Lords Sitting of 26 November 1912

Preamble
The Viscount PEEL—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15).

Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order.

Marriages Provisional Order.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY (GRIMSBY FISH DOCK) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition against amendment of; of the Bathgate Town Council.

NORFOLK FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, this Bill was introduced in the House of a Commons on May 22 and met at that time with considerable opposition. Negotiations were entered into and they were very protracted, chiefly owing to the illness of Mr. G. H. Roberts, the Member for Norwich, who was supporting the principal objectors to it. As a matter of fact, a compromise was arrived at which allows the Bill to proceed as an unopposed measure, and I therefore hope that your Lordships will consent to suspend the Standing Order and allow the Bill to be read a second time.
Moved, That the Order made on the 24th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 4th day of July next" be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for Tuesday next.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the House is the one moved by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in subsection (2) of Clause 2, to leave out the words "a no-change resolution" and to insert "a disinterested management resolution." The Question is whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part.
EARL GREY: As has already been explained, the object of this Bill is to transfer the discretionary power now vested in the Licensing Courts to the people. That has a fine Liberal smack about it. But when it is realised that under this Bill the people will be prohibited from using their discretionary power in the way that they may desire, I think it will be obvious that this Bill does not show that trust in the people which one would have expected to find in a measure issuing from a so-called Liberal and Progressive Government. The speech of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill shows that he has a desire to prohibit, but has a strange reluctance to regulate. He wishes to veto, but is afraid to trust. Now unless we succeed in securing the adoption of an Amendment in this Bill which will give the people the power, when they so desire, to insist on the disinterested management of the licensed houses in their respective areas, I maintain that this Bill will be a bad Bill, a retrograde Bill, and a Bill really not worthy of the support of those who have at heart the well-being of the people. For I maintain that if this Bill is passed unamended it will stereotype the worst form of public-houses, it will check improvement, it will put a direct premium upon heavy drinking, and will be of no use where it is most required, and that is in crowded centres.
I believe every one who has made himself conversant with the literature on the temperance question and who has addressed an impartial mind to the study of this subject must be convinced that efforts to prohibit the sale of drink in crowded communities have invariably led to the worst results. It has led to the nullification of law, and to widespread demoralisation and corruption. We can make a bad Bill into a good Bill by securing for the people freedom to apply disinterested manage-

1051
ment to the houses in their respective districts. Disinterested management was strongly supported while the Bill was before the Scottish Grand Committee. It was thrown out by a small majority—28 to 23—and that minority of 23 included several influential supporters of His Majesty's Government. When the Bill came to the Report stage Mr. Sherwell, who has done more for temperance reform than almost any other person, refused to take any part in the debate or to move an Amendment in favour of disinterested management because he regarded it as perfectly hopeless to do so. He said that after what took place in the Committee he was left with the conviction that it was perfectly hopeless to attempt to argue the question on its merits or to get a pronouncement in the Division Lobby on the merits of the question; and owing to the great pressure exercised by the Government, through the Whips and particularly through the Scottish Whips, several Members voted against disinterested management who had assured him privately that on the merits they were in favour of it. He went on to state that he was simply refraining from moving any Amendment again because he was absolutely satisfied from the attitude and tone of the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for Scotland that, however overwhelming might be the arguments for the inclusion of this option, he would not consent to it, and under the ordinary Party pressure an over whelming majority would vote against the Amendment.
While I have been absent from this country in Canada a Constitutional revolution has taken place which has deprived this House of the power of safeguarding the liberties of the people in the way that it used to do. But we still have some powers left, and I appeal to the House to-day that they should, so far as possible, safeguard the liberties of the people and secure for the people the power of insisting that the licensed houses in their districts should be brought under the principle of disinterested management when they wish them to be so brought. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill threw out a double challenge to me. In his hope that the supporters of the disinterested principle would disagree to such an extent as to make it possible for him to refuse our appeal, he assumed that I would bring a new element of difference into the discussion. I can assure the noble Earl that
1052
he is completely mistaken. It is true that I prefer Lord Balfour's Amendment to that standing in the name of Lord Salisbury, but I attach such great importance to the principle of disinterested management being inserted in this Bill that I regard the method by which it is done as a matter of comparative non-importance. I sincerely hope that before this Bill proceeds to the Report stage the supporters of the principle of disinterested management will have arrived by mutual concessions at a common agreement as to the way in which this principle should be inserted in the Bill.
It is true that I prefer Lord Balfour's Amendment to Lord Salisbury's. Although 1 at first preferred the idea of having a ballot paper with four options, when it was explained to me by people who had given a great deal of attention to the subject from every point of view that four options would operate in favour of the trade, while three options, as the noble Earl remarked yesterday, might possibly work in favour of the principle of disinterested manage-merit, I have no hesitation in saying that, if that is correct, I certainly prefer the form of ballot paper which might be expected to work in favour of disinterested management. But that is a detail. Whether we have four options or three options I do not myself very much care. But there is a part of Lord Salisbury's Amendment which I sincerely hope he may consent to reconsider. While I listened most sympathetically as he dilated upon the possible inconvenience of handing over the whole of a new district at one time from the existing system to disinterested management, I yet do think that there are very strong objections against importing into this Bill, the principle of which is to trust the people, Amendments which will limit and perhaps nullify the use they may make of their discretion. To give the licensing authority the power to override the views of the people by insisting that the licensing authority should not be obliged to give a monopoly is, I think, a dangerous Amendment to move. I am most anxious that this Bill should be passed with this disinterested management principle in it, but if we were to send it down from this House saddled with fan Amendment that certainly violates the fundamental principle of the Bill. I should be very much alarmed lest the Bill should be lost altogether. So if we desire to make this Bill a good Bill by securing the assent

