§ Order for Second Heading read.
§ Mr. T. BURNI beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity and advantage 1740 of addressing the House I think I could advance many reasons in favour of the Bill, but I will rely upon two main points. When we remember how much misery and crime has been associated with the results of the liquor traffic, I think it is unnecessary to dwell very much upon that. I think we ought to do something to relieve the people from the temptations which surround them. My second point is that the Bill is thoroughly democratic. It gives to the Parliamentary electors the right to say whether or not this traffic should be allowed in their midst. Members who have read the Bill will see that there is no provision for compensation in it, which I very much regret, but that is due to the fact that it is a Private Member's Bill, and after the experience that we had with another Private Member's Bill, which was ruled out of Order, we withdrew the provision for compensation. But we have included an arrangement similar to that of the Scottish Temperance Bill. This gives those who are in the trade an opportunity of arranging for a scheme of compensation among themselves. A poll can be demanded by ten per cent. of the Parliamentary electors, and only Parliamentary electors will be enabled to vote. Once a poll has been taken it cannot be taken again for three years. A poll can be taken in any county borough, urban district or rural district. The local authority will be the authority for carrying out the poll under regulations made by the Local Government Board. I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Beading, and that we will be able to remove any defects when it comes to the Committee stage.
§ Mr. W. COOTEI beg to second the Motion. It is very much demanded by the people whom we represent. A great change has come over the minds and feelings of the people of the North of Ireland with reference to this Bill, and practically all the Unionist members from the province of Ulster are pledged to Local Option. We are not averse to reasonable compensation, but we think some measure ought to be brought into existence whereby people should have the right to say whether public houses should be planted or continued in their midst. If you look at the returns you will see that in Ireland there is a plethora of public houses. We have in some districts in towns and villages a public house for every fifty people. They draw their living from their people, who 1741 come into the town or village from a wider area to attend fairs and markets, and these publicans resort to many tricks in order that they may carry on their business on an economic and paying basis. As a result the trafic is demoralised, and some reconstruction is insistently demanded by the ratepayers. We propose the Bill also from a still higher standpoint than that of economics. If child life is to be preserved, if the homes of the people are to be preserved, if the women folk of the country are to be preserved, we must have power to see that the ravages of this trade shall be in some way restricted. We see what has been done in the Dominions and in the United States of America which, one after another, have gone "dry," and as a result of that fact, the men and women appear in their right minds and are able to attend to their business for six days a week. All that waste is taken away. We must have a similar condition of things not only in Ireland, but throughout the three Kingdoms so that we may control the ravages of the trade. About one-sixth of our man power is made non-efficient by the liquor traffic. We support this Bill also on account of its moral effect. The time has come when the people of a district should not have the public house, with its attendant evils and the examples which they see around its doors close to their children, foisted in their midst by any body which is not elective and does not represent the people. All the churches are coming into line on the question and are insisting that from the moral point of view this traffic should be curtailed if not entirely swept away. For these reasons, with the greatest possible heartiness, I second the Motion.
§ Mr. DEVLINIn all my experience of Parliament this is the most extraordinary exhibition I have ever seen. Here is a proposal dealing with one of the most vital concerns that touch the life of the people, proposing to make a great and radical change in Ireland in the destruction of the personal liberties of the people and the ruin of many men who have their money invested in property in the country, and yet such is the contempt of hon. Members opposite for the intelligence of this House, that they have occupied precisely ten minutes in stating their case. They have a lower opinion of the intelligence 1742 of Parliament than I have. If you are going to make so profound and so vast and radical a change in the life of Ireland, and you come and ask an assembly, not of Irishmen but of Englishmen, to do this thing, you have a right to give reasons why this change ought to be made. I object to the introduction of this Bill altogether. Here are a number of gentlemen from a corner of Ireland, without authority, without a mandate, without inspiration from any part of the country, introducing this Bill and coming here to an English assembly to ask for this change to be made in the conditions of Ireland, which no Englishman proposes should be done for England.
§ Mr. DEVLINIn the case of Scotland, the Local Veto Bill was introduced and passed because, as far as I can gather, through the constitutionally-expressed will of the Scottish people, they wanted it. I am not so sure that when the people come to vote upon it they will be very grateful to those who introduced and passed it, but that is another matter. There is nothing so hypocritical or farcical as the introduction of these measures dealing with education and with drink and other great questions of the most vital concern to the nation in this English Parliament on the very eve of the introduction of a measure which proposes to transfer all these powers and responsibilities to Irish bodies. Are you so insecure in your belief in the wisdom or the justice of the claim you make for the passage of this Bill that you are not prepared to submit it to one of these local bodies which you blessed the other day? You went over to Belfast to baptise your own baby. Instead of doing so, you drowned it in the waters of the Boyne, and now, perhaps because you have no faith in the justice of the cause upon which you claim the judgment of tills House of Commons, you are introducing this wretched measure in the hope that because the numbers of Irish representatives are few you will smuggle it through the House of Commons.
I road in one of the series of speeches delivered by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) that he was now the "Member for Ireland." I think the Member for Ireland ought to be here. Why should he desert his new constituents? He says everyone goes to him and asks him to do everything for 1743 Ireland, but surely, with his whole party in solemn array, after having passed through all the trials and perils of the voyage, after considerable political excitement in the North of Ireland, he ought to be here to take charge of this Bill himself, because he alone of all the unionist Members has either the capacity of the eloquence or the power to make such a Bill as this either defensible or arguable. Everyone knows the record of the right hon. Gentleman on the liquor question. He has never once voted for any measure of temperance in the House of Commons nor, indeed, has any of his party You can go over the records of the Division Lists for the last quarter of a century, and you will not find the name of the representative of all Ireland recorded as voting in favour of a single temperance measure for this country. I believe in that matter he was right, because most of these temperance measures were not temperance measures at all. They were simply doing what hon. Members opposite are trying to do, namely, in the name of temperance, trying to destroy the personal liberty of the citizen. My experience is that temperance men do not so much want to make people sober as to rob the public. I never knew a temperance man who was temperate. I never knew an apostle of this cause who was not intolerant. They say their point of view is the only point of view, and in order to make other people sober, they not only deny private rights and privileges and personal liberty to other citizens, but they want to make people sober at the expense of other people. It was dishonest for the hon. Member (Mr. Coote) to say he was in favour of compensation. Why do you not put it in the Bill if you are in favour of it?
