend will agree—for the present, at all events—that we should leave the words as they stand, though I quite see the point which he asks me to consider. There would be very great practical difficulties in allowing raw, immature spirits to be available to anybody who said that he was a manufacturing chemist. It would be a most obvious danger, and although I do not say a word against a most honourable profession—that of dispensing medicines—it is quite clear we could not allow that, especially as there are, I understand, in some chemists' shops concoctions which may be procured for temporarily satisfying the desire for certain spirits—concoctions which may sometimes involve the use of raw, immature spirits, and which we could not possibly allow to be made up as though they were really medicines in the sense intended by my hon. Friend. Probably the way in which we shall secure to the trade the protection which we may promise will be by way of rebate. I do not suppose it is possible to give spirit to A at one rate and to B at another. It will probably be done by saying that if spirit is used by a manufacturing chemist for the purpose of making medicines he ought not to be penalised, and should, therefore, be entitled to a rebate. If my hon. Friend will give us the benefit of his exceptional knowledge on this subject, I shall be glad to talk the matter over with him. I look with a great deal of misgiving on the suggestion that every dispensing chemists in the country should be at liberty to get on 2047 favourable terms whatever quantity of raw immature spirit he wishes. There again it is obvious that the opportunity for misuse will be considerable. After all, you can make a great deal of medicine with one gallon of spirit, and I cannot help thinking that some way must be found to secure what he requires without running so considerable a risk.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
Registered pharmacists are a definite class. If you say "registered pharmacists," you know that there are 10,000 on the register; but "manufacturing chemists" may include the whole population of the country. There is a limit to registered pharmacists; there is no limit to manufacturing chemists. What the right hon. Gentleman does not see is that the effect of his proposal is much bigger than he has in mind. It affects the whole practice of pharmacy. He may be surprised to know that the effect of saying that raw spirit for making up their preparations shall be supplied to manufacturing chemists on better terms to the retailer will be simply to drive the retail pharmacist to his wholesaler to buy things which the whole spirit of pharmacy directs him to make himself. That is what he has been trained for. He has had to pass severe examinations to test his ability to make those things. What is the proposal in the Bill? It is, by a fiscal arrangement, to make it impossible for the pharmacist to do the work for which he has been trained and qualified; to tell him that he must go to the manufacturing chemist and purchase those things. What alarms me beyond measure is the suggestion, for the first time, that what the Government meant by saying that they would exclude medicines from this new duty was to say that certain people called manufacturing chemists were to be able to get this spirit, that in some way or other the duty was to be imposed, and then some machinery of rebate set up. I am certain that that will be met with alarm, not only by pharmacists, but by the medical profession. A retail pharmacist to-day can obtain rectified spirit with a permit. The Commissioners of Excise know exactly what rectified spirit he is purchasing, and they can include any conditions in their licence as to the use he shall make of it. Really, the suggestion, if I understand it aright, that pharmacists would use this spirit to make something which was a nasty substitute for whisky was not worthy, 2048 and will certainly be resented by the pharmacists of the country. It is perfectly possible for the right hon. Gentleman to include the words "registered pharmacists" in the Clause. Unless he does so, I fear consequences which he has not contemplated to the art and practice of pharmacy, and to the art of medicine generally, which would be disastrous. I hope I am not appealing to him in vain to see that the difficulty which I have pointed out is obviated.

§ Sir WALTER ESSEX
Would it not be possible for the ten thousand pharmacists to whom my hon. Friend has referred, to add to their trade sign the term "manufacturing chemist"? If so, the whole difficulty would be got over.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
If that is really the explanation, it shows the value of my suggestion that a person should be properly defined before he was given this privilege. There is nothing to stop a pharmacist from calling himself a manufacturing chemist, and he would then come within the terms of this Bill, if the Commissioners of Customs and Excise chose to agree.

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

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (b), after the word "perfumes" ["a manufacturer of perfumes"], to insert the words, "or to other persons licensed by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise."
This is a small Amendment, but, I think, after the remarks of the hon. Member opposite on the last Amendment, a somewhat valuable one. The people who are entitled to receive spirits under these conditions are enumerated as "licensed rectifier," "manufacturing chemist," or "manufacturer of perfumes." I am not quite clear that those words would cover everybody whom the Government meant to include, such, for instance, as doctors who make up their own prescriptions, who would not like to call themselves manufacturing chemists. "Manufacturer of perfumes," which is not in any way a term of art, might be held to include certain people who make hairwashes and similar things. If my Amendment were accepted, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise would only licence people—for instance, pharmaceutical chemists—who would not 2049 be likely to abuse the privilege. If they found someone was abusing the privilege or drawing out large quantities of spirits, they would probably refuse to renew the licence for the following year. The Amendment seems to me to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Stepney, while avoiding many points of objection which I saw in his Amendment. The Commissioners would licence only those people whom they considered fit and proper persons and in whose favour a proper case was made out.

§ Sir J. SIMON
There is a natural anxiety on the part of the Department at what might be thought to be an extension of their discretion. It always produces inconvenience when a Department has to say "Yes" to one man and "No" to another, and they would have been glad if the words in the Bill had been left as they stand. But the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Rawlinson) and my hon. Friend (Mr. Glyn-Jones) have undoubtedly given reasons for reconsidering that view. I must make it quite plain, however, that if these words are added I make no representation, and I do not intend to make any, on behalf of the Government or of the Department, that anybody who comes along will, as a matter of course, be put in this privileged class. It would involve an enormous amount of administrative difficulty; it would be a most easy means of evasion; and it really would involve complications which are out of all proportion to the difficulties which may fairly be said to be met by this Amendment. Still, I am content to put the words in at present, but it must be understood that the Department will consider that they are required to give these exceptional privileges only in various exceptional cases.

§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

§ Sir J. D. REES
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (c), to leave out the words "one year" [for the period of one year"], and insert instead thereof the words "two years."
This Amendment is consequential, but not only consequential. I venture to ask the House to allow me to show why it is not only consequential. I understand the position at present to be that if whisky is one year and 364 days old, it cannot be cleared from bond; whisky which is two years and 364 days old can be cleared from bond on the payment of a small extra payment; and whisky that is three 2050 years and a day old can be cleared at the old rate. It is quite clear that if the Bill is passed as it stands, there must be a good deal of increased capital needed for the businesses of those who will have to provide these stocks. This particular provision, too, must also be the death blow practically to that kind of trade of which there are not stocks enough to carry it on for two years. I can hardly hope that after failing to carry my last Amendment I shall have any hope of carrying this, but I do think that the extra year is a mere matter of justice, and should be given.
Since I last spoke my opinion in this matter has been fortified by a telegram from the West India rum trade. But as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead has that matter in hand, I will leave it at that, except to say how desirable it is that Bills, like whisky, should mature, and that there should be deliberation accompanying their production before the House. It is pointed out that my Amendment would be of the utmost value to the trade, because it would give them two years in which to prepare. By that time this measure, a measure only referring to the War, will cease to be operative; therefore, two years will save the whisky trade, which otherwise, I understand, will be considerably damaged, and give the rum trade time to look round, because rum, unlike whisky, does not need to be matured. I urge that this Amendment to allow two years will be the greatest boon, and should almost satisfy, I think, the whisky trade, although the Amendment I moved is not going to be accepted by the Government. The Treasury Bench, it seems to me, is in two minds whether or not to proceed with this Bill. Certainly that was the impression made upon me by the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Attorney-General, the latter of whom has spoken in a most conciliatory and able manner on the last Amendment which I put forward, though he did not accept it. If this Amendment be accepted, for my part I should regard it as being beneficial and just to the whisky trade at home, to the rum trade in the West Indies, and to the cause of temperance in general.