1053
of this House to the inclusion of an Amendment which will give the people the power of insisting upon disinterested management, I think we ought to send that disinterested management Amendment down in a form that will be acceptable to the other House.
We must also remember this. How are the licensing authorities elected? They are elected by the council, who are elected by the people. Although I speak with great deference as an Englishman on a Scottish matter, I dare say there are Scottish Lords in this House who know perfectly well that the elections for the councils which elect the bailies come very greatly under trade influence, and, if that is so, it is doubly undesirable that the licensing authority should have power to refuse to implement the declared will of the people. If Lord Salisbury will allow me to say so, I rather criticise his plan for the appropriation of the profits. I have been connected with this Trust movement from its earliest inception. I have visited places in Scotland where I have found that out of the profits of one monopoly public-house the village has been provided with a beautiful bowling-green, has been lit by electricity, and supplied with the services of a certificated village nurse—all, as I say, out of the profits of the local public-house; and the apprehension is felt by many of our friends that if you allow the profits of such a public-house to be spent in the locality there is a tendency that people will go to the public-house and have one glass more "in order to get a cricket ground," and so on. The workers in this movement, those men who have given years of work to this question, are absolutely solid on this point. They are all agreed that it is desirable to appropriate any profits that may be made in houses under disinterested management to a national fund, and then they should be divided on some principle of equity between the various areas independently of the amount of drink they consume, so that a teetotal area would get its share. It is felt that if this fund were set up there would be no temptation to any one to go into a public-house and drink more than is good for him. There is one other word I should like to say on Lord Salisbury's Amendment. A doubt exists as to the, meaning of his compensation proposals. I certainly understood his speech to mean that compensation should be paid out of the profits of the houses under disinterested management.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly.
EARL GREY: I am not quite sure that the wording of the noble Marquess's Amendment justifies that interpretation. But I understood from his speech that that was what he meant.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Out of the surplus profits.
EARL GREY: If that could be adopted by the House it certainly would help to solve the question of compensation. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has expressed great doubt whether schemes for disinterested management work successfully. He is troubled about finance, and he threw at my head his own county of Worcestershire, where he said a Trust company, to which no doubt he is a subscriber as he is to all good movements in his county, had gone into liquidation. But why had it gone into liquidation? It went into liquidation because it found that it was good business to amalgamate the two houses which it owned and which were both profitable houses in the People's Refreshment-house Association, which has over 120 public-houses under its management. The noble Earl, who ought to have been aware of that fact, rather misled the House with that reference. Any one who did not know what I know about the Worcestershire Public-house Trust Company would have thought that the Trust movement in Worcestershire had been a complete failure. I believe I am correct in saying that the Worcestershire Public-house Trust Company in its early career did make an unfortunate purchase of an unsuitable public-house. But, as I have said, it has gone into liquidation because it realised that, in accordance with the universal experience elsewhere, it is desirable that Trust houses should be managed by an administration which has a large number of houses to control.
Ten years ago when I was instrumental in starting Public-house Trust Companies in most of the counties in England with the object of establishing a ring fence round existing houses so that all new licences hereafter created might be handed over to a Trust company for disinterested management, we naturally made mistakes. These different county companies found it difficult to secure houses, and they had only

1055
two or three or four houses to administer. It was realised while I was in Canada that this form of administration was a very costly and ineffective one. Consequently the counties near London—the counties of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Middlesex, and Hertfordshire—amalgamated their separate Trust companies into one united company, and the county companies which, when they were working singly, were a source of great anxiety bordering on failure became, when united, a powerful and successful organisation.
The hope has been expressed that I will take advantage of the opportunity I have in addressing your Lordships to acquaint you with some instances of the success attending the principle of disinterested management applied to public-houses. I will, if you will allow me, point out that the Home Counties Public-house Trust Company, which has over thirty-five houses, finds no difficulty in earning the dividend it requires, although it has not the advantage of monopoly except in certain rural districts. It is earning over 9 and 10 per cent. I do not know a better gilt-edged security. It has to pay 5 per cent., but it earns surplus profits of more than double the amount required to enable it to pay this 5 per cent. dividend. How can I describe to your Lordships what is the effect of the management of these houses? I will take you to one house called the Horse and Waggon, on Ridge Hill, ten miles out of London. The noble Marquess passes it every time he goes to Hatfield. That is a monopoly house. Well, two old women in that neighbourhood who were habitual drunkards have been absolutely cured by that public-house, because they are not served. These two women, who were a source of great anxiety to their friends and a great trouble to themselves, have become respectable and self-supporting citizens simply because the Trust public-house absolutely refused to serve them with a drop of liquor.
We have done the same thing with our Trust houses in Glasgow. In 1904 when the first three Trust houses were established there the number of refusals to serve drink was very large, and the citizens of Glasgow took pains to follow about forty cases of persons who had been refused drink at our three Trust public-houses. They followed them into other public-houses, where they got as much
1056
drink as they wanted. That is an illustration which shows how desirable it is to have that monopoly which obtains in the neighbourhood of Hatfield. The number of refusals now in the Trust houses in Glasgow is very small, because people have found that it is useless to go to a Trust house to obtain liquor when it is undesirable that they should be served with additional drink. Another instance. Our object in trying to reform the public-house is that we realise that the public-house is in many cases the only place where the working-man can go for rest, refreshment, and recreation, and to take away the only alternative he has to the wretched conditions of his home environments is, I say, an unkindness which I do not think any man who has at heart the well-being of the people would like to make himself responsible for. What we want is to Humanise, civilise, and improve the public-house. There are three of these houses within five miles of where your Lordships are sitting to which I should be delighted to take any of your Lordships, where we have substituted hot meals for alcoholic drinks.
There was one public-house called the Lightship Inn, just opposite the Gas, Light and Coke Company's works in the East of London. I visited it last June. I found the dining-room crammed with working-men, all having a good hot meal, many of them having a glass of beer with it, and why should not they have it just as much as your Lordships enjoy wine with Your dinner. At the time this public-house was taken over by the Trust organisation it had nothing practically but an alcoholic trade, and the brewer who owned it paid a large fine to the landlord in order to get out of a bad bargain. It was handed over to the Trust organisation. They made a handsome profit. But how? Not out of alcohol, but out of hot meals. They served 90,000 odd hot meals during the year ended last June, and I asked the manager the other day how he was getting on and he said they were increasing the dining-room accommodation because the demand for food was so great. The demand had increased by about 50 per cent. over the 90,000 meals served in the year before my visit. There are other houses doing the same thing. Before we started this movement the alcoholic trade was from 80 to 85 per cent. of the sale in the thirty-five houses under the management of the Home Counties Public-house Trust Com-