§ Mr. DEVLINBecause you would not be allowed to do it by the temperance fanatics. You are simply bearing out what I have said.
§ Mr. DEVLIN; I would not try you anywhere. Even these gentlemen who rate the public intelligence of this Parliament lower than I do, and that is not very high, have declared many times on the public platform that it would be 1744 unfair to destroy the business even of publicans without compensation. [Hex. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] By their applause, perhaps the only applause I shall get from them for the remainder of the year, they recognise it now. What is the House of Commons to think of gentlmen who not only believe in compensation, and have declared for it, and whose only justification for the introduction of this measure is that they have told the people that if they rob the publican they will compensate him for his loss, who now introduce a Bill, which they propose to carry through Parliament, in which there is not a single line that offers compensation to the men whose property they are going to confiscate? I do not hear any applause now. I prefer to have their pre-Parliament declaration incorporated in an Act of Parliament than to be left to the hopeless maze of Parliamentary discussion and controversy in Committee that will never meet.
Now I come back to my original form. I want to know in regard to this Bill, which is a Bill for all Ireland, why should the right hon. and learned Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), with all his persuasive eloquence, not come down to the House and make a case for this Bill. There are other Demosthenes and Ciceros here. Why are they silent? If the right hon. Member for all Ireland cannot be here, where are the other apostles of great causes who lead the House of Commons with their inspiring eloquence? Although they have proposed this Bill they do not believe in it, they do not want it, they are not serious about it, but at the crack of "the whip of a number of people in Belfast, who represent nobody but themselves, who are fanatics, who will not pay for their fanaticism, who want to have virtue at other peoples' expense, they bring forward this Bill. That is the whole clientele that gathers round the standard of the eloquent Mover of this Bill and the equally eloquent, but not so very irresistible, speaker who followed, It may be said that though the rest of Ireland does not want this Bill, Belfast wants it. If Belfast wants anything, Belfast should get it. Belfast is the hub of the universe; there is no place like it in the world. It is the ark of the covenant, the gate of heaven, the holy of holies. Therefore, these gentlemen believe that any scheme or proposals, however 1745 grotesque or dishonest, however it may inflict personal wrong or suffering upon any section of the community, if it comes from Belfast, this Parliament will swallow it. There are-not many people here to swallow it, and I do not think it will be swallowed. They can come here and talk about leaving all these conceros that affect the lives of the people to a Parliament or Parliaments to be set up in Ireland, and then ask this English Parliament, which knows nothing about Ireland, and cares less, to carry a local veto Bill for Ireland.
May I respectfully ask if local veto is a good thing, why do not the English Members propose it for themselves? If this Bill is carried through, and imposed upon Ireland against Ireland's will—as it would be imposed upon Ireland against Ireland's will if it were carried—then I will take mighty good care to propose a local veto Bill for England. If local veto is such a luxury, why give it to Ireland, and why impose it upon Ireland ", You are not so fond of us that you are ready to impose upon us all the good things that we do not ask for. Therefore, if Englishmen want to have a local veto Bill, let them propose it for themselves. I say to anyone who is a Home Ruler he has no right whatever, consistent with his principles, namely, the right of the people to determine not only their own destinies, but to conduct all their own domestic, industrial, and economic concerns, to vote for this Bill. It is the business of a Home Ruler to leave this question to Ireland itself. I am not sure what my opinion would be upon this question if I were in a Parliament of my own.
§ Viscountess ASTORAh!
§ Mr. DEVLINI do not understand the meaning of that meticulous interjection. I hope that the hon. Member who made it will understand that the principle I have laid down is very simple. The principle is that if you are going to reform a nation you must reform it from within. You have no right to apply your British virtues to Irish vices. You have a house in disorder yourself; put it in order. If we are to have our house in order we will order our own house. The question of dealing with the drink problem, the education problem and other problems are not questions that an English Parliament ought to solve, and an English Parliament ought not to allow Bills to be presented 1746 for dealing with such problems, when you are on the very eve of the introduction of a measure to deal with the internal economic, industrial, and intellectual life of the nation. I do not know how any member. Unionist, Liberal or even Coalition Liberal can so far transgress that ordinary accepted principle of any sensible assembly.
There has not been a single demand for this Measure from any part of Ireland outside a few fanatical organisations in Belfast. When Belfast does anything it is always fanatical. When they want to prevent a political change they have a rebellion, and when they want to have a Local Veto Bill, even though they are in favour of compensation, they dare not propose it. But even Belfast—for which Gentleman opposite claims to speak, although they do not, beacause I represent one-fourth of the community, the most enlightened and intelligent portion—does not want this Bill. I will ask some of the orators who follow mo to quote a single Resolution passed by any responsible body in Belfast, outside the temperance organisations, in favour of this Bill. The municipal council of Belfast, the civic body that controls the destinies of the city, the Board of Guardians, the Harbour Trust, even the Water Board, did not pass resolutions in favour. There was an election the other day for the Water Board, and two men elected were the representatives of the publicans. There is no demand for the Bill in the rest of Ireland, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not shown that there is a demand for it even in Belfast, outside the interested parties. This is a policy of introducing Bills by a number of Gentlemen who do not believe in the merits of their proposals, but who, because they have been able to overawe the judgment of this House and the constitutional will of the people through this House on other questions, think that they can come here and overawe the will and the intelligence of Members of this House, and get them to swallow a Measure of this sort.