§ Sir J. SIMON
In spite of the provocation I hope I shall still preserve the conciliatory attitude and manner to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The hon. Gentleman, however, must not on that account think that I am bound to give way. I am 2051 afraid I cannot give way on this point. As the hon. Gentleman has very fairly said, the proposal he now makes is regarded, at any rate, in large part as consequential upon the earlier proposal. He would, I am sure, be the last to wish us to go over the ground again. A very ingenious mind may very possibly be able to find some distinction between this Amendment and the previous one, but they are one for all substantial purposes, and I think the Committee will be with me when I say that we will be unable to do other than negative this proposal. I quite understand that those for whom the hon. Gentleman is more particularly speaking will feel that the Bill presses unduly hardly upon them. In reference to the case of rum, it is very specially dealt with in this Bill, and in a most favourable way. I do not profess to know myself whether this provision of special favour which is conferred upon it is in every way necessary or adequate, but it has been framed with very careful regard to what are known to be the particular features of that trade. Those who have advised me tell me that the Bill, as now drawn, does really put the trade in rum on the one hand, and in spirits on the other hand, on perfectly level terms for all practical purposes.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. R. McNEILL
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c) (i), to leave out the words "two years" ["warehoused for a period of at least two years"], and to insert instead thereof the words "six months."
This is quite an independent Amendment, and therefore, like my hon. Friend, I should like to be allowed to move it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not think that in moving this Amendment I am covering the old ground. It is not quite the same point as that which we have been discussing in the previous Amendments, but it is part of the case which we have been trying to make upon the various parts of the Bill on behalf of a certain section of the trade. I am not going now to repeat anything that has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University and others, but the Committee will see that there is this difference: We are not now trying to reduce the length of time that spirits must be kept in bond as part of the permanent system. We are only seeking, during the period which is conceded 2052 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a temporary period, to reduce the age of the whisky during that period. For the very short time of the first year's operation of the Bill we ask that, instead of being confined to sell whisky that is two years old, we shall be allowed for that short period of respite to sell six months old whisky.
I do not pretend for a moment that that, even if the Government were able to accept it, would tend to any considerable extent to reduce the hardship on the people for which my right hon. Friend has already spoken and for whom he specially pleads. But at all events it would be a certain alleviation of that hardship; therefore I do not think it is an unreasonable thing for which we ask. It is practically admitted now—I do not know that it is explicitly admitted, but I take it it is admitted by the House—that this Bill is not really an emergency Bill. In whatever form it now passes it will not have and cannot have any very material effect upon the actual existing circumstances of the moment in our munition workshops. If it could be shown that it was material from that point of view, if it could be shown that these patent still whiskies of six months old, in being sold, would or could have any harmful effect upon the working capacity of the yards, then my right hon. Friend and I would be the last people in the House to press the Amendment. Seeing that practically it is admitted that that is not so, I do think it is fair and reasonable that facilities should be given in this small matter by giving additional notice with regard to the change in the operations of the trade; otherwise there will be very serious effects, and the necessity of a very large capital expenditure. This Amendment will also have some effect from the point of view of compensation. There has been a certain amount of allusion on both sides of the House on this question. It has not been explicitly dealt with. We have heard nothing whatever from the Government Bench as to the intentions of the Government in this matter. We on this side are relying upon the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those who suffer under this Bill will be entitled now to compensation.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
On a point of Order. Will we be entitled to deal with the question of compensation if the hon. Member in his Amendment is going to deal with it?

2053

§ The CHAIRMAN
Not in the broad sense; but the hon. Gentleman is simply showing its effect in connection with this particular Amendment. There is another Amendment which has been handed in which has a wider effect.

§ Mr. R. McNEILL
I am not going to pursue that subject much further, but I only wanted to say that whatever basis there will be compensation, and on which it may be awarded, it must be to some extent affected by the notice that is given to each section of the trade, because the more the persons concerned are "hung up" in being dealt with, through not having large stocks in hand, the larger will be the damage they will put forward for possible claims. Therefore this particular Amendment has some bearing upon that subject. I realise that it is really part of the case which we have been putting, and that we have not met with very great sympathy from the other side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman may feel that he is obliged to meet us with a frank non possumus, but in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, who is much more competent to put the case than I am, I hope I shall receive some sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman.

§ 7.0 P.M.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I am sorry that it is not possible for me to accept the Amendment. I ask the Committee just to see what it means. Here we are getting near the end of the Committee stage of the Bill, and what is the Bill going to do? The Bill is going to see that there is to be no consumption, for the purpose of refreshment, of spirit that is not three years old at the time it is made available for consumption—that is, with certain exceptions, quite special, in the next twelve months, because it is difficult to bring such rule into operation. We say the conditions shall not be three years, but that the spirit is to be two years old. Now the hon. Gentleman proposes to get a rule that spirits are not to be considered three years old for the next twelve months, but that it will be enough that the spirit is six months old. The result would be that during the next five months there would be an enormous temptation to distil as much whisky and other spirit as possibly could be done because that would be able to be taken into bond, and put on the market six months later. Six months added to the five would be eleven months, and that would be within the first year. However 2054 much I may sympathise, as I do, with the special difficulties created in the part of the United Kingdom affected, one really cannot meet the case by a general change like that asked. It really would be inconsistent with the general scheme of the Bill. Therefore I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. McNEILL
I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. BIGLAND
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c) (ii), leave out the word "nine" ["for a period of at least nine months"], and insert instead thereof the word "three."
In the Bill it is proposed that, in the case of imported rum, delivered for home consumption, if it has been warehoused for a period of at least nine months the restriction shall not apply for a year. My Amendment is to alter the word "nine" to "three," and I wish to say in parenthesis that I heartily agree with the object of the Bill so far as regards whisky, because I am convinced that by keeping whisky three years the quality is vastly improved. But the information I have with regard to rum is that it does not improve by keeping, and therefore I would wish to read to the Committee a telegram I have just received since I have been in the House, from the West India Association, Liverpool, in which they say—and they must be authoritative on this matter—that if the Bill is passed in its present form it will be a serious handicap on the British West Indian Colonies, and I am sure the Government are not desirous in this Bill of doing something which will not improve the quality of the article sold, and which will, at the same time, injure a part of our Empire. They maintain that this spirit does not require any time to mature, and it does not improve by keeping.

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland)
Most of the reasons given with regard to the last Amendment apply to this one. This period of nine months was not settled without careful consultation with representatives of the trade who naturally wanted a shorter period but were willing to accept, after consultation, the period proposed in the Bill, which is a good deal more generous in one way, at any rate, than that in the preceding case, because the 2055 period of nine months does give the manufacturers of rum a certain time in which to manufacture rum after the Bill comes into operation. That is putting them, of course, in a different position from the makers of other spirits. Considering this was gone into very carefully by the persons concerned, I hope the Committee will approve of the word "nine" remaining.

§ Mr. PENNEFATHER
I beg to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland). I also have received a telegram from the West India Association of Liverpool protesting against this period of nine months, which, they state, will have the effect of totally depleting the retail stocks of rum in Liverpool and of causing irreparable harm to the British West Indian Colonies. The real point, which the hon. Member opposite has not met, is whether rum three months' old is any more deleterious than rum nine months old? If it could be proved that rum three months' old is more injurious and more calculated to defeat the objects of this Bill than rum nine months' old, I would not urge anything against the Bill. But, if there is no proof to the contrary, I think we are entitled to maintain that rum is not a spirit which requires maturing. If that is so, I would, on behalf of the Liverpool interests concerned, urge the Government not to inflict injury upon private interests without any corresponding public advantage. To my mind, that is the whole point of the matter. Is there any corresponding public advantage in making rum unsaleable until it has been nine months in warehouse? If not, I would urge the Government again to consider whether they could not, without injury to the objects of this Bill, reduce the period from nine months to three.