1057
pany. In 1912 the alcoholic trade was 52 per cent., and in the houses which had been under the control of this Trust organisation for two years the alcoholic trade has gone down to 30 per cent. and we hope to get it still lower. How is this done? If you go into one of these Trust houses you will not find any trade advertisements. You will find carefully selected pictures, and instead of the fumes of an ordinary public-house you will find the windows open and in the summer the place fragrant with the smell of flowers. This organisation has over 200 employees, not one of whom has ever been connected with the trade. Most of them are servants taken from the best establishments. I believe there is a very good cook at one of them who comes from Hatfield. The manager and his wife help to introduce a tone of respectability and refinement which has an indirect influence over the whole of the locality.
It is our ambition to civilise and to enlighten and to beautify the life of the people through reformed public-houses, and I am sure we can do it. But this Bill is brought forward by people who think it wrong to beautify the life of the people if it is connected in any way with a glass of beer. This is a bad Bill because it is dead in the face of all experience and is based upon a distrust of the people, which I say I am more than surprised to find coming from a so-called Liberal Government. I might mention a ease in Scotland. There is a village inn near Loch Lomond where the travelling van men before the house was taken over by the Trust organisation used always to stay and soak for hours, to the great inconvenience of the people who were waiting for the goods they were carrying. Now it is the custom to serve hot meals there, and the van men, now that they have the option of consuming hot meals, do not hesitate to take advantage of that option, and some of the employers are so pleased with the difference it has made in the punctuality with which goods are delivered that they themselves pay for the hot meal for their van men.
We are still in the experimental stage. That I admit. But we have learned a great deal during the last ten years, and we have learned this, that if we only have a sufficient number of houses to control we can improve the condition of public-houses and greatly increase the percentage
1058
of the sale of non-alcoholic as compared with that of alcoholic drink. I dare say I may be told that some of the Trust houses in Fifeshire have been instrumental in encouraging an undue sale of drink. That may be true. But these houses are all managed by their own little committees, who are responsible for all the duties connected with the house and are not under any wise system of organised control. To show how difficult temperance questions are I may mention t hat about nine years ago I visited one of these Trust houses in Fifeshire. It was run by a committee of miners, and I found to my surprise that they closed it at nine o'clock at night, ten o'clock being the compulsory closing hour, and, as your Lordships are no doubt aware the last hour before the closing hour is the most profitable one to a public-house. When I heard that this house was closed at nine o'clock instead of ten I expressed my surprise. I never shall forget the reply I received. The manager was a miner working-man, and he said, "My committee are all working-men, and they say that the public-house is no place for a man to be loitering in after nine o'clock at night if he is going to put in a good day's work on the morrow." I visited that house two years afterwards and asked how the early closing movement was going on. The manager said they had been obliged to get rid of it. I asked why. He replied that the women would not stand it because their husbands, hating being controlled by compulsory legislation, insisted on using their rights and chinking up to ten o'clock in the neighbouring public-house which was six miles off; so the wives said, "We have to sit up till late at night waiting for our husbands, and we beg and implore you to keep your house open till ten o'clock at night in order that we may get them home at a reasonable hour." That is another reason for monopoly. If you have a monopoly in an area you can have these beneficial regulations extending over the whole of the public-houses, and then you can have a nine o'clock closing hour, if it is thought desirable, and other reforms conducing to temperance can be instituted and carried out with success.
The People's Refreshment-house Association has now over 120 public-houses under its control. It is the largest Trust company in existence. It has now under its control the noble Earl's two houses in Worcestershire; it has paid 5 per cent.

1059
for the last thirteen years with unfailing regularity, and this year it has earned over £4,157 surplus profits, whereas the dividend liability is only £1,357. I submit that the principle of disinterested management under right conditions—and we are learning more and more every day as to how to apply them—will bring a new contentment and a new happiness into the life of the people. I do not know anything sadder than to see these miserable boosingdens which are the only form of refreshment and recreation we give to so many men the conditions of whose life are much worse than we should like to see them, and I think it is our duty to do our utmost to supply them with something better than they have now got. We can do that through disinterested management. I would point out that in Scandinavia, where they have had disinterested management ever since 1868, the people would regard with horror the idea of going back to the system of private licensing. In 1868 there was, I think, one public-house there to every 1,200 of the people. Now under disinterested management there has been such a reduction in the number of houses that they have only got one house to 4,400 people, and I am confident that if your aim is to reduce the number of public-houses you could not adopt a better or surer method of obtaining your wishes than by enabling people to apply the principle of disinterested management to all the houses in their district, which would enable the approved society, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, to suppress a large percentage of these houses and make the others houses into which any lady in the land might go without losing her character.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I approach this difficult question as a convinced believer in the principle of disinterested management. It does, indeed, seem almost obvious to those who desire to promote the cause of temperance that at any rate one of the most effectual means of doing it must he to resort to a system under which licensed premises, if not all at any rate a large number of them, shall be under responsible management, in charge of persons who have no interest in pushing the sale of liquor, with a proper system of examination and auditing of accounts, and under a system which would enable the surplus profits to be made use of to the public advantage. I at any rate infinitely prefer a treatment of
1060
this subject which, instead of taking away the public-houses from those who frequent them and who have no other places of them and who have no other places of recreation to frequent, gives them in their stead houses decently conducted, where the surroundings are bright and attractive, and which any one can frequent without incurring the slightest suspicion of reproach. I will not labour that point further, because it has been fully dealt with in the excellent speech delivered by my noble friend Lord Lytton last night, and again in the interesting speech to which we have just listened from Lord Grey. I do not think I am wrong in suggesting that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is himself, to some extent at all events, a believer in a principle of this kind, for he stated last night, if I remember right, that we were all of us ready to do homage—I think that was the expression he used—to the principle of disinterested management, and I assume that by that he meant something more than lip service to that principle.
The logic of the case put forward by the friends of disinterested management seems to be quite irresistible. How can you defend a proposal under which, on the one hand, you put it in the power of the voters to withdraw entirely from the working-classes the right of going to licensed premises of any kind, and, on the other, you forbid the same voters to afford to the people of the locality the right of having licensed premises managed on the disinterested system? To say that the voters should be given the option of voting for the entire suppression of all public-houses and that they should be denied the alternative of placing all public-houses under a reasonable system of management seems to me, I confess, to be an utter absurdity.
Your Lordships have before you at this moment two different proposals for dealing with this matter—the proposal of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh and the proposal of my noble friend Lord Salisbury. Those proposals differ at several points. There are differences in regard to the voting system; there are differences in regard to the treatment of the surplus profits. Those are, no doubt, important matters, but they do not seem to me, if I may say so, to be vital questions, and I feel little doubt that if we could come to terms upon