The Bill was only printed last night. What was it supposed to do. It proposes in the first place that in a city like Belfast, Dublin or Cork, the question not whether you will have a diminution of licences, but whether the licences will disappear is to be submitted, and if it is carried by a majority every one of these houses is 1747 to be closed. It is quite common in Ireland, and not uncommon in this country, for not more than 40 per cent. of the voters to vote at some of the Municipal elections. So in this case 91 per cent. of the community can determine the personal rights and liberties of 79 per cent. More ridiculous still, where the temperance organisations are strong, with patient powerful propaganda and their large funds, they can carry the local veto as a possible local measure—though I do not think they would—in Belfast, and they might not carry it in the next village or town. The result would be that if by such an authority as I have described local veto were carried in Belfast, you would still have the public houses open in Dunmurry, Lisburn, Portadown, and Lurgan. Was there ever so grotesque a situation to find the public houses closed up in a great industrial and shipbuilding district like Belfast and kept open in little villages around the city where there would be a regular procession from Belfast of the 79 per cent. and of a considerable portion of the other? Because I have rarely found that the most violent temperance orator is the most extreme abstainer, that a gentleman, who was by no means a total abstainer, and who was a Member of this House, but is not now in this House, was always first in the Lobby and last out of it, in support of all these temperance measures. I asked him how that was, and he said, "I know the evil that drink does to myself and I want to prevent others suffering in the same way." Therefore, do not take me as arguing that a man is dishonest because he preaches temperance and at the same time is not a teetotaller, but at the same time, I do object that that class of man who votes away public houses in a given area will have the full knowledge in his mind that if he does not find at his door a public house hospitably inviting him to come in he can immediately go to an adjacent village, and there get all the drink that he wishes. We know the effect that stealthy drinking of that sort has on the moral of the people. I tell the House frankly my view on the drink question. I do not mind if you turn on the tap in every distillery and every brewery in the three Kingdoms and never again allow one glass to be manufactured, if you compensate the people whose property 1748 you destroy. If this is a good thing for society, if these temperance proposals are necessary for the welfare of the State, for industrial efficiency or for the elevation of the people, then how can they with justice carry through this at the cost of personal suffering and ruin to these people, most of whom, rearly all or whom, would prefer to be in other business, but have been thrown into that business and have given their lives to building it up, subject to legal caprices consequent upon the ever changing liquor legislation, and compelled to carry on their avocation under conditions more perilous and irritating than those of any other branch of trade or industries in these isles? To tell these men simply because somebody gets drunk that their public house is to be closed, their trade is to be destroyed, and that everything that they and their wives and families are dependent is to be ruined in order that somebody who cannot behave themselves can limit his appetite for drink, is not just.
But apart altogether from the question of compensation, conditions in Ireland are entirely different from what they are in this country. In England, when magistrates began to exercise the power to extinguish licences in 1901, 1902, 1903, and 1904, an Act was passed in 1904 prohibiting the taking away of a licence without compensation on any ground except misconduct. In Scotland the magistrate always enjoyed freedom of action in extinguishing licences. I do not know the law very well in England, but I know what it is in Ireland. A man has security for a licence in Scotland for only one year. It was perfectly within the province of the magistrate to refuse the licence, and the licensee knew that he had the licence only on a yearly tenure, and that he had no grievance if the magistrate refused to renew the licence. In Ireland it is quite different. In Ireland since 1877 the right of a publican to renewal and transfer has existed unchallenged unless on grounds of character. In that year the Recorder of Dublin refused a licence to a person named Clithero on the ground of the number of existing licences. Four judges of the Queens Bench unanimously hold that the Court of Licensing sessions had no jurisdiction whatever to refuse the licence on that ground. That decision was appealed against, and years 1749 later it was upheld by Lord Justice Barry. Legal recognition, therefore, of the position of the licence holder in Ireland is a matter of some importance without any local veto measure.
After all, this is not an effective method of putting a stop to drink at all. The decision of the question is to be left to the caprice of the area, and the area is the city. Take communities like those of Belfast, and Dublin and Cork. Suppose you have local veto in Belfast, and you do not have it in Dublin or in Cork. If you are going to deal with the drink problem you will not solve it in this slip-shod fashion. You will either have to deal with it as a whole or not touch it at all. I remember travelling in America through a prohibition State. One of the attendants was asked to bring a drink for a friend of mine and possibly one for myself, though I cannot remember it. The attendant said we could not get the drinks as it was a prohibition State. But in five minutes we were in a State which was not prohibitionist. We passed through a shaky area of prohibition and entered the golden gates. What was the result? That those of us who were partially thirsty in a prohibition State, by waiting, were inspired to imbibe considerably larger draughts than we would have drunk if the common-sense and reasonable liberty had been exhibited of allowing a person legitimately to quench his thirst without being anxious for an unnecessary contribution to the satiation of his passion.
I would gladly answer any arguments that might be advanced in favour of this Measure, if there were any arguments to answer, and I would enrich myself by exercising the power of analysing the intellectual limitations of my opponents. Unfortunately they have not even displayed their limitations and, therefore, I have nothing to oppose. This Bill has nothing to be said in favour of it. If it has, why do not hon. Members say it? Do not think that the hon. Gentleman opposite has exhausted all his eloquence in a Presbyterian temple in New York or that the hon. Gentleman opposite has run oratorically dry after his itinerary through Ulster in trying to make presentable the baby known as the Home Rule Bill for Ireland. Nothing of the sort. They have plenty of eloquence; they are inexhaustible. But this is a thing which no eloquence can justify 1750 or defend. They say they are in favour of compensation, but there is not a word about compensation in the Bill. All I have to say is, that they put at a very low rate the intelligence of the British Parliament if they think a measure of this sort will be passed into law, I ask the House to reject the Bill and to leave the question to a Parliament in Ireland, if there ever is one—to leave it to the people themselves to decide this question.