§ Mr. POLLOCK
I desire to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I do not think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has met the difficulty, which, as I understand it, is a very real one. I have received communications from the West Indian Committee in London showing that they are not at all satisfied with this period of nine months, and I think I understand the position they take up. Therefore, before this Amendment is finally dealt with, I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us with whom, on behalf of the trade, he has arranged this period of nine months. The argu- 2056 ments referred to in reference to whisky can really have no application of any sort or kind to the question of rum, which is a wholly different spirit and does not require maturing. It matures as far as necessary in its transit from the West Indies to this country. It is made in a climate far hotter than this, and in the course of transit it loses, I believe, as much as 5 per cent. by evaporation. It contains no fusel oil at all. It does not contain any of the deleterious compounds, to get rid of which maturity is required, and therefore you are dealing with the spirits which may be used raw satisfactorily.
Then one comes to what is the purpose of imposing this restriction. As I understand, the working of this Clause will be this: A certain amount of rum will still be available if it has been warehoused for a period of nine months, but at the end of a year that will not operate. If I read the Bill aright—I am not quite sure I do, in which case I hope the hon. Gentleman will correct me—in the course of a period of three months the supplies which have been bonded for nine months will have run out, so I am informed, and before any fresh rum can arrive the time will have passed consuming that three months. Then where are you going to get your rum from? At present it is largely issued both to our Navy and Army, I believe with very satisfactory results indeed, and what is going to happen at the end of three months? I am informed that, in the course of three months you will have exhausted the present supply, and when you have done that you will not be able to get any rum which can satisfy the condition of being warehoused for at least nine months. Then what are you going to do? Are you going to have no rum at all? Or are you going to say that, under those circumstances, the industry, which is a very important industry in our West Indian Colonies, shall cease? Or are you going to say you do not desire to continue to make the supplies to the Army and Navy?
It is not a question simply of maturity of spirits. It is a question of whether or not you will get any supply at all of rum after that period. I confess, for my part, I do not think the Financial Secretary has dealt with the position at all, and, unless he can assure us that, after careful consideration with the trade, he has discovered that with the Bill as it stands he will be able to find an adequate supply of rum, then you are going to do a real injury to the trade, and create a shortage 2057 of supply. Those are matters which the Financial Secretary has not yet discussed or explained, and I hope he will do so now. On the other hand, if he does not do it now, I hope he will undertake that between this and the Report stage of this Bill, the matter will be reconsidered in order that the points I have put before the Committee may be dealt with, not only by the Financial Secretary but by those who are best qualified to do it, namely, the Committee existing both in London and Liverpool for the purposes of the West Indian trade. If I am correctly informed, the shortage of rum will be a serious difficulty, and on this ground it is very important the Amendment should be accepted.

§ Mr. ACLAND
Of course, as neither the Attorney-General nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer are here at present, I am bound to accept the suggestion, and refer the matter to them, so that the arguments put forward shall be considered, obviously between now and Report. That would only be fair. As regards the fact that the question has already been very fully gone into with persons concerned, there I must absolutely adhere to what I have said. The Conference which was held included the Secretary of the West India Committee in London, and, although I cannot say there was absolute contentment, it was agreed that, on the whole, considering the legislation intended, it was a fair proposal. It was agreed to after full consultation with the persons concerned, and, after having been very fully considered, I do not feel justified in accepting the Amendment in Committee, though I will see that it is very carefully considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Report.

§ Mr. POLLOCK
May I ask the hon. Gentleman then to say he will allow some further representation to be made in reference to the point I have brought forward? I do not desire to speak at all personally, but certainly with the materials I have before me a good case has been made out for the observations I have addressed to the Committee, and I hope the Financial Secretary will allow some representations to be made even from the point of view of the supply of rum at the end of the period of the year.

§ Mr. ACLAND
Anyone can make representations at any time, but I cannot give the undertaking as to any particular period. No doubt the persons interested will make representations at once, 2058 and they will be considered, but I think we must take the Report stage to-morrow.

§ Sir W. ESSEX
I hope we shall not take the statement which has just been made as any evidence that the Government are likely to do anything which will weaken this Bill. I notice hon. Members have put forward various grounds in favour of this Amendment, and one of those arguments was that rum is just as good at three months as it is at nine months. That question I do not understand, but what I would like to ask is: How comes it that in thousands of public-houses the legend, "old Jamaica rum," is hung out as an attractive item to those who pass by? With regard to the argument used in support of this Amendment that you would be depleting stocks, I think that may be met with the criticism that the stocks will be appreciated in value.

§ Mr. McNEILL
The hon. Gentleman opposite has used a very strange argument, for he has complained that different grounds have been advanced in favour of this Amendment. I think that is rather strange. The Financial Secretary has been entreated not to weaken this Bill, but I think it is really due to my hon. Friend that he should strongly put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the case that has been made out. After all, it would not be illegitimate for us to make considerable complaint of the present condition of the Treasury Bench. We do not wish to complain unreasonably, but I think a strong case has been made out with regard to the interests of a large and important trade, and neither the Attorney-General nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here. We do not complain that the Financial Secretary is unable to accept an Amendment, because we quite understand that he is not in the position of being able to speak for the Government to the extent of accepting an Amendment. I think we ought to have a definite undertaking, not merely in a casual sort of way, that he will let the Chancellor of the Exchequer know what is going on, and seriously put before the Government the strong arguments used in support of the case of the West Indian trade. I trust this matter will be considered definitely with a view to accepting this Amendment upon the Report stage. The hon. Member opposite used an argument about the legend, "old Jamaica rum." I put the point forward earlier in the Debate that really the whole matter 2059 with regard to most of these spirits is that age improves the flavour without making them any less harmful. That point has been very much debated with regard to whisky, and I am not going to repeat the arguments which make me still convinced that in nine cases out of ten it is mere fancy to suppose that age makes all this difference. All the Commissions which have inquired into this subject have reported that age is of no value with regard to some spirits, of which rum is one. Is it not rather absurd that here we have a trade dealing with the commodity like rum, which affects a Colonial trade, and which also affects a very large interest, and yet no important Member of the Government is present to deal with it, although this is being done under the cover of an emergency Bill to prevent people in some workshops drinking too much whisky. Under cover of that the Government bring in a Clause, without having considered it at all, which will have the effect of seriously damaging an important Colonial trade. I think we ought to have some more authoritative statement in reply to this Amendment from the Government Bench.

§ Colonel WALKER
I think some bettor attempt ought to be made by the Government to meet this difficulty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up."] It has been said very clearly, and no doubt very truly, by the hon. Member opposite that the effect of rum being prevented from being sold for a period of nine years will be that the stocks in hand at the present moment will increase in value, and therefore the holders of stocks would not suffer any loss. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present I would point out to him that he might secure that enhanced value for the Treasury, because it would be a very simple thing for him to place a small extra duty of sixpence, which I do not think would be objected to by the trade—perhaps one shilling would be too high. In that way the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get the value of the enhanced price of rum due to this cause. All this has been said on behalf of a very large body of individuals in the West Indies who are producing this article, and I think their case should be listened to when they make representations through Members of Parliament who are good enough to speak for them, and there should be someone here to answer them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be in his place, and I 2060 think we have a right to complain that our arguments cannot be met, simply because the Minister left in charge is only capable of saying: "I cannot help it, and I cannot accept any Amendment." I think, under the circumstances, we as a party are justified in going to a Division. I do not know whether our Whips think such a course is desirable, but we are here to pursue a business policy and this is a business matter, and why should we not conduct things in a business way? If the Minister in charge will say, "I think you have made out a good case, I will undertake to talk this matter over with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think I can promise you that it shall be dealt with on the Report stage," I think as business men we might accept that and get on with the Bill. I appeal to the hon. Member representing the Government to look at this matter in a businesslike way.

§ Mr. ACLAND
It seems to me that the proper businesslike way was the course we adopted of holding a consultation with those concerned in England and the Secretary of the West India Committee; and in that way having arrived at a period which we thought was reasonable, we put it into the Bill. I do not want in any way to raise this to a matter of controversy necessitating a Division, but I could not go and say after the expert consideration which has preceded the fixing of the period that I think a good case has been made out. I could not say that conscientiously, but I can say that I will bring what has been said particularly to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there ought to be plenty of time to consider any further representations that may be made. My name is on the back of this Bill, and if I was able conscientiously to say that I thought a case had been made out for the Amendment I would accept it like a shot, but I cannot agree that a case has been made out.

§ Mr. BIGLAND
After what we have heard from the Financial Secretary that he will put our arguments before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. The Bill itself shows that there is a vast difference between whisky and rum. Our claim is that nine months is really no use, and it would seriously jeopardise the trade. I hope the hon. Gentleman, on the arguments which have been used, will be able to report to the Government that the Amendment which I have proposed should be put into the Bill at its next stage.

2061

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

§ Clause 2 agreed to.

§ NEW CLAUSE (Existing Contracts).—When any existing contracts are interfered with by this Act the contractors, to the extent of such interference, shall be released therefrom.

§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." I understand that the Government are willing to accept this Clause.

§ Sir W. ESSEX
Does that proposal carry any provision for compensation?

§ Mr. SCOTT DICKSON
It merely relates to breaches of contract.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Clause added to the Bill.

§ NEW CLAUSE (Compensation).—No compensation shall be paid in respect of any losses incurred in consequence of the operation of any of the provisions of this Act.

§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.