1061
more essential points we should find it possible to adjust those less important issues.
The real difference between the proposals of the two noble Lords is this, that whereas Lord Balfour of Burleigh desires to give within the area a complete monopoly to disinterested management, my noble friend Lord Salisbury proposes, on the contrary, to leave a discretion to the licensing authority in so far as existing licences are concerned. The other important difference between them is that whereas Lord Balfour does not contemplate the payment of any compensation, Lord Salisbury desires that a payment of that kind should be made. I confess that as between the two proposals that of my noble friend Lord Salisbury appears to me the most promising and attractive. I like it better, for one reason, because it is a less drastic proposal than that of Lord Balfour, and I believe that we shall stand a better chance of obtaining the recognition of the principle which we all desire to support if it is put before the public in a form which has as little as possible the appearance of severity or intolerance.
I will just notice, in passing, one or two of the arguments that were made use of against my noble friend's proposal. I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill suggested that in the event of my noble friend's proposals being accepted nobody would be found ready to invest capital in a disinterested management house because he might at any moment after the statutory interval find that a non-licence resolution was carried in the area, whereupon his capital would disappear. I do not mean to say that there is nothing in that objection, but I think it would apply very much more supposing Lord Balfour's proposal were to be accepted than it would apply if my noble friend Lord Salisbury's proposal were accepted. Because if you suppose a disinterested management resolution after the whole of the houses in the area have been turned into disinterested management houses, it is quite clear that then the passing of a no-licence resolution would involve something like absolute ruin to the association by which the disinterested management houses had been supported. The risk would be a much slighter one if only a certain number of houses were put under the disinterested management system instead of the whole of them. Then the noble Earl, I think,
1062
said that there was nothing to prevent the Licensing Courts, now, under the existing law, from giving licences on the basis of disinterested management. That may be technically correct. But surely there would be all the difference in the world between a system under which disinterested management would be allowed under the protection and with the encouragement of an Act of Parliament and one under which the thing was merely done in a wholly unofficial and irregular manner. Then Lord Lytton observed last night that unless a monopoly of disinterested management were to be given in the area a disinterested management house could scarcely be expected to hold its own in competition with ordinary public-houses by which it might be surrounded. But, my Lords, we listened to-night to a very interesting statement by Lord Grey which I think established clearly that houses of this description have not only held their own but have held their own triumphantly in the face of the very competition which the noble Earl so much apprehends.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: I did not mean to convey the impression that they could not hold their own in competition, but that they could not adequately carry out the principle of disinterested management, and the instances quoted by Lord Grey to-day are in support of that. The regulations they would want to carry out would be valueless if there were other houses in the neighbourhood in which those regulations were not in force.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid I did not comprehend the noble Earl's meaning. So far as I have been able to follow this debate, the proposal of my noble friend behind me (Lord Salisbury) seems to me the most promising, and I do not think the case which he made in favour of it has really been shaken by anything that has been said. But I confess that unless that proposal receives a reasonable amount of support from those whom I may describe as the supporters of disinterested management in this House, I do not think it would be worth my noble friend's while to press it. To my mind it would be scarcely wise on our part to endeavour to impose on the House a scheme which was on the one hand strenuously resisted by His Majesty's Government, and on the other hand viewed with dislike and suspicion by the advocates of disinterested

1063
management. I must say, however, that my mind was very much relieved by what I understood my noble friend Lord Grey to say on this subject. I understood him to tell the House that although he certainly preferred Lord Balfour's proposal, for reasons which he gave, he was so anxious to obtain the recognition of I he principle of disinterested management in this Bill that he was prepared, if my noble friend went to a Division, to give him his support. If that is the case I certainly venture to express the hope that my noble friend will press his proposal upon the House.
EARL GREY: What I intended to convey was that I attached so much importance to the principle that I am comparatively indifferent to the detail, the method by which it could be applied. But I hoped that it might be possible to effect something in the nature of a compromise between the two Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That was quite what I gathered from my noble friend. As to Lord Balfour's proposal, I say frankly although I would not vote against him, I could not, if he were to divide the House, support him in a proposal to insist upon his much more drastic scheme. My hope is that your Lordships will insert in the Bill the Amendment of my noble friend behind me (Lord Salisbury); and with reference to what was said by my noble friend Lord Grey a moment ago, I feel sure that should he or his friends wish us to consider modifications in Lord Salisbury's proposal, the noble Marquess will be ready to discuss any suggestions of the kind with an open mind. That, then, is the advice which we on this Bench would venture to give to your Lordships—that we should accept the Amendment of Lord Salisbury upon the understanding that in points of detail it may well be reconsidered at a future stage of the Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: It is not without hesitation that one intervenes in a discussion on a Scottish Bill, and I do so to ask one or two questions with an absolutely genuine desire for information. As I followed the course of this debate last night it struck me that we were anxious to do the best we could in the cause of temperance and to make this as good a working Bill as it could be made. First, I should like to associate myself with the noble Marquess
1064
opposite, Lord Salisbury, in his criticism of the voting paper proposed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I hope that at some later stage the noble Lord, if his scheme is persisted in, will explain his voting paper. I confess that. I find it very difficult to understand it myself, and I am in entire sympathy with the noble Marquess opposite in feeling that if I were asked to give a vote on that voting paper I should be in some difficulty. Under the Bill, if you vote for a no-licence resolution and that is not carried the vote counts for a reduction of licences. That is logical. Lord Balfour has sought to get rid of the no-change option and to give a "Yes" or "No" vote instead. As Lord Beauchamp has pointed out, the votes of a minority might carry a proposal under that scheme. Another point has occurred to me—namely, that a vote "No" is very much less effective than a vote "Yes." An elector might think that his vote counted equally whether he voted "Yes" or "No," but the Noes under that scheme are quite ineffective except for the purpose of giving a quota, and an affirmative has more value than a negative vote.
On the question of disinterested management we seem to be agreed that the principle so lucidly explained by Lord Grey is one which we should all most heartily endorse. I do not know on what authority Lord Grey said that this Bill proceeded from those who were enemies of the public-house altogether and wished to see all public-houses closed. So far as that statement has any foundation I personally might he said to be standing here in a white sheet, because that did rather incline to be my view at one time; but I have come to the conclusion that it is not our own province to deny individual liberty to that extent to our fellow citizens, and that we ought to allow them to have reasonable opportunities for obtaining drink if they desire it. We must also remember that the public-house is the club and the recreation ground of most of those who use it. Therefore it is impossible not to be in sympathy with any movement which does not simply slam the door in their faces but which seeks to make the public-house a decent place of recreation to which these men can take their wives, and a place where, above all, they shall not be cursed with incessant pressure to drink more than they want "for the good of the house." It is those