§ Mr. LINDSAYThe hon. Member is right in saying that there are Members on this side who are pledged to compensation. I certainly was. Under no circumstances will I vote for this Bill on the Third Reading unless adequate compensation is provided for those affected. How that is to be done, must be decided in Committee. I think the House should realise that the position in Ireland is similar to that in Scotland, which is a whiskey-drinking country. The hon. Member for the Falls Division appears to forget that there is a local veto Act on the Statute Book which applies to Scotland, and which comes into operation this year. It may happen that Glasgow may declare dry and that Paisley may remain wet, and a similar position may take place in Belfast. That is an essential incident in any local veto measure and has occurred in the United States, as to which in this connection the hon Member has told us what took place. I do not think that is an argument to which the House should pay too much attention. We are asking for practically the same legislation for Ireland. The position of the licensee in Ireland has been governed for over forty years by the decision in the Clitheroe case, and I think his claim to adequate compensation if deprived of his licence is unquestionable. The State has duly recognised licensed property in this way that it insists that duty shall be paid on the value of the licence as distinct from the other value of the premises. There was a case the other day in Belfast of a public house in which the value of the site and premises was £5,000, and the Inland Revenue authorities assessed the estate duty on £13,000, thereby assessing the value of the license at £8,000. I am prepared to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, but I will vote against the Third Reading unless adequate compensation is given.
§ Mr. RAFFANI have been a Member of this House for about ten years and I think this is the first occasion on which I have found myself in opposition to the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin). I shall not endeavour to compete with him either in eloquence or humour or in his knowledge of Ireland. He indicated that in his view this particular Measure is likely to receive support from English Members who dare not seek to put a similar Bill into operation in their own country. May I say I introduced a similar Bill for England and Wales in the last Session of Parliament and I hope to have the privilege of reintroducing it in this Session, while an hon. Friend introduced a similar Bill for Wales. Therefore, I hope the House may, during the present Session, have the opportunity of deciding upon similar measures with regard to both England and Wales. Might I remind my hon. Friend that a similar Bill, conferring upon local authorities the right to deal with the liquor traffic in their own areas, which is the principle underlying this Bill, passed through this House in 1908. To the best of my recollection, that Bill was supported by the Members of the Irish party. At any rate, the Bill passed through the House by enormous majorities. The Second Heading and the Third Reading were carried by majorities of over two to one, and the Bill went to another place and was there summarily rejected by a great majority. Part of the case which was urged in the 1910 election for a reform of the other place was based upon the summary treatment of that Bill by that House, and on many platforms in this country Irishmen, I am glad to say, were equally eloquent with Englishmen in denouncing the Members of another place for flouting the judgment of this assembly in this matter. I think my hon. Friend was a little harsh in his criticism of temperance men in this House.
§ Mr. DEVLINI did not say temperance men in this House.
§ Mr. RAFFANHe will read the report of his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I am quoting from a note which I took at the time, and I beg his pardon if I misinterpreted what he said, but he 1752 suggested that he had never met a nominal temperance man who was not intemperate in other respects. I would call to his recollection the fact that the man whose name will always be remembered as the pioneer of temperance legislation in this House, I mean Sir Wilfrid Lawson, was a friend of Ireland,-when Ireland had few friends in this House, while those who were associated with Sir Wilfrid Lawson were always amongst the warmest friends of Irish self-government. I support this Measure, because this Measure is an instalment of self-government for the people of Ireland, and I confess that I view with some astonishment the change of rôle among the Members for the Northern and Southern Divisions of Ireland. The Members for the North of Iiland come forward with a measure of self-determination for the people of Ireland, and they say, with regard to this liquor traffic, that this is not a matter which should be settled for the people of Ireland in the various districts by anybody else. They say, "Let the people of Ireland themselves say, each in their own district, how they will deal with this matter," and then the hon. Member for the Falls Division rises in his place—and he is the most eloquent defender of vested interests that I have heard in this House during the present Session and he is altogether opposed to this modest measure of self-determination. He says that anybody who advocates self-determination by Home Rule is inconsistent in supporting this Bill. I say, on the contrary, that anybody who is in favour of self determination for the Irish people, is inconsistent if he opposes this Measure, because the Measure simply says that the people of Ireland will be able to deal with this matter in their own way in their respective areas. My hon. Friend says the people in the South and West of Ireland do not desire this Measure, only a few fanatical people in Belfast, but if that be so, nowhere in the South and West of Ireland will even a poll be taken, because it is essential that one-tenth of the electors in any area should sign a requisition and lay it before the authorities before even the initial steps are taken and before a poll of the people is taken with regard to this matter. If in the south and west, which my hon.
1753 4.0 P.M.
Friend thinks is so benighted, that it is impossible to find support for this, the people in those areas will be animated by the desire to save their liberty, and, if they wish to have the liquor traffic there, they have only to go to the poll and, if they wish things to remain as they are, things will remain as they are. I may say that, in my own modest way, I have all my life been a strong supporter of self-government for the Irish people. My friend, Michael Davitt, who was one of the bravest of Irishmen, one of the ablest and most sincere supporters of the Irish cause in this House, gave me, I remember, as an illustration of the need for Ireland to deal with her own affairs, the fact that Ireland was overrun with public-houses. He gave me figures which showed that in Ireland the number of public-houses to the population was about twice as high as the number in this country, and in some areas it was three, four, and five times as high, and he said that if the justices dealing with these matters had been really animated with a sincere desire for the welfare of the people, they would never have allowed all these public-houses to be planted down there. This is an opportunity for the people of Ireland to right the wrongs of which my friend Mr. Michael Davitt spoke. For this reason, I hope the House will agree to pass this Measure into law. I hope that this small instalment of Home Rule, if it is passed, wilt be but a precursor of a greater and large measure of Home Rule, which will give the right to the Irish people not only to deal with the liquor traffic, but the right to control their own destinies as they desire.