§ Mr. COWAN
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
My object in moving this Clause is largely to ascertain, if possible, the intention of the Government as to the payment of compensation under this Bill. We have no definite indication of what the Government propose to do with regard to compensation or as to the amount involved. Personally, I am strongly in favour of paying generous and liberal compensation to all interests affected by legislation which introduces a great reform in the interests of the nation. I do not think that we have the right to throw all the liabilities upon individuals. Therefore, I am in favour, if we could secure complete prohibition of spirits during the War of complete compensation to all these different interests. Again, with regard to compulsory closing or the curtailment very largely of hours, cases might be made where compensation might be paid by the State, but I feel very doubtful as to compensation under this Act. Notwithstanding the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the quantities of whisky 2062 withdrawn from bond recently, I am persuaded that there is at this moment so large stock of immature whisky in the country, partially withdrawn from bond under recent circumstances, and partially stocks ordinarily in the hands of the trade, that I do not for a moment contemplate that the provisions of this Act will come into operation for, at any rate, six months, during which time we shall be passing through the most critical period of the War, and during which the need for munition and still more munitions will be very urgent. If I believed that the nation would see value for compensation under this Act, then, believing generally in the principle of compensation, I should be in favour of it. My desire, in the main, however, is to obtain information from the Government and to afford hon. Members an opportunity of discussing the question of compensation which, under the Amendments which have been moved, has not yet been granted.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
Here we are passing a measure representing a charge upon the public, and no one in the House knows what is involved. It is most unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not about. We have the right hon. Gentleman introducing legislation, and he is not here to be custodian of the public purse. There is no one at the present time looking after the purse of the nation. While the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces legislation he is too busy to be here to conduct it through the House. He was first routed by the Cork Division, then by the Nationalist Division, then by the Ulster Division, and now every interest wants to get its hands into the national pocket. I am utterly opposed to any compensation being paid to persons who sell liquor which is not fit for people to drink. The argument, according to the Attorney-General, amounts to this: This immature spirit must not be drunk by the workmen in this country because it is not good for them, and it would prevent the supply of munitions coming forward, but you can send it to any other part of the British Empire you like. We are going to compensate the interests involved. What for? For poisoning people as they are doing at the present time. If a man sells me milk adulterated with water—which is certainly a good deal better than this immature spirit—and you stop him, you do not give compensation. Why, therefore, should the House of Commons—when we have the great burden of this 2063 War debt round our shoulders pay compensation first to the distiller, then to the blender, then to the merchant, and then to all the persons involved, including every publican in the United Kingdom? If you are going to give compensation, the question of land valuation will be nothing compared to the difficulties you will have to face. Are we to understand, if we pass this measure, that compensation is going to be paid to every distiller, blender, merchant, maker of bottles and corks, every person employed, and every public house keeper in the United Kingdom?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been driven from pillar to post in this matter, and to save his own face he has introduced this Bill which he must know is not worth the paper on which it is written. It is condemned on all sides of the House. No one has a good word to say for it. He had the Irish party at his throat, and here the interests of the nation are to be sacrificed to people who want to sell stuff which everyone admits is bad for the nation. I am not myself against the drinking of beer—good, wholesome beer made with malt and hops. No one says that it does any harm except the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) who would run a mile to getaway from the smell of a bottle of beer. The view I take about beer is very different. Here we are passing a measure, the Report stage of which is to be taken to-morrow, and in that very little time we want to know whore we are and whether we are going to pay compensation or not. If we are, then I think that it is the most outrageous proposal ever brought before the House. We do not know on what basis compensation is to be paid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very able man. He has always a way of getting out of a difficulty. His favourite way is to appoint a Committee, and this question of compensation is to be referred to a Committee under the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke). How are they going to deal with it? The whole thing is impracticable. If it is the intention of the Government to pay compensation, then let the Attorney-General get up in his place and frankly say so, and say whether it is everybody associated with the trade. If that is so, then, if I can get only one to tell with me, I shall divide against the Bill.

§ Sir RYLAND ADKINS
I cannot interest the Committee with the same 2064 felicity of phrase as the hon. Baronet who has just spoken, but I want to put another view. I regret that there should have been any demand for compensation. The occurrences of the last week are occurrences which we look back upon with great sorrow and great regret. In all these emergency measures, introduced while the country is in a state of war, I do not think that we can gratify our righteous indignation in the way in which we should in ordinary times. It is a question of what is the true perspective in this matter. There, is a great deal of difference between whisky only distilled one year and whisky which has been distilled two years. I find that view held by persons of every variety of opinion, as far apart as that depicted respectively by the two hon. Members for Nottingham. I for one hold strongly that it would be a very great benefit to the country if you could stop the sale of whisky of less than three years old, and if, in order to do that, the Government are put under pressure, which is not creditable to those who exercise it, and decide to defer this question to the Committee presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), and if compensation is thereby given to Irish distillers and those who are connected with them, then, however much we may regret it, and however much in ordinary times we should describe it in terms well up to the boundary of Parliamentary phrase, in this time and in this emergency I for one decline to limit the discretion of the Government, much as I dislike the idea of compensation being given to anybody. There is hardly any price so high one would not acquiesce in being paid if only you could stop the sale of this raw whisky in all parts of the British Islands, at least during the period of the War.

§ Sir J. SIMON
This new Clause proposes that whatever be the merits of the claim put forward, and however complete may be the justification for that claim, none the less the House of Commons is prepared to say in advance that there shall be no compensation paid to anybody for any of the consequences of this Bill. That is a proposal which we cannot possibly accept. We cannot in advance say that there are no cases which will call for such treatment. If we were to take such a course and to put this Clause in the Bill, we should be doing something which we carefully avoided in connection with any of the Defence of the Realm Acts, which 2065 the House, by common consent, has put upon the Statute Book. The question of compensation was raised more than once in connection with the Defence of the Realm Acts, and there are, no doubt, cases under those Acts which might be made for compensation. We did not put in those Acts either a Clause saying that there should be compensation or that there should not. My hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) says that he hopes he will get a frank answer. I tell him quite frankly that as far as we are concerned we could not consent to put in this Bill a Clause which prohibited by statutory enactment the granting of any compensation in any conceivable case connected with the Bill.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
To whom are you going to pay compensation?