1065
considerations which make me feel that sympathise entirely with the principle of disinterested management.
As between the two Amendments I sympathise more with Lord Balfour's for the reasons which Lord Lytton gave us yesterday, which I think are reasons that have considerable substance—that it is very difficult to work a Trust public-house, a disinterested management public-house, successfully and on the principles which yon want to apply to it when it is in immediate competition with an unrestricted rival next door. For that reason it is difficult to apply this principle to a few public-houses in an area. On that I should like to ask whether there exists, or whether it is certain that there will exist in Scotland at the proper time, a company sufficiently stable and with sufficient capital to take over the management of these public-houses in a district and carry on the business. I do not think anybody would tell us that such a company is in existence now or even in immediate contemplation. It is true that some time elapses before the Act comes into operation, but I should like to know whether even in five years it is certain that there would be in existence in Scotland a company which would be prepared to take this burden, and to take with it the risk of a no-licence resolution being adopted at some future time. The other question which I confess would influence my vote is this. Is this disinterested management resolution to be associated with a scheme of compensation, or is it not? I have not heard that very much dwelt on. But the scheme of the noble Marquess does involve compensation. Why there should be compensation when there is disinterested management and no compensation when there is a complete closing I do not quite know, but I think that is how it would stand if his scheme were adopted. That does not appear to me to have any financial basis, although I think yesterday the noble Marquess hinted at some sentimental basis for it. But I do not think Lord Balfour's scheme involves any compensation, and therefore it agrees with the framework of the Bill.
Those are questions of great importance, and unless one call be satisfied that disinterested management is likely to be carried into effect it is not much use giving people an option to vote on something which is afterwards to be ineffective. I suggest that you might put into the Bill
1066
a provision for disinterested management, and, having arranged the whole of the machinery and how the thing is to work, limit it by making the adoption of that scheme and the possibility of its being selected as a fourth option dependent upon an Order in Council, or whatever corresponds in Scotland to an Order in Council, by the Government of the day, which they would only make if they were satisfied that there existed some company to take over and carry on disinterested management. If that were done it would remove one of the objections to voting on something which is rather in the air, and it would be possible to give power to apply that experiment partially and in districts; and as, after all, it is rather an experiment in this country it might be wise to limit its application in the first instance to certain districts.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I ask leave to interpose for a moment or two, because this is a matter to which I have given attention for a great many years. A good deal has been made evident in the discussion of this Bill as to the opinion of your Lordships, of those at least who have given expression to their opinion, in favour of some form of disinterested management finding a place in the new scheme, but I do not think adequate weight has been laid upon the amount of opinion which has found expression in authoritative quarters in Scotland and which His Majesty's Government will be resisting if they decline to give way at all on this point. I hold in my hand a memorial which was presented to the Secretary for Scotland signed by some fifty men who, it would hardly be wrong to say, are the leading men of thought and action in matters social and ecclesiastical in Scotland—employers of labour, doctors, professors, working men, and persons of all kinds of experience—who beg that the principle of disinterested management may find its place in this Bill. It does seem to me that a Bill which professes to give effect to the wishes of the people of Scotland and which disregards a memorial of that kind on the part of those who have a right to be regarded as the leaders of that opinion is a strange contradiction of terms; and the strength of Scottish opinion on the subject has, perhaps, not been adequately weighed in every quarter.
The principle of disinterested management has been advocated by experts in

1067
such admirable speeches—I refer specially to that of Lord Lytton last night and to that of Lord Grey to-night—that I do not need to dwell for a moment on the advantages which, as I think, all are prepared to find in some principle of disinterested management. But I should like to say this. I have always thought that the key to successful temperance reform is that there should be afforded opportunities for experiments of different kinds in different places. This is one of those things which can be best tested by experimental use under different kinds of population. It seems to me that the adoption of either of the proposals before us to-night would atleast offer some opportunity for these experiments being tried in the right sort of way, without endeavouring first to bring them into operation over any wide extent of country unless there were shown to be a desire for it, which I imagine will not be shown at first. It will take time. The success of the principle has been shown abundantly, as Lord Lytton stated last night, in Sweden and Norway. It has also been shown in some of our dependencies and in other places abroad, and it has been proved in England and Scotland under conditions very much less favourable than the conditions under which it would be tried if the Amendment is accepted. The fact that the principle has met with success in the face of difficulties gives us abundant ground for believing that that success would be far greater if the conditions were rendered easier, as they would be by the Amendment before us. I think I am right in saying that in Scotland 50, and in England 270 or 280, such experiments have been made, and very few of them have been really unsuccessful, except where some definite reason can be shown for it, either in respect to personal questions which have arisen, or in respect to the isolated circumstances of a particular house and the difficulties of its position in view of the rivalry of houses around it, or because of other local and temporary and passing reasons. But, I say again, I think a far greater measure of success could be looked for if the principle were adopted under conditions such as this Amendment would give us.
When we come to the difference between the two Amendments and to decide which to give one's support to, I confess I must throw such weight as I possess in favour of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord
1068
Balfour. I perfectly see what is to be said plausibly and on the surface as regards the "less drastic" Amendment, as the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition characterised it, standing in the name of Lord Salisbury. My opinion is that it would be so little drastic that it would in some places fail to come into operation at all. We are reminded that we need not be afraid of that, though the magistrates might decline on their own initiative, even when a vote had been expressed, to transfer some existing house to the disinterested management to which they would have the power to transfer it. We have been told that we need not be afraid, because all the new licences must be, even under Lord Salisbury's Amendment, given to disinterested management. I would ask how many new licences are being given in England or Scotland in the licensing areas to-day. Hardly any; and I feel sure that if you intend to wait for these new licences you will literally have to wait till the Greek Kalends before you will find any opportunity of exercising this principle in many areas throughout the land. For, as it seems to me, we should have to wait for the magistrates to take the somewhat unpopular step of abolishing the licence, so to speak, of a particular licensee, and transferring his house to disinterested management, and to wait for the opportunity, which may never occur, of new licences being asked for when the opportunity arose. Therefore I think we ought to be on our guard lest by following the tempting line of saying we will be less drastic at first we should fail to make the real step which counts. Between the two Amendments I cast my vote for that of Lord Balfour, but I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Grey, in saying that, whatever happens, let us get this principle inserted in the Bill, so that Parliament may be said to have given its sanction to the principle of disinterested management. That that can be refused in the face of the kind of appeal that has been made from those in touch with the working classes in Scotland seems to me almost incredible.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): The last three speeches which have been delivered have brought back the debate to the real point at issue—namely, whether it is or is not a reasonable thing that a particular option in favour of disinterested manage-