In the meantime, I fail to see that my hon. Friend, with all his eloquence and with all his humour, has been able to make out a really effective case. He ridicules the idea of dealing with the liquor traffic by local option. He says it is a measure which will not work. Wherever you have English-speaking people, except here, they have dealt with the matter in this manner. They dealt with it in this way in a large portion of America before adopting the prohibitory law. So in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. My hon. Friend may be assured that this is not a matter which can be left alone. I am one who was greatly disheartened at the result of the last Election. I felt that many great causes which were dear 1754 to me were put back, perhaps for a generation. The temperance cause seemed to be put far back. I do not know if there are fewer temperance men in the House of Commons, but it seems that the clock has been put far back. There was an event here, however, only a few short weeks ago, when, for the first time, someone came here who could speak in her own name for the wives and mothers of this country. I have been up and down the country since then, and moved amongst the people who are interested in this matter. I do not agree with the Noble Lady who sits for Plymouth in all she Says. I do not believe in the remedy of State purchase which she proposes, but I believe the speech which she made has stirred the hearts of the women of this country, and I do not believe any party will be able to go before the women of this country at another election without having some real policy with regard to this question. I do not think you will find a better policy than this. The policy put forward by the hon. Gentleman is that we are not to legislate in advance of public sentiment, and that if anywhere public sentiment desires things to remain as they are for the time being, the evil must remain. But we say that where public sentiment amongst men and women is so keen that a majority of people desire a change to take place, then an opportunity should be given to the people to make that change, whether it is in England, Wales or Ireland. Whenever there is an opportunity in this House, and whenever a Division is taken, I shall vote for that power being given to the people.
§ Mr. DONALDIn supporting this measure I should like in the first place to congratulate my hon. Friend who has moved the Second Reading of the Bill on being in the unique position of not only making his maiden speech, but of having the honour to introduce this measure. I do not think I can be described as one of those to whom the hon. Gentleman opposite referred as temperance fanatics. From a 25 years' experience of workshops I know the evil, the curse, and the great inefficiency due to drink. I do not care whether this House agrees with mo or not, I say something must be done in the near future in regard to the liquor traffic. We have had it demonstrated that practically at every street corner in Belfast there is a 1755 public-house. The number is something like 11,156. Over and over again from these benches, and from the opposite benches, I have heard of the intolerable state of affairs in Belfast. Would this House be surprised to know that in respect to these public-houses the proprietors are Roman Catholics to the extent of over one thousand?
§ Mr. DEVLINThat is what you are at!
§ Mr DONALDIrrespective of the religious views of the people who own these destructive buildings, I want to see this matter remedied. It is asserted that we have no mandate from the people of our country in regard to this Bill. Only this morning I received a letter from the Secretary of the Methodist Council in Ireland asking me, on behalf of 60,000 Irish Methodists, to support this Bill. Surely that is sufficient justification for me to rise at this moment? What a state of affairs, as my hon. Friend said, in this as well as in the neighbouring country! Take 16 of our large towns in England to-day. In 1918 there were 6,835 convictions for drunkardncss. Take the following 12 months. These convictions had increased to 11,392. That, surely, is a state of affairs that cannot go on in either Ireland, England, Wales or Scotland? It is up to this House to remedy that state of affairs. I think we should embody in the Act the right of the people themselves to say whether public-houses shall be set up at every street corner or not, and not leave it to the law to decide that point. I was one of those who claimed that we should have Peace with Honour, and I wanted a peace whereby our men would not be tempted to intoxication. What did I see on the evening when I went out to celebrate the Peace. I found men going home at midnight under the influence of drink. Is that the way to celebrate Peace? I venture to say it is not. Again, you have only to go into the suburbs of London on a Sunday afternoon and evening to find men and women with their children going into these dens of hell, as I call them. They are nothing short of that. Is it a proper way to bring up children to take them into public-houses? Go to a man, irrespective of whether he drinks or not, and ask him if he would like to see his boy or girl enter a public-house. He will reply, 1756 "Certainly not!" I venture to submit that it is up to this House to set a good example to the country by passing this Bill, and thereby giving us a right in Belfast to show a good example to other parts of Ireland.
I know some hon. Members of this House are delighted to go over to Ireland to get a good glass of Irish whisky. I do not envy them that. I do not care whether a man takes a glass or not, but I do say that something will have to be done in the near future with regard to the drinking habits of our country. If we are going to be an efficient nation this is the first step towards that end. I have been a working man myself practically all my life. I know that one-third of the time that a man loses is due to the influence of drink. A man is hardly fit for work in the morning if he is drunk over night; he cannot do his work, because he wants a glass before he starts. Therefore he is not an efficient workman. Any employer will tell you that. When engaging a man the question is often put "does he take drink?" Not infrequently, if the reply is that he does take a little, the employer says, "I will not appoint a man who takes drink."
§ Mr. DEVLINEven a little?
§ Mr. DONALDThat does not matter. I am not accustomed to Parliamentary procedure, or to interruptions when I am speaking, and if the hon. Member will allow mc, I can assure him I will not detain the House long. But this is a question which influences every Member of the House. In Liverpool, in the year 1919, there were 2,714 convictions for drunkenness; in the following year there were 4,652.
§ Mr. DONALDIf the hon. Member will allow me, I will not take up much more time. I know that anything which comes from him, when he gets his chance to speak, will not be in favour of the Bill. That, at any rate, is my experience of the hon. Member. Now let me take the case of Newcastle. In 1918 the charges for drunkenness numbered 1,421; in 1919 they went up to 1,658. Surely that is a matter for the consideration not only of Irishmen, but also of Englishmen and Scotsmen. I hope that a Bill will be brought in by the Government in order that something 1757 may be done with regard to this question. What has taken place in America? America to-day has £400,000,000 as the result of temperance reform in that country. Why should we not do ditto in this country I I beg to support the Measure before the House.