§ Sir J. SIMON
I am going to deal with that matter. I would point out that if we did we should be doing something which is quite contrary from what we have done in the Defence of the Realm Acts. I can imagine an argument being at once raised owing to the Statutes being different. We are engaged in carrying a measure in the midst of the pressure of a great War for emergency purposes, and it is not possible in the time to find the means by which yon might carefully consider the reactions and all the results of such a measure. We have to cut our way through by some rough and ready rule. We have said, "It is not impossible that there will be some well-founded case for compensation. We are not going to introduce the machinery of the Land Clauses Act and 10 per cent. for compulsory sale and every other piece of elaborate machinery that was thought proper in times of peace. In times of emergency you must use emergency methods, and in times of emergency, using emergency measures, you must not be too squeamish if you find that there may be cases where a claim for compensation arises. But, we say, "the temper of the country and the opinion of the House of Commons is such that we are confident claims for compensation, if they are based upon real, severe loss, will be quite fairly and adequately considered in the interests of the taxpayer as well as the interests of the claimants by such a Committee as we have set up, and which is presided over by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke)." On the other hand, we have to consider the temper of the country and of the 2066 House of Commons. If people make extravagant or far-fetched claims, or if they come and complain that because, forsooth, the War means for them, as it means for everyone, some sacrifice, then those people will receive no sympathy. My information is that our anticipations have been excellently realised in the Commission presided over by the hon. Member for Exeter, and if that is the case in reference to the Defence of the Realm Act, it can be equally done in reference to this Act, within certain proper limitations. There does not seem any justification for saying that in the Defence of the Realm Act you are going to consider as a case which may be made for compensation that which is not to be deemed a case for compensation under this Bill, which is also an emergency measure. Our only justification is that we are doing something in order to make ourselves more efficient to defeat the enemy in the shortest possible time. You cannot therefore say there is no case for compensation at all under this Bill. Do let us have some regard for proportion.
I hope I am as mindful as anybody in this House of the importance of public economy. I confess I hold opinions which are traditional in regard to economy. I have the strongest personal belief in the necessity of the House of Commons exercising economy, but here my hon. Friends are talking as if we were going to embark in some engulfing expenditure because we do not put in a Clause excluding the possibility of compensation. What are the facts? Here is a war costing us £60,000,000 a month—£2,000,000 a day. This very liquor trade—the whole thing, beer, wine and spirits together—produces a revenue of something like £40,000,000 a year. If you stop this War twenty days sooner you will save as much money as the whole of our liquor taxation produces in twelve months. What is the use of talking about the possibility of compensation in cases of this sort upsetting the finances of the country? The country can either stand the strain of a war of this sort or it cannot. If it can, and I am confident it can if we act in the spirit we wish it to act, then it is going to stand the strain perfectly well, even though we reject this new Clause. It does not seem to us possible, with regard to this Bill, to introduce a new departure, and it would be a new departure, because in every other case we have said, if there be a real, substantial, well-founded claim, it is a claim 2067 that ought to be considered. We do not say it will be granted or rejected; we say it ought to be considered by a body which will have in view the necessities of the taxpayer, the necessity of public economy, as well as the fair claims of those specially affected. That has been the position we have taken up hitherto, and it is impossible for us to make the new departure which the hon. Gentleman wishes us to take, when he asks there shall not be compensation paid, and when he suggests that there are some special circumstances with reference to a trade of this sort which removes it from holding quite the same vested position which, perhaps, the engineering trades or other trades occupy.
We have to act on the principle on which we have acted all along. There is only one principle, and that is that the national interest is so overwhelmingly greater than the interest of anything else that we must show people whose businesses we are going in some cases substantially to interfere with that if they have any real, substantial claim it shall be considered. Considered it certainly will be under reasonable conditions, as long as it is dealt with in the way we have dealt with claims under the Defence of the Realm Act. I do not think it is possible to regard this Bill as a Bill which can pass with our assent, if there is to be on the face of it a deliberate refusal, in any conceivable circumstances, to give a farthing of compensation to any single person, however grievously he may have suffered as a result of this measure.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
The Attorney-General. I venture to think, has wholly misconceived the opinion of the Committee in regard to this Bill. He has been here all the afternoon, and I should have thought he might have gauged that opinion pretty well. Every speaker who has taken part in the Debate has been driven to the conclusion that this Bill will not meet the emergency in the munitions areas. It is quite clear that the Bill as it stands will do nothing to meet the emergency in those areas, and the argument which the Attorney-General has just addressed to the House goes far to confirm that. We all feel as strongly as he does with regard to the emergency; and, indeed, there is a good deal of indignation in many parts of the House that more is not being done to cope with it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said a good deal in a very few words, but he expressed a very 2068 widespread opinion. Our feeling is that the Government may have their Bill by all means, if they think it important.
But we do not think it worth much, and if we are to pay enormous sums as compensation we are not prepared to pass it. It is not because some of us are opposed on principle to compensation. We have put aside all that feeling during the War. I have put aside my own opinions; I have not raised my voice against compensation for anything done during the War by the Government. But I do ask them to see that they get their money's worth. I do not think you are going to get anything at all in return for the liability you are incurring. What is the liability? What does the Attorney-General put it at? Have the Government formed any estimate? Can they tell us whether it will be £100,000, £1,000,000, or £20,000,000? This Bill is not going to shorten the War by five minutes. No one thinks it is. The Attorney-General has altogether mistaken the temper of the Committee. We are willing, in order to facilitate the War, to give the Government everything they ask for. But everyone knows this is not really an emergency Bill for dealing with the War; it is not going to touch the problem of munitions, and, therefore, I think the Committee is very reasonable in asking, before it passes the Bill, what we are going to get in return for the compensation which we are to pay.

§ Mr. CURRIE
I should like to ask a question on a very simple point. We have heard of compensation being given to distillers and publicans, and so on; will the right hon. Gentleman say whether compensation will be given to working men who may be thrown out of work and lose their wages as a result of passing this measure? Will they be allowed to participate in the compensation, or will they be excluded?

§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSON
I have no objection whatever to anyone injured by the necessity of interfering with his business being properly compensated. I never have objected to that, but I do want to see that I am going to get value for my money. Here is a Bill in which gin, brandy and rum are to be allowed out of bond, but for the sake of probably a comparatively small amount of whisky which you stop coming out we are going to be landed into a liability in the way of compensation the extent of which we do not know. I really must protest against the arguments of the 2069 Attorney-General. He speaks of spending millions freely. We do not want to spend a single million more than we need. It is no use telling us we are spending so many millions a week or a month. I agree that every shilling which is needed ought to be spent and spent freely—indeed, I should be the last man to grudge it. But this is a little rivulet which is opening up and we do not know where it will land us. If you once admit this principle and go before that Committee and compensate a man who has lost something by the interference with his business, you cannot stop at this trade.
There is, for instance, the case of the trawler; you have forbidden trawlers to enter particular areas for fishing purposes; you have shut them out in fact. What are you going to do with them? Have they not been injured? I know you have commandeered 1,100 trawlers for mine-sweeping purposes; some have been bought right out; others have been hired. Those which have been bought have been purchased at so much per ton and so much for machinery, subject to a rebate of 10 per cent. for depreciation. It so happens the owners of these trawlers cannot to-day replace the trawlers at the price paid for them or anything like it. I was told by one of them the other day that he had been compensated with £2,000 for his trawler, and he found he could not replace it for £3,000. What are you going to do with this man? You have interfered with his business, and surely you have as much right to compensate him for that as you have to compensate those who may be injured by this Bill.

§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR
An attempt has been made to suggest that the opposition to this Bill comes from the Irish Members. I say that it comes from all parts of the House of Commons.

§ 8.0 P.M.

§ Mr. HENDERSON
Some arguments have been adduced with regard to the position of the Irish distillers, who are to refrain from selling raw whisky. I would not object in the least to paying compensation to any man whose business has been interfered with. But I say drop the Bill entirely, unless you can shut out all spirits. You are not shutting them all out, and you are paying an enormous sum as compensation for stopping the sale of certain whisky. I want to know how you are going to assess the damage done to the ordinary publican. He will have to show how much raw spirit he sells per 2070 annum, and you will have to decide whether you are to settle on the basis of one year's trade or two years' trade, or on what basis. I cannot see how the publican can possibly prove his case. It certainly will involve an enormous amount of investigation and calculation all over the country. You are putting yourself up against something which, if you admit it, is a damage—no doubt is may be held to be a damage—will be entitled to compensation. Considering the amount for which you are going to be let in, which is an indefinite amount, and the never-ending investigation which will be involved, it is not worth it, and I ask the Government to withdraw the Bill.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
I cannot quite follow the Attorney-General in his argument against this Amendment. The difference between this Bill and the Defence of the Realm Act is that under that Act you gave the Government powers which they might or might not exercise as they chose. If they do not exercise those powers there would be no compensation payable. Under this Bill it will not be left to them to say whether or not they will exercise the powers. All that this House has said in regard to the Defence of the Realm Act is this: We are at war; great emergencies may arise, and we give the Government enormous powers, and if in the exercise of those powers, the Government in their discretion take a step which will injure an interest then compensation must be paid. That puts the Government in the position of being able to say that what they are doing is worth the compensation. In this case nothing of that sort has happened. The House is taking a step and the House must take the responsibility when it passes this Bill. The effect of this legislation is to say that after a certain date no immature whisky shall be delivered out of bond. It will not be left to the Government to say whether or not they will take that step, because if the House passes the Bill it becomes operative. Then comes the question of compensation. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that in the ordinary way, if an Amendment were moved to a Bill providing that no compensation should be payable, the answer would be that the Amendment need not be moved because the Bill did not provide for compensation, and nobody was entitled to compensation merely because we passed an Act of Parliament. The argument against this 2071 Amendment is that if we pass the Bill as it stands there is a chance of somebody getting compensation. I can assure the Government that there are those on this side of the Committee who feel the responsibility. What has happened has been this: The Front Opposition Bench has washed their hands entirely of any responsibility for this Bill and the consequences that follow it. They say: "If you choose to have this Bill, and if you say you are, satisfied that it is necessary, and that you must have it, then you shall have it after you have given us an indication that compensation shall be considered. You have given that undertaking, now go ahead! We think you are mistaken, but we will not go to the extent of dividing the. House, and the House must take the responsibility."
I want to say for my own Constituents that that is practically the position for all of us. We are asked to pass a Bill with which none of us is satisfied, and as to which none of us knows what it is going to do, and which has an unlimited liability. I would ask the Attorney-General to say where the line is to be drawn if you admit compensation in these cases? He points out that we are spending £60,000,000 in a given time on the War. That is an argument which might be used at any time to increase the cost of anything. But it has another side. Surely the time when we are spending £60,000,000 a month is the last minute when we ought to compensate people for something that is not going to do anybody any good. It would have been better if this Bill could have been tried as an experiment without a definite pledge being given by the Government that opens the door to claims for compensation of which we have no knowledge and as to which we do not know how far they may go. If the Bill had been introduced without any question of compensation, we might have said it was worth trying. That is not the position now. The Government may get this Bill. It may or may not do good. It is intensely complicated, and in normal times it would have taken the House days and days to discuss it. The Amendment is opposed on the ground that the Government want to be able to compensate some interest or other. They do not tell us what it is; they do not themselves know what it is. My own strong feeling is that if this Amendment is rejected and the House could divide upon the Third Reading of the Bill containing 2072 the power that is now to be exercised of giving compensation, there is no party in the House in which you would find a majority in favour of the Bill. If that is so, it is not quite fair to pass the Bill through this House as a non-controversial measure. We take a non-controversial measure to mean that there is not one party in the House willing to fight it or to bring the party machinery to bear against it. There is another sense in which the word "non-controversial" should be used, which is that unless the Government are satisfied—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)
The hon. Member is now going far beyond the Amendment.