1069
ment should be inserted in this Bill, and not whether that form of management is or is not a desirable thing. Although I am sure we all listened with great interest to the speech of my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Earl Grey), he and the other speakers, with a pardonable desire to state the case as fully as possible, did not confine themselves to the question of the insertion of an option in this Bill but dealt with the merits of disinterested management as a whole. Attention has been drawn to the difference of opinion that exists between those who are in favour of some amendment in the Bill—a difference of opinion which, as the most rev. Primate has pointed out, is somewhat deep seated. Certainly I can assure the House that I do not allude to it at all by way of taunt. This is not in any sense a Party question, and the fact that the noble Lords who take different views both sit on the Opposition side of the House does not cause me in any way to rejoice that a difference of opinion should exist. But the fact that so marked a difference of opinion does exist is relevant when one comes to consider the insertion in this Bill of a clause dealing with either one scheme or the other.
It is, perhaps, somewhat interesting to remark that this is a Scottish Bill, that the subject which we are discussing is that of disinterested management, and that the noble Lord who in this House has the most right to speak on behalf of serious opinion in Scotland has a scheme and that that scheme is also favoured by the two noble Lords who have the best right in this House to speak on the subject of disinterested management—I mean, of course, Lord Lytton and Lord Grey. That of itself might appear to point to the conclusion that if either scheme were to be adopted Lord Balfour's has the strongest backing behind it. Perhaps I might observe in passing—because I am obliged to say, as I shall explain in a moment, on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we do not think it is appropriate to insert either of the Amendments in the Bill—that in any case I should regard with some terror the form of ballot paper proposed by my noble friend Lord Balfour. It appears to me in its dealing with figures to have many of the qualities of a nightmare about it, as was pointed out by my noble friend in charge of the Bill, and perhaps, when the consultations and con-
1070
siderations which I understand will take place before another stage of the Bill between those who represent the two camps on the subject have taken place, some simpler form of ballot paper may be evolved even if the main lines of the noble Lord are followed.
The system of disinterested management has received complete approval from every speaker in the course of this debate, but from the Government point of view I dare say my noble friend would say, laudatur et alget, for although we express approval of the system so far as we are concerned we are not prepared to advance it in the Bill. I hope when I have explained our reasons that he, at any rate, will comprehend why we take this course, even though we are in favour of the system in general terms. I said that the system had received general approval; but there are one or two points in connection with it which have not appeared in the course of the debate and which, I think, are worthy of the notice of the House. My noble friend on the Cross Benches looks forward to a day when the system of disinterested management shall have become so popular that it shall be in practice the only system under which public-houses are carried on, and he hopes, I take it, that that day will not be very remote. One cannot help asking, in view of your Lordships' attitude in previous debates on the subject of licensing, what is the view of the House as to the destiny of all the licensed victuallers in England supposing the consummation which the noble Earl desires is brought about soon. As my noble friend behind me pointed out, although compensation has been spoken of in connection with the institution of a system of disinterested management, compensation has not, so far as I am aware, been suggested in the case of a no-licence resolution.
Then, as the noble Earl on the Cross Benches observed, a marked difference of opinion has been expressed in relation to the proper destination of such profits as may be earned. The arguments both ways, I take it, appear to be these. It is argued, on the one hand, that if a small area is allowed to enjoy all the profits that may be earned from such houses there will certainly be said to be, and may he in fact, a temptation on the part of those who use the public-houses to use them too freely in order to earn large sums of