Mr. J. JONESI should not trouble the House with any remarks of mine had this Bill simply confined itself to Ireland, although I am an Irishman. The principle of this Bill is simply "Trying it on the dog." By means of a subterfuge, it introduces a principle which I venture to suggest, expressing the opinion of the class to which I belong after very many years' experience, the people of this country will never accept. The first Clause of the Bill says that, if the majority in a certain district decide to introduce Prohibition, then that majority shall have the right to say to the minority: "You cannot have a drink of intoxicating liquor. You can do anything you like; you can go out with another man's wife; you can exhaust the possibilities of every other kind of vice, but drink is the one thing that must be particularly barred against you." The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken referred to myself as though I were a horrible example. I plead guilty to having a drink when I like, and I am not going to ask any Noble Lady or any hon. Member of this House whether I shall have one or not so long as I can pay for it.
§ Mr. WIGNALLThat is Local Option.
Mr. JONESYes, and it is because it interferes with my individual liberty to have a drink, and because you, as a Pussyfoot, think that I ought not to have it, that I am opposing this Measure. I admit the right of the majority to decide great questions of national importance.
§ Viscountess ASTORThis is one.
Mr. JONESIt is not. I venture to suggest that my taking a glass of beer or of stout or of whiskey does not necessarily interfere with your liberty. It does not interfere with efficiency, because, if that were so, those nations that; have been teetotal from time immemorial should be the most efficient, and the workers in those countries where temperance, so-called, reigns supreme should be the most effective workers. Have the Mahomedans proved their capacity in this direction I They have had a longer civilisation than 1758 we have. They claim to have been civilised before we were. Yet in the long history of man's struggle against natural obstacles they have gone down, and they are the most inefficient nation in the world, because, as soon as a workman proves that he can live on the smell of an oil rag, that will be his wages. Individual liberty is worth something more than mere political theory. In spite of those who may be opposed to me, I am going to express my opinion. I might easily find fault with some of the virtues of which some of my friends boast. I happen to reside in a dock district. You want to curb the power of drink in the districts where it does the most damage. I suggest that the districts where drink does the most damage are just those districts where the people will vote for drink. If you go down into the poor neighbourhoods of the East End of London you will find that the men and women there will vote in favour of the continuation of the existing policy. Does that give you control of the liquor traffic? It does not.
§ Mr. RAFFANThat is not the experience of any Member of the House of Commons.
Mr. JONESIf you take all the votes that have taken place in this country on this matter, you will find that it was opposition to Local Veto that defeated all your previous legislative proposals.
§ Mr. RAFFANPerhaps it was.
Mr. JONESYou will find that so far as the great mass of the workers of this country are concerned, no proposal for Local Veto alone will ever win a constituency. Local Veto in the past has represented a reduction in the number of licences. There are too many public houses. That is quite agreed by everybody. But in this Bill you have got prohibition. Let us be honest. There is no intemperance reformer who does not agree that there are more public houses than are wanted. Well, we do not want a public house at every corner of the street. We want the traffic regulated, controlled, and reformed. But here we have, in the first Clause of the Bill, a proposal that if a certain number of people vote in a certain way, the minority shall not have any right to have even a glass of beer. I say that that proposal will never be 1759 accepted by the workers of this country, in the main. The mover of this Bill wants to force upon the people of Ireland something that they are not prepared to accept. The majority of the people of Ireland are not represented in this Parliament. Why should a minority try to force down the throats of the people who are the majority, something which they are not prepared to accept? As representative of an East of London constituency, I say that we are prepared to vote for a real temperance measure, to see that the drink traffic is properly organised and controlled. But we protest against the idea that a mere majority shall say to the minority, "You cannot have a drink." Then we are told about inefficiency and under-production. We always hear this story when a Bill like this comes up. It is most extraordinary that the people in the countries where the traffic in drink prevails produce more than the people where the drink traffic does not prevail. There is the least percentage of production in the coutries where drink is not allowed at all. There is talk about prohibition in America. Those who can afford to pay for it can get drink in America. I have been told by my friends who have been in America that you can get blind drunk every night there, if you have the means of paying for it. It is only the workmen who eon-not afford it.
§ Viscountess ASTORWho are your friends?
Mr. JONES; I hope I shall never have friends imported from America. I have friends who went out to America who were connected with the labour movement, and they told me that anybody could get drink who could afford to pay for it.
§ Viscountess ASTORYou said they got drunk every night.
§ Mr. DEVLINBecause they were your friends they did not?
Mr. JONESThey were trying to understand the country in which they found themselves. I say, with regard to this Bill, that it introduces an insidious principle, and it is going to continue that principle to the disadvantage of the 1760 individual worker. That is the man it will affect. All these laws strike hardest at the working men. If a man is poor he is hit by all these restricted laws, but a man can evade them if he has the cash. Therefore, whatever the consequences may be, I oppose this kind of legislation, whilst I am in favour of the best kind of temperance legislation, and that is organisation of the drink traffic on such a basis that the public house can be turned into a real house for the people.