§ Mr. GLYN-JONES
All I will say is that if the Government reject the Amendment they should, before proceeding with the Bill, ascertain whether there is not an overwhelming opinion in all parties of the House that the Bill should not be proceeded with.

§ Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON
As my Constituency is one of those largely interested in distilling, I should like to say a word on the Amendment. My feeling about the Bill, and I think I represent the views of my Constituents in this matter, is one of support of the Bill. It is true that my Constituents make a kind of whisky which has to be kept, or ought to be kept. Nevertheless, I took the opportunity a few years ago, when this subject was before the House, of sending a letter to every publican in my Constituency asking him what his views were as to the harm of new whisky versus old. I received replies from most publicans saying that a man could get drunk on both kinds of whisky, but that if he got drunk on new whisky he got mad drunk. That was the distinction drawn between the two. I am here to support the Bill as it stands and as it is printed, but I should oppose the Bill if compensation is to be added to it. I do not think it is fair, and I would rather lose the Bill with compensation, although I am strongly in favour of the Bill as it is printed. I should like to ask the Attorney-General how the question of compensation arises at all. There is not a word in the Bill about compensation. I should like him, as a lawyer, to explain to me how it comes about that a Bill which does certain things is in some way hitched on to a Defence of the Realm Act and a man is to get compensation. I do not know. If you pass a new law which affects me in my 2073 business or otherwise, I do not know that under the Defence of the Realm Act I have any right to ask for compensation. Of course, it may be so, but I was not aware of it. If the question of compensation arises I am against the Bill and shall do what I can against it. But if the question does not arise, I shall strongly support the Bill.

§ Sir R. COOPER
The substance of the Amendment we are discussing compels me to protest, as I think every Member ought to protest, against the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government are treating the House more and more every week in regard to these Bills. We have here the pet subject of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is his own child. We are dealing with a Bill which, for all we know, will involve this country in the expenditure of any amount of money. No one on either side has the faintest idea of what the expenditure under this Bill is going to be. It is a very sloppy manner for the House of Commons to be dealing with National Finance at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not the faintest idea where he is going to get the £1,132,000,000 he will want up to 5th April next, if the War lasts so long. For that reason it is wrong for any Member of the Committee to sit quiet. I am very glad indeed to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come in at this late moment. Having spoken in his absence, I want to repeat that he does not do justice either to the House as a whole or to the party truce that exists in this House at the present time by absenting himself when numbers of his own supporters are discussing a point in this Bill because they do not appreciate in the least degree what cost it will put upon the Treasury.
There is another very significant point, which I openly confess creates profound suspicion in my own mind. Observe that at a quarter to eight there was no Irish Member sitting on these benches. There is only one at the present moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two."] The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) is not a representative of the Irish people or Irish distillers or Irish publicans. It is somewhat suspicious, because it tends to show that in regard to Ireland there is a promise and compact on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yet no matter what hon. Members opposite say, or any member of the Opposition may say, the Bill is to go through without being allowed to have an 2074 idea whether it is going to cost a £5 note or £5,000,000. A stop ought to be put to this manner of dealing with National Finance. It will make a most profound impression on the thinking people of this country, who are lost in wonderment as to where the money is to be found to carry through this terrible War. As regards the Amendment and the question of compensation, I am apparently in disagreement with my friends who sit on these Benches. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not all."] With some of them, at any rate. I do not agree with paying compensation in this particular case. I would support compensation being paid to every legitimate interest that may be affected adversely by the legislation of the Government which is carried for the general good of the people. But what are we doing here? We are proposing to compensate people who are selling material which is so bad for consumption that a Bill has to be brought in to stop it. Do you compensate them when you find them serving adulterated milk? No! You prosecute them, and what we ought to be doing now is not talking about compensation, but talking about prosecutions and fines.
The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) invited someone to support him in going to a Division. In spirit I should love to do it, but I will give my reason why I do not wish to do it. It is that I agree with the Attorney-General in his pleading for the support of the War, although I think he is quite wrong in appealing for support of this Bill as a means of shortening the War by many days. But I recognise that however strongly we may feel on these matters we must not take every opportunity where we honestly and consciously disagree to upset the administration of the Government which we must maintain in the higher things that we are all supporting. Whether we like the present Government or not—and many of us do not—we have to help them through, and if the Government are going to act in the best interests of this country by retaining their present position, and by retaining the support of the people and of their own Members behind them, they must treat us a little more honestly in the way they bring these Bills before the House. When we come to this matter of compensation the Chancellor of the Exchequer must treat us with a little more consideration. We know he is a very busy man. He seems to be running most of the Departments in the State. We do not want to interfere with him as long as he is doing good work, 2075 but unless more consideration is given by Ministers when they bring in these Bills, there will be no alternative for us but to follow the action that the hon. Baronet desires to take, which under the circumstances I think it would be wrong for us to carry out at present.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I rise to make it absolutely clear that my absence was not due to any want of consideration towards the House of Commons. I am a much older Member of the House than the Hon. Baronet. I have lived most of my conscious life in the House of Commons, and I should be the very last person to treat it with want of consideration. If I was absent it was due to the fact that I was engaged on business of first class importance in connection with the War, and if I were to put before any Member of the Opposition, or any other party, the business I was engaged upon they would say certainly I was bound to attend to it.