1071
money for local improvements. On the other hand, it is argued that if you place into a central fund to be allocated by superior persons at a distance all the profits from a very large area, then the inhabitants of small areas will so lose interest in the promotion of these disinterested management houses that they will not take the trouble to come forward as the noble Earl desires that they should, under either of the Amendments. The noble Marquess opposite also made a gallant attempt to dispose of the difficulty which my noble friend behind me has mentioned—namely, the risk to which a company would be liable in the event of a no-licence resolution being passed, say, within ten years of the foundation of houses under disinterested management. I think it will be generally agreed that even if an average of 10 per cent., which is a considerable profit, could be earned during the ten years of the life of such a house there would not be nearly sufficient to form a sinking fund which would compensate the shareholders who put their money into the enterprise, and that is a difficulty which, although, as the noble Marquess pointed out, it would not be an invariable difficulty, yet is one which would have to be faced and which would tend to frighten the investor in these companies.
I have no desire to trouble the House by dwelling on the question of compensation, because the whole matter of the compensation fund comes up on a later Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl opposite. The propositions for compensation in this case are of a somewhat nebulous kind. I understand, however, that the proposition of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is that it is only after paying the 4 per cent. limited dividend that a fund could be created which would make a certain provision. It could not, I think, from the nature of the case be a very large one, and certainly not if a sinking fund of the amount I mentioned a moment ago had been established. But, at any rate, something or other would be available for the purposes of compensation. I will not dwell upon that because the matter, as I say, has been left somewhat vague.
Then we come to the difference of opinion between the two schools on the very important matter of the necessity or the reverse of an actual monopoly. That is a matter obviously of the first im-
1072
portance, although it has been somewhat slurred over and treated as a matter of detail by some speakers. But we are able to recognise that not only the noble Earl on the Cross Benches but also the noble Earl opposite, and, unless I am mistaken, also Mr. Sherwell (a great authority on these matters) speaking in the House of Commons, treated the existence of such a monopoly as an absolute necessity if the scheme is to be of large application and anything like a serious success. Now, my Lords, it appears to us that it is a difficult matter to ask the Government to insert a clause of this kind in a Government Bill simply—I do not think it amounts to very much more—to carry on a propaganda even though those who are in favour of the carrying on of that propaganda are not entirely agreed as to the necessary conditions under which it must be carried on or the proper methods which must of necessity be employed to advance it.
The noble Earl most frankly stated that the whole thing must be regarded at present as being in an experimental stage. Therefore what we are asked to do is to give certain assistance of a moral kind in inducing people to embark in this particular experiment under some conditions which are not very clearly understood. I should have thought that from the point of view of those who are most interested in this propaganda it would have been safer to rely still for a time on the action of public opinion in this matter. As has been pointed out, in all cases except where a no-licence resolution is carried there is nothing whatever to prevent a licensing authority giving the most absolute fair play, though it cannot give a preference or a monopoly, to Trust public-houses; and if the public opinion of the area definitely desires that such experiments should be made, made you may be sure they will be by transfer or otherwise without the power of expressing the definite preference which noble Lords desire to insert in the Bill. Further, suppose in a given instance a disinterested management option is carried, as my noble friend pointed out possibly not by an absolute majority of those voting, and for some reason or another the money is not forthcoming or when the houses are established they do not entirely succeed, would not the fact of such a failure, which I think cannot be altogether left out of

1073
sight, re-act far more severely on the cause of disinterested management if the whole proceedings were carried on under the œgis of an Act of Parliament than if the experiment were being still tried as it is now being tried, and as I am glad to believe ably and successfully tried, under private management? For these reasons, my Lords, it does not seem to us wise further to complicate the Bill and possibly somewhat confuse the public mind by inserting an option of this kind.
After all, the options as they stand in our Bill do not indicate any form of guidance or preference either way. No sort of pressure is supposed to be put on the voters of an area, either to say "Stop as your are," "Reduce the licences," or "Have no licences at all." But if on the invitation of those who are specially and worthily keen on this particular form of improvement this extra option for a particular system is inserted in the Bill, I think it must be taken, and I am quite sure my noble friend on the Cross Benches hopes that it will be taken, as a strong indication on the part of the Government to push forward this particular system. In the circumstances, though not without a certain regret owing to the excellence of the object aimed at, His Majesty's Government are obliged to adhere to the view that the insertion of an option of this kind would not in reality prove to lie an improvement of the Bill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think the House will probably expect that I, as the mover of the Amendment actually under discussion, should say a word or two on at any rate some of the points which have been made during the interesting debate which has taken place. The first thing I have to say is this, that those who are in favour of the abstract principle of disinterested management and of putting it absolutely into practice have, I think, no reason to be dissatisfied with the whole tenor of the discussion which has taken place. Hardly a Peer who has spoken has not said something in favour of the advantages which are offered by this system of the disinterested management of public-houses.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Every single Peer.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Yes; I think without exception every Peer has gone that length. Even the two noble Lords who have spoken for the Government have gone almost out of their way to be civil to the principle and to do homage to it. I can supply them with a better reason, if they will allow me to do so, than they gave why it should not be put into the Bill. The fact of the matter is, the real supporter of this Bill is the prohibitionist. There is nothing the prohibitionist dislikes so much as the improvement of a public-house. From his point of view he is perfectly consistent. He wants to stop us from having anything at all, and some of them go so far as to say that it is a deadly sin to touch the particular article in question. Well, my Lords, that is not the view of the majority of my fellow-countrymen, and my opinion, knowing something about Scotsmen, is this, that if they want what they call a dram they will have it somehow or other, and I think it is better that they should have it in healthy, pleasant, reasonable surroundings than that they should be driven into secret places to get it, where in all probability they will take too much, and where it will be accompanied by other abuses which are extremely difficult to remedy. That, broadly stated, is the reason why I want to see the option of disinterested management put into this Bill, and I think it is very largely the reason why noble Lords opposite dealt with it in such a tender way and found reasons merely in the differences of opinion about particular systems of machinery of voting and a number of other things to show why this option should not be inserted.
My particular proposal has, I think, been prejudiced by the fact that, to put it in a form in which those who advised me most desired, I had to propose drastic changes in the method of voting in the Bill. I still think that my proposals are simpler and better than putting a fourth option into the Schedule as it stands. If we were actually discussing the method of voting I think I could explain satisfactorily to the noble Lords who take an interest in it that the system I propose is at least as simple and much more likely to be effective than the one proposed in the Bill. But I hope I am a reasonably sensible person, and I