§ Mr. McGUFFINThe hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) spoke of the lack of argument in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder. I do not think he himself has given us any argument for the attitude he takes up. I do not think the social aspect of the question requires to be debated. I should have thought his own experience would at least have convinced him that it was not necessary to introduce moral and social arguments in support of the Bill. I do not think he was argumentative. He has not left us much to reply to. He pleaded for the trade without showing reason why the Bill should not be adopted. It is a democratic Measure, and as a democrat, I support it. I have been associated all my life with the class of people this Bill is intended to help. If the hon. Member had been associated with the class of people who are demoralised by strong drink, he would know that very little could be urged against the Bill from the moral or the social standpoint. You see people going out into the city with wages quite sufficient to support their homes in comfort, but when you get to the home you find it a nest of destitution and misery. What has occasioned it? The temptation that is placed in the way of those who might otherwise be sober and virtuous. There is no use in saying the Bill will not achieve the purpose we have in view. We hope it will, and I think our experience during the War of the limitation of the sale of liquor is a proof that it will, and if you lessen the temptation you will have corresponding results. It has been urged that we are forgetful of the claims of the trade. I, for one, am not. I am not a convert to the principle of compensation. When I appeared before my constituents I said I was convinced that it was only justice to the publican that he should be compensated if it was proposed to confiscate his property. I adhere to that, and 1761 I regret that it was not possible to introduce such a Clause, but the Bill would have been ruled out of order if it had been introduced. We are sorry we were not able to please the hon. Member in respect of this matter, for I, at least, and I am sure the great proportion of my colleagues, would favour the principle of compensation. I am not out against the publican as a publican. You will find good-natured, benevolent men in the trade. I was talking to a deputation of them only a fortnight ago. They recognised that there was a reason why there should be introduced a Bill for the restriction of licences. They recognised that there were far too many public-houses, and they were prepared to adopt any means for their reduction, and they even went so far as to say that if a principle were introduced by which they could compensate one another on the limitation of licences they were prepared to accept it. They are practically assenting to our case in so saying, for they are admitting practically the immorality if the trade. We have too many public-houses in Belfast—there is practically one at every corner. It is a lamentable state of affairs, and is it beyond the wit of this House to remedy a situation like that. We have a strong case in so far as Belfast is concerned, but our case is not confined to Belfast, for it relates to the whole of Ireland. There is an enormous consumption of drink and a fearful expenditure, of money in Ireland, out of all proportion, perhaps, to what is taking place either in England or in Scotland. We appeal to the House not to lose sight of the moral and social argument which has only recently been presented by the hon. Member (Viscountess Aster),
Lieut.-Colonel ALLENThe hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) rather gave the impression that this is almost the first time the question of local veto has been introduced, but I have no doubt that there were very intelligent Members in this House from the year 1880 onwards. In 1880 the House of Commons adopted a local veto Resolution by a majority of 26, in 1881 by a majority of 42, in 1883 by a majority of 87, and in 1893 by 95. The Government then embodied a veto power in the Local Control Bill. In 1908 it embodied it in the Asquith Licensing Bill which was passed by the Commons by a two-thirds majority. In 1913, the Commons passed the Scottish Local Veto 1762 Act, and strange as it may appear, on that occasion those who were present of my hon. Friends from other parts of Ireland voted with the Government, and I find included in the names of those who voted on that occasion for local veto, Messrs. Dillon, Healy, Flavin, the late Mr. John Redmond, the late Mr. William Redmond, and so on.
§ Mr. DEVLIN; Did you find me there?
Lieut.-Colonel ALLENNo I am sorry you were not, but the names which I have given are representative of the party which the hon. Member represents. I believe that I know the reason why they voted as they did on that occasion. They were part and parcel of the Government then in office, and it was their business to support that Government, because that Government had decided to sell the people of Ulster. Now they say that what is a good thing for the people of Scotland is a very bad thing in Ireland.
§ Mr. DEVLINYou voted against the Scotch Bill.
§ Mr. DEVLINCarson did.
Lieut.-Colonel ALLENHad I been present as a Member I would have voted for it. I do not change my opinions as opportunists would. It is said that there is no demand for local veto. When you consider that in some towns in Ireland for every eleven houses there is one public-house, that is a great reason and a great moral demand for a discontinuance of that state of things. We can hardly believe it possible that in some places in Ireland there is a public-house for every sixteen inhabitants. That is a most disgraceful state of things.
§ Mr. DEVLINWho put them there? The British Government—your party.
Lieut.-Colonel ALLENI was very much interested in the Report of the Departmental Committee on the question of State Control of the drink traffic in Ireland. That Committee consisted of Members of all parties. The Scottish and English Committees brought in a report on State Control, but the Irish Committee came to the conclusion that State Control could hardly be exercised 1763 in Ireland. They also came to the conclusion that there were far too many public-houses in Ireland, and that they could easily reduce that number by one half. A member of that Committee (Mr. T. O'Donnell, M.P.) belonged to the same party as the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin), and he said in some reservations on the report:
The drink traffic as it exists in Ireland to-day is one of the most serious hindrances to national progress,I invite the attention of hon. Members to that expression. If that is not a demand for the reduction of public-houses, what is?
Lieut.-Colonel ALLENHe goes on to say:
To lessen its ravages, to confine and limit its evil influence in the manner suggested in the alternative scheme would be such a great national blessing. …The human wrecks, physical and moral, which one sees in our cities and towns, the ruined homes, the squalor, poverty and decay, the neglected, underfed and diseased children, ail present a spectacle calling for immediate and radical treatment.That is a reserved statement by a Member of the party opposite. Seventy-five per cent. of the people in our workhouses in Ireland are there through drink.
Lieut.-Colonel ALLENIt is well known that pauperism follows the public-house. Where there is a large number of public houses in Ireland we find that pauperism is the greatest. It is the same thing in regard to our gaols. Sixty or seventy per cent. of those in our gaols in Ireland are there through drink. Yet we find sensible Members like my hon. Friend (Mr. Devlin) saying that this is not a Bill that ought to be introduced. No one can deny from statistics that have been published from time to time that we have far too many public-houses in Ireland, and this is a way of remedying it. This is a question of local control, local legislation, local powers, local option. If the people of any particular district do not want to reduce the number of public-houses they have only to say so, by a majority, but that is not an argument why, if in another district they desire to reduce the public-houses, they should not have the opportunity of saying so and getting rid of this evil in our midst, I 1764 hope the House will view this Bill sympathetically, and give us an opportunity in Ireland of taking away the stain which is caused by drink in that country.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has used arguments, not in favour of this Bill, but in favour of another Bill for reducing the number of public-houses in Ireland. This Bill would not reduce the number of public-housas, but it might have the effect of abolishing altogether public-houses in one particular area while allowing them to continue or even to be extended in another area. We understand that this is only the thin end of the wedge. A hon. Member has spoken of the very great evils which have followed the evil habit, as I think it is, of drinking. Nobody regrets more than I do that a very large number of the people in Ireland apparently are addicted to the habit of drinking. When I say "addicted to drink" I do not mean that they are drunk in the police court sense, but that they really are drunk. What is the remedy? Not this Bill. Let the supporters of the Bill set an example, in the workshop and in other places. Let anyone look back. Sixty or seventy years ago it was the custom for people who, perhaps, in those days were called the upper classes, to drink one or two bottles of port after dinner. There were, I think, men who were called one-bottle men, two-bottle men, and three-bottle men, and sometimes attendants came in and removed their masters from under the table. That has all disappeared, but not by legislation. It disappeared because there had been good examples set, or because it had become bad form to do that sort of thing. Why should that not spread? I think it is spreading. I remember that when I first joined this House I used always to walk home in the evening, and my way lay past Wellington Barracks. In those days we sat later. We never got away from the House until 12.30, and sometimes we were later. I never missed seeing a patrol of a corporal and a couple of men who paced up and down Wellington Barracks in order to take home the soldiers who have had too much to drink. During the last ten or twelve years that has disappeared, and now you never see such a thing. I admit that in the last year I 1765 have seen one or two cases. I do not know whether they have arisen from peace celebrations or not. I have seen during the last year or two one or two cases, but nothing like what I used to see in the old days, and I think that experience will be borne out by hon. Members generally as to London but I do not Know much about the town in the north. The hon. Member (Mr Donald) quoted statistics as to convictions in Bristol and Liverpool, but that is no argument on a Bill dealing only with Ireland.