§ Sir R. COOPER
I withdraw, after that explanation.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
That is all I have to say with regard to that. I have already explained my position with regard to this particular proposal. We have not put in any Clause with regard to compensation in any of these Defence of the Realm Acts. They are really part of the general legislation which deals with the problem of the Defence of the Realm, and if they do not deal with that there is no justification for bringing them in at all. Bill No. 3 was a Bill dealing with the drink problem. This is purely part of the general proposals. If we had put in a Clause here they would have been justified in insisting upon the insertion of compensation in all the other Bills. Those whose property was taken away were perfectly satisfied with setting up of a Commission to find out what case there was for compensation in any of these Bills, and all we propose is that they should be in exactly the same position as any other, neither better nor worse. If it is going to be insisted upon that you must have a special Clause here negativing compensation, that is a departure from the general principle which the House of Commons has accepted with regard to all the other Bills that it should be left for the Committee to find out on general lines what case there is. I hope the House of Commons will not depart from it in this particular case. It will be 2076 quite impossible under the circumstances for us to proceed with the Bill if provision; of this sort is inserted. These are not the proposals which we had intended to-carry through to deal with the liquor question. They are the remnant of them, and I hope the House of Commons will enable us to get them. It is not a case of paying compensation to every man whose business is interfered with. I stated that quite-clearly last week. It is the case of a man whose business is absolutely wiped out. A man whose business is wiped out ought to have a right of access to the Court to put his case. There is hardly any business which will not be interfered with 5, 10, ro 15 per cent., but that is not the case here at all. I do not think the House of Commons ought to take upon itself to refuse access to a commission of this sort to a man whose business has been completely destroyed. In every other case where provisions of this kind have been incorporated in Act of Parliament, notice has been given. In Australia two years' notice was given. In this case notice is impossible because we want to bring it into operation at once. I hope, therefore, the House of Commons will be satisfied with the Committee set up. To talk about millions being added is perfectly preposterous. It is a totally different thing where you have these very limited cases.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I am among those who agreed with the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, in which he stated that compensation should be given to people who are injured by any Act of Parliament, especially this Act of Parliament, but I am sure that before any Treasury official gave such a pledge as that, he would be sure to have considered the amount which it is likely to let the Treasury in for. My position is this. I am always in favour of compensating people who are injured by Act of Parliament. I am not particularly enamoured of this Act of Parliament because I am not quite sure if it will come into operation until after the evil which we seek to remedy is remedied. Before one supports the Bill as it stands, I should like to know, and perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to tell us, exactly how much this will cost us. We ought to know what the estimate of the Treasury is as to the compensation under this Bill before we commit ourselves, to it. I differ from the idea that no compensation should be given, but I do think 2077 it is right that we should know approximately from the Treasury officials what their estimates are. They, surely, have gone very carefully into this matter.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a significant remark in supporting this scheme for compensation. He said that the first proposals of the Government had been dropped, and that this was only a remnant. I thought the first proposal of the Government to restrict the sale of liquor was by way of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman was going to levy heavy taxes for the purpose of restricting the general consumption of spirits. If that was so he proposed a measure which would not have involved compensation. If you do it by way of taxation, no compensation would be granted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the country in a speech a night or two ago that the House of Commons quailed before the assault of the Irish publicans, and he dropped these proposals and brings forward this remnant. If we quailed on that occasion before the Irish publicans we may be told that we are quailing on this occasion before the distillers who demand compensation. I am chiefly influenced in my views by the statements made by those hon. Members whom we regard as the leaders of temperance reform in this House. They say that this Bill is worth nothing as a measure of temperance reform. Why, therefore, are we entering into an enormous liability for a Bill which temperance reformers tell us is worth nothing? I want to know, as other Members want to know, what value are we going to get from if? If it is a measure to restrict the sale of injurious liquor then we can afford to pay a great deal for it, but if it is simply a measure, a remnant to save the face of the Government, who have retreated and quailed before the Irish publicans, then I do not think we can afford to pay anything for this Bill, and the Bill had better go. I do not see the moral ground or the equity for paying compensation under this measure. On this point I agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir K. Cooper). It is quite a different thing to take away valuable property from a man and to compensate him, or, if damage is done to the property, to compensate him also. But what are we doing here? We are preventing men selling poison to the people and preventing them doing an injury to their fellow subjects. Why, therefore, should we compensate them? The Chancellor of the Exchequer constantly 2078 tells us what has been done by the French. Government. They have prohibited the sale of absinthe. Is the French Government compensating the sellers and manufacturers of absinthe?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Yes. I think it will shorten the speech of my hon. Friend if I say that the Finance Minister of France told me they were compensating them.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
Did they introduce a Bill and carry the measure to compensate the manufacturers and sellers of absinthe without giving a free hand to a Committee to determine the extent of compensation, for that is what we are being asked to do? We are not being told how much it will cost us or the method of compensation.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
There is nothing; in the Bill itself bearing on compensation; nor is there here, but they propose to examine the case for compensation and to pay it exactly in the same way.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid down a bad principle to the Minister of Finance for France or whether the Minister of Finance for France has corrupted the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, whatever may be happening in France, I hold that the principle is wrong. There is no principle in compensating a man because you are preventing him doing something which is injurious to the people, especially when you are doing it by a measure which you have had to fall back upon when you have been defeated in another which proposed to prevent that sale without compensation, by way of taxation.

Mr. DUNDAS WHITE
I want to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point, which is a very important one. If one goes through the Bill from end to end we shall find that there is not only no proposal for compensation in it, but there is not one single word to link the Bill up with the Defence of the Realm Acts.

§ Sir J. SIMON
There is nothing about compensation in the Defence of the Realm Acts.

Mr. WHITE
But if, under the Defence of the Realm Acts, in exceptional cases, certain steps are taken that injure certain persons, then power for compensation is either given or implied, but here is a totally different case.

2079

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No, no!

Mr. WHITE
In that case then, why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer lay stress on this being part and parcel of the Defence of the Realm Acts?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Evidently I have not made myself understood by the hon. Member. What I said was this: Under the Defence of the Realm Acts—there are three of them—we propose to take property and we propose to interfere with business, but there is not a single syllable in any one of those three Acts which pledges us to compensation. There is not a single syllable there which gives a promise to pay compensation, and yet we have set up a Committee, which we promised to the House of Commons, to examine and ascertain what would be fair to pay to these people for having their business destroyed. That is the only thing that is done. There is not a single word about compensation, but what we say is that the same Committee should deal with the question of compensation under this Bill.

Mr. WHITE
I understand that, under the Defence of the Realm Acts, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, certain powers are taken to do certain things. Under this Bill certain powers are not taken to do certain things; it is direct action by Parliament. Since this Bill proceeds on that simple, fundamental, direct principle, and is not in any way linked up with the Defence of the Realm Acts, I think it would be better if this Bill had included some definite statement of some kind or another about compensation. I do not say it should necessarily have been in the form raised by my hon. Friend. I am glad he has raised this discussion, because it seems to me, from what has taken place, that the principle function of this Bill will be, not to interfere with an admitted evil at the present time, which is the very time we want to interfere with it, but rather to operate as a vehicle of compensation to those who really, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said some time ago, are helping the Germans and Austrians. I think there should be something in the Bill, if not expressly making a general statement about compensation, at least setting some limit on the amount of compensation that can be given. Then at least we should know where we stand. It seems to me a very serious matter to bring in by a side wind, so to speak, compensation, the 2080 amount of which we do not know, the amount of which we cannot gauge, and to put that extra burden upon the taxpayers of this country for a benefit which seems to me both remote and questionable.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
I am sure if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been in the House throughout the Debate he would have been greatly interested to know that Members on all sides have been rising in their places and saying that no body wants the Bill, and that this Bill should not proceed. We have no Liberal Ministry left; we are all Napoleons, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Baronet's remarks do not seem to be relevant to the matter before the House.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
What is not relevant?

§ Mr. W. CROOKS
Talking about Napoleons.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The only thing that would not be relevant is the part of the speech of the hon. Baronet to which I have directed attention.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
With all due respect I do not know what part of my remarks you were referring to. Is it not in order to say that the Ministry have usurped their powers? If I am out of order in saying that, I am sorry for having said it, but many Members have said it on other occasions. But be that as it may, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now pressing upon the House a measure for which, if the House were free to vote, I do not think there would be a single Member, excepting himself and the two Whips, found to support it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that under this Bill the amount of compensation is strictly limited. How do we know that? I was asking whether compensation would be paid to the distiller if his business was injured. I asked that question directly of the Attorney-General. He did not give me a straight answer to a straight question. Therefore, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer: If a distiller's business is damaged, and he can show loss, will he be entitled to compensation? It is either yes or no. Before the Bill passes through the House we are entitled to know who is going to have compensation and who is not. Therefore, the first question is: if a distiller can show that he has lost money 2081 owing to the operation of this Act, will he be entitled to compensation? I think that the Chancellor said "Yes."

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
No; I have said no. If my hon. Friend had listened to what I said he would know that I have answered that, and I cannot now give a better answer than I have given.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
Who is to be the judge?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I have told him that. The judge will be this Committee.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
Precisely. The hon. Member for Exeter is going to be the judge, and this matter is to be removed from the tribunal of the House of Commons. That is not my point. What I want to know is: Is the Chancellor himself to settle the rule of what the Committee should do, or on what basis is the hon. Member for Exeter going to frame compensation? There must be an answer to that. I understood the Chancellor to say that if a man's business was ruined entirely he would be entitled to go before the Committee of the hon. Member for Exeter and receive compensation. Then the House of Commons is entitled to know what is the reference which will actually go before the hon. Member for Exeter. Who is going to frame that reference? How is the hon. Member to judge whether he is to give compensation to the interests affected, or whether he is not? I think that the majority of Members of this House would come to the conclusion that people who have suffered by reason of this Bill would be entitled to compensation. The Chancellor says "No." Then how does he arrive at that? The House does not know, and the Member for Exeter is not here to tell us on what grounds he is going to proceed in the matter. Therefore, we are asked to compensate this liquor interest to an extent involving a great sum of money for the sake of prohibiting the use of what is admitted by the Government's own supporters to be a poisonous article. We are, therefore, to grant compensation for this liquor in circumstances which would not in any way go to increase the supply of munitions of war. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come down and said, "I want to stop all spirits being consumed in this country," I would have voted for it, and I am sure the bulk of the House would have gone with him. That is not what is before us now. We 2082 have got simply a remnant, and this remnant is not going to increase the supply of munitions of war. The House has already given the Chancellor ample powers of closing public houses in the munitions areas, or taking over and the running of these public houses, and, if the Government are the actual sellers of liquor in the munitions areas, there would be no reason why they should buy immature spirits to supply to the working man. Therefore, what good are we going to do by the passing of this Bill? I have not met a single Member on this side of the House who is in favour of this Bill. We all want in these times to support the Government to the best of our ability, and the House of Commons has been most generous with the Government in that direction since the commencement of the War. The House is asked to pass a measure which is condemned on all sides. Therefore I think that the Chancellor—I am not allowed to use the word for which I was called to Order—is taking a very high-handed attitude. His own supporters are unanimously opposed to this measure, and it is opposed also in all other quarters of the House. We are asked to pass this measure which will not in any way expedite the supply of ammunition. I said that I was going to vote for this Amendment, and take it to a division. On further consideration, I have decided, in view of the number of Members who want to speak on the matter to-morrow, to give the Government time to consider their position, and I shall reserve my vote which I have to give until the Third Reading to-morrow. Meantime, I do hope that the Chancellor will not take remarks which I have made in any bad spirit. They are made with the honest conviction that this measure will do no good, that it will cause intense irritation in many directions, and that, as he has not proceeded with larger proposals, there is no good in proceeding with this remnant.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Baronet is now making a speech on the Third Reading. He should confine his remarks to the question of compensation.

§ Sir A. MARKHAM
It might have saved a speech on the Third Reading, but I will not now inflict it on the House. My right hon. Friend may see on reflection that not a single Member among his own supporters is in favour of this proposal for compensation. That being so, I do hope that he will be able to come down to the 2083 House to-morrow and tell us that he has dropped the Compensation Clause. If he drops that, of course, he drops the Bill, and the whole thing is dead.

§ Mr. GODFREY COLLINS
There is one argument which has not yet been dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer against this proposal. We see here to-night practically every Member opposed to the Chancellor on this point. That is a very strong argument in favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavouring to meet the wishes that have been expressed from all quarters of the House this afternoon. But there is another argument which I would like to address. He admits compensation for these distilling industries in Ireland, for loss of business. Is he going to give the fishermen all over this country compensation for the loss of industry which has been caused by regulations made by the Admiralty on behalf of the Defence of the Realm? If he is going to give compensation by this Bill to the distilling industries, he should undoubtedly face the question of compensation for the fishing industry all through the United Kingdom.

§ Sir JOHN HARMOOD-BANNER
I rather commiserate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is being criticised by his own side for doing what is right on this occasion. Speakers on the other side of the House have lost all sense of proportion in regard to this measure. If the right hon. Gentleman had brought in a Bill for the abolition of the consumption of spirits during three years, I would have supported him and done my best to assist him, for in that case he would have had to pay compensation to those whose businesses had been destroyed. If, under those circumstances, the Government had been called upon to pay compensation the amount would not have been a very small one, but a very big one. This Bill is a very small matter, and I do not understand the outcry against this stopping of immature spirits with payment of compensation. As far as I can see, this question as to Irish spirits only affects the North of Ireland. I feel some interest in this question of North of Ireland whisky, which is distilled and sold red-hot out of the still for consumption. Though we in this House have permitted this industry to continue all these years, yet it is now proposed to make it the subject of an Act of Parliament which must injuriously affect 2084 it. The Bill will not affect whisky which is kept for three or five years, but it will undoubtedly affect the production of the Belfast and North of Ireland whisky, which is dealt with in a different manner. That is the limit of compensation we have to deal with.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
No, no!

§ Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER
So far as I can see, it is the limit. We should have been ready to pour out our funds to pay heavy compensation had we stopped the sale of spirits for three years, whereas this is a mere matter of dealing with a couple of distilleries in the North of Ireland. Yet here you have the House of Commons starting up and saying that this measure ought not to be passed. The Bill is so small that I can hardly appreciate their attitude. We are told that the older the whisky the more wholesome it is, and here we are doing our best to supply it. It will be a little benefit during the War to those who have consumed raw whisky, and at least the distilleries in the North of Ireland, which will be injuriously affected, ought to be the subject of compensation. I think hon. Members opposite are going teetotal mad; they were prepared to stop the sale of spirits, which would have involved millions of compensation, but now, when it is only a matter of about £200,000, they oppose the Bill, which is undoubtedly for the benefit of the country.

§ Sir A. WILLIAMSON
The last speaker surely has omitted to notice that there is a very great difference between compensation for prohibiting altogether the sale of spirits and the compensation which may be claimed under the proposal of this Bill. This measure is not for the period of the War; it is for all time, and, consequently, the man who now sells whisky when it is six months old, and who in future will have to sell only when it is three years old, will claim compensation on a scale of interest for three years and warehouse rent for three years for all time, because his business is threatened to be prejudiced for all time. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO!"] There is great risk of it. It is very different from compensating for a short period or during the War. Pot distillers will have no claim, because they are in the habit of keeping their whisky for longer than three years. I can understand lawyers representing that raw grain distillers whose business will be injured by this 2085 Bill, will always incur the charge for interest in the three years and the warehouse rent as well. I for one could not for a moment support a proposal so serious as that.

§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSON
The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General have said that there is not a word about compensation in the Defence of the Realm Act, but it gets in by reference. I hope the Attorney-General will listen to that. It is quite true that compensation is not mentioned in the Second Defence of the Realm Act, but if you go to the Act of 1817, of 1875, of 1891, of 1903, and the Military Manœuvres Act, and so forth, you will see that there is the case of compensation for taking property, and so there can be compensation by reference. I have not the slightest objection to compensation for doing away with a particular trade, however bad that trade may be said to be for others. If you stop the sale of spirits altogether, I have no objection to compensation. What have they done in France? They have stopped the sale of absinthe altogether, but, as I have already said, you are only frittering at this matter; it is a miserable pretence that anybody really wants this Bill except the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. I do not know why so much trouble is made about it. The cat was let out of the bag a minute or two ago, for we find that the North of Ireland distillers are going to get £200,000. The point we make is this: We do not object to compensation if it is effectual, but we do object to the letting in of a number of claims for compensation in respect of something which is really nor worth it.

§ Mr. COWAN
I do appeal to the Government to take into account the obvious feeling of the House. It is not too much to say that this Bill has not a friend in this House unless, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. M. Henderson) has just remarked, it be the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. We are told that at this time of truce we cannot expect any legislation to pass through the House which is not passed by general agreement, and yet an attempt is actually being made to pass this Bill by what I can only call disagreement. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be asked to take into account, in attempting to save something from the wreckage of those plans which so many of us admired, the fact that since he abandoned those proposals a very great change has 2086 occurred in the situation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer desired prohibition, and abandoned it, not because he ceased to desire it, but because he believed it to be impossible to gain the assent of the House. Since then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson) proposed, but was not allowed to discuss, an Amendment to this Bill introducing the prohibition of spirits. I take it that that means that the Opposition would assent to the prohibition of spirits. I am entitled to think so, and I shall persist in believing, until it is officially disavowed, that the Opposition would assent to the prohibition of spirits during the War. A majority of Members on this side would certainly assent to it, and gladly. An hon. Member speaking from the Irish benches on Defence of the Realm No. 3 Bill declared emphatically that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House and stated on his responsibility that he desired the prohibition of spirits, he and his friends would agree. Under those circumstances the Chancellor is faced with a new situation under which he can obtain the assent of the House to the prohibition of spirits. That is worth waiting for, and the House would grant compensation to any reasonable extent that it is asked. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I would therefore ask the Government to withdraw this Bill and not attempt to pass it under these impossible conditions. While adhering to the principle of my Amendment, I realise that it is impossible under present circumstances to ask the House to divide, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Bill, as amended, to be considered in Committee of the Whole House to-morrow (Tuesday).