1075
know that when I have the Government against me and not much support from noble Lords on the Front Bench on this side of the House it is not practical to go on with the proposal. I therefore say frankly that, as far as this particular scheme of voting and this particular Amendment which is under discussion are concerned, I shall ask leave to withdraw the proposal and not put the House to the trouble of a Division.
But before I sit down I want to say a word or two as to the course which I propose to take in future. Let it be assumed that all drastic changes in the schedule of voting are out of the question, I still venture to think that a proposal on the lines such as I have put in a subsequent Amendment is better than the proposal of the noble Marquess. My main objections to the proposal of the noble Marquess are these. In effect it takes away the real decision from the people and puts it into the hands of the Licensing Bench. It seems to hold out a hope of the local application of the profits made, whatever they may be, which I believe to be a most pernicious and dangerous principle. It also, in my humble opinion, goes further in recognising a vested interest in existing licences than I think is reasonable so far as Scottish conditions are concerned. I do not elaborate this point at this stage, but these are some of the reasons why I find myself unable to support the proposal of the noble Marquess as it stands.
There are two other points of difficulty and of difference which were alluded to by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House—that of compensation, and that of monopoly. So far as monopoly is concerned I confess I do not think that the system of disinterested management can ever be tried under really fair conditions, conditions fair to itself, unless it has a practical monopoly of the class of trade which it is expected to do. I do not say that there should be no hotel or no restaurant, but if you mean the retail sale of wine and spirits and beer over the counter of a public-house, then I say unless you are going to give the unselfish management, a practical monopoly in a particular area you are not going to give it a fair chance of success. I do not say that even under those disadvantages it might, not succeed, but the difficulties will be so
1076
magnified that I do not think it will ever have a fair chance of proving what it can do until you give it at least that amount of monopoly.
So far as compensation is concerned, I think no one has attempted to answer the dilemma put by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I do not think that there is an answer to it. As the Bill stands there is no vote for a period of years unless at the same time the total prohibition may be brought in. I frankly say, in answer to the noble Earl's question, that if there is to be total prohibition in an area and disinterested management is only introduced into that area as a substitute for it after a period of years, then I do not think that the case for compensation at the expense of the disinterested management promoters is very great. But if the Bill is to be changed so that there is to be a different time limit for total prohibition and for reduction of licences, then I think if you put a disinterested management house into the place of an existing house the claim for compensation becomes a great deal stronger. I do not go further than that at the present moment, because I know how much those with whom we have to reckon dislike the idea of any compensation to the holder of a licence. I do not share that view. I want everybody to be treated with perfect fairness so far as we can get to it.
With the consent of the House I propose at this stage to withdraw the particular Amendment under discussion, and, of course, all the consequential Amendments which hang upon it, and to take a few days to consider whether in the circumstances and in the light of the discussion that we have had it is possible to frame another Amendment for a subsequent stage which will put the clear issue between this side of the House and those responsible for the Bill as to whether or not we shall insert a disinterested management option. That will clear the question of all difficulties of side voting and so on, and we shall be able to get a clear issue and see whether what is the obvious intention of the House—to have this experiment tried—can be given effect to. In those circumstances I have to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the particular Amendment that stands in my name.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I have heard with extreme regret the noble Lord express his desire to withdraw his Amendment, and I hope we are to understand from his concluding words that although he withdraws it now lie only does so with the intention of reviewing the arguments which have been raised against it at this stage with the possibility of inserting it at a later stage in the Bill. I regret that the principle of his Amendment as distinguished from that of the Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite should have disappeared. I look upon this as rather a practical question. The noble Marquess who leads the House made a most interesting speech, the gist of which was that the Government could not see their way to introduce this principle into the Bill as it stands. I have myself come to the conclusion that it is impossible to introduce Lord Salisbury's suggestion into the Bill as it stands and as I think it will be ultimately brought to your Lordships' attention. The fact must not be lost sight of that the principle of this Bill is the substitution of a popular vote for the existing machinery to regulate the number of public-houses. Democratisation of authority is the principle of this Bill, and that democratisation cannot properly be maintained consistently with the Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite.
The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, in the speech which he delivered on the Bill going into Committee, laughed at the suggestion that this measure should be described as a Bill for the promotion of temperance and described it as being only a Bill for changing the authority for the control of public-houses. But, my Lords, this question of the authority for the control of public-houses is really the essence of the situation. This question has been before Scotland and before the House of Commons for many years, and the principle of local option is the thing that will be insisted upon. Anything inconsistent with that principle if it is introduced will be fatal to the future of this Bill, and those who do not like the Bill may possibly push the modified suggestion of the noble Marquess opposite with a view to wrecking the Bill altogether. But I conceive that the Government themselves cannot introduce anything which will not leave the question of local option untouched. They must leave the final
1078
authority to the democracy in any particular area which has to vote upon the question. The plan proposed by the noble Lord opposite pays absolute respect to that authority. It is that authority which he proposes to invoke, and it is only a complementary proposition to the principle of the Bill itself, which says that the democracy shall vote upon the question whether it will have no-licence at all or otherwise, to say that the democracy shall also vote as to whether it will substitute the principle of disinterested management. You cannot work that unless the democracy is the authority that is able to declare in the whole area in which the vote is valid that one principle or the other is to prevail.
In pressing this you may argue, "With respect to your proposal for local option we do not interfere with it, and you must remember that local option may decide against you as much as for you and your expectation of its operating in favour of no-licences may not; be fulfilled for many years, if at all." What the noble Lord has suggested fits in with the Bill as it stands, but to substitute for the Bill as it stands a method for simply permitting in each of the areas this introduction of disinterested management which the existing local authority is in some measure to square with the existing houses is to wreck the proposal before it is attempted to be put into operation, and is so inconsistent with the principle of the Bill as promoted in Scotland and urged on the House of Commons that I venture to think His Majesty's Government could not possibly assent to the Bill being allowed to become law with that substitution in it. If it is forced upon them in the form which Lord Balfour proposes—I do not dwell on the details—the principle of democratic authority within the area voting to determine whether or not there shall be the transformation of the principle of exclusive interested management to that of disinterested management, it might be successfully introduced into the Bill, and if you really wish to accomplish the introduction of this system at all I venture to think it is in that way only that the Bill can be successfully carried out. I therefore regret that my noble friend opposite has decided not to take the opinion of the House upon his Amendment at this stage. I hope he will take an opportunity of consulting the House again about it, and I

1079
think in the interval between now and then it will be seen that the apparatus proposed to be introduced by the noble Marquess opposite is inconsistent with the scheme of the Bill as promoted by the Government and supported in the other House, whereas the scheme of the noble Lord opposite is perfectly consistent with that view and could not be refused except by those prohibitionists to whom the noble Lord referred.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Lord is entirely under a misapprehension. I am not withdrawing the scheme permanently. It happens that the point which first arises in the Bill turns on a question of voting. I said that I would withdraw the idea of substituting a completely new schedule because it was hopeless