§ Mr. DONALDI hope when we discuss the Home Rule Bill that the right hon. Gentleman will not take part in the Debate.
§ Mr. DEVLINI hope he will.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI shall take part in the Home Rule Debate and vote against it An hon. Gentleman opposite deplored the result of the last General Election, and seems to think if this Bill had been in existence that would have been altered. He pointed out that we passed a Bill of this kind for Scotland, but because we have done one foolish thing is no reason why we should do another. We do not know yet what is going to happen in Scotland. A good many hon. Members regretted that there is no monetary compensation provided in this Bill, and said that it could not be inserted. They could have put in a clause providing, if the Bill became law, that the teetotallers or those who voted for the Bill should compensate the publicans out of their own pockets. The question of area was compensate the publicans out of their Constituency of the hon. Member for Falls might decide not to go dry. Then there will not be any local veto there.
§ Mr. DEVLINAnd they would all come down to me.
§ Sir F. BANBURYYes, and they could indulge in their bad habits. There is no provision as to fairs. I unfortunately have not been there, but I understand there are a great many fairs in Ireland. We will say there happens to be a horse fair in a prohibited area. I have always understood that when one Irishman sells another Irishman a horse they adjourn somewhere and have a drink. What would happen under this Bill It would 1766 have an extremely bad effect upon one of the principal trades in Ireland, which is selling horses to Englishmen who do not know so much about them as the Irishmen do. Then we come to the question about Home Rule. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Raffan) said he was in favour of self-determination. I am not; I do not believe in self-determination. I do not quite know what it is, and I do not believe anybody else does either; but the hon. Member who is in favour of self-determination says the Bill is a step in the direction of Home Rule. I am against Home Rule, and therefore, if this Bill is a step in the direction of Home Rule, I should have to oppose it on that ground alone. An hon. Gentleman talked about the introduction of children into public-houses. I admit it is not nice or Christian, or good for children to be taken into public-houses, but there again example comes in, and here in England we passed the Children's Act, which prohibited children under a certain age being taken into public-houses.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is another point. I have always been an ardent supporter of the Ulster party, and supposing their leader asked me to stay at a hotel in Belfast, am I not to have a glass of sherry if I want it?
§ Mr. DEVLIN; You will have to come to me for it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt is said that English Members ought not to interfere in this discussion, but that is one of the reasons which prompts me to get up. I hold that we are part of a great Empire and that there is no such thing as a Scotch Member or an Irish Member or an English Member. We are all Members of Parliament for the Empire, and therefore I say that that argument against English Members intervening in an Irish Debate is a wrong one. Now there are good results from a moderate consumption of alcoholic liquor. I remember very well a very interesting experiment which was tried by the "Field" newspaper about 25 years' ago, when there was a a great discussion as to whether or not men working in a harvest field could do a harder day's work in harvesting corn or hay if they had beer to drink or if they had water Several people wrote letters about it, and 1767 eventually it was determined to have a trial. A certain number of men were put in one field, and a certain number in another. Some were supplied with beer and some with water. Which does the House think won? [HON. MEMBERS: "Water!"] Hon. Members are quite wrong. It was the beer that won, and it shows that a moderate consumption of beer is an advantage. I have found it myself. I very often do hard work in the harvest field and I must admit I have always been very glad to come back and have something to drink. An hon. Member gave the number of landlords in Ireland and said there were a number of Catholics. What on earth has that got to do with this? I think I have said enough to show that this is a Bill which should not be passed after a short discussion on a Friday afternoon.
§ Mr. W. COOTErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Mr. BARTLEY DENNISSI think every member in this House realises the evil that results from excessive drinking, and would be ready to pass any measure which would obviate the evil; but this particular Bill advocates a system which proposes the most futile method of proceeding which has ever been brought before the House. I happen to live on the edge of a very small urban area in Middlesex, and when the Liquor Control Board was set up they restricted the areas of drink in Middlesex, but not in Buckinghamshire. The result was that as the place where I live is on the borders of Buckinghamshire, only separated by a small stream, all the people in London who are accustomed to take too much drink came to the place, crossed the bridge into Buckinghamshire, and 1768 drank all day until late at night, and were found by the police in a drunken condition in the road. They were not the inhabitants of the place where I live or of Buckinghamshire, and those people nothing could deter from drink except absolute prohibition. Those are people with whom it is impossible to deal. There is the great question whether everyone else shall be prohibited from drink in order that that very small minority shall be saved from themselves, or whether proceedings shall be taken against them to prevent them from getting drunk by putting them into institutions. If one goes to France one never finds any question of prohibition.
§ It being Five of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood Adjourned.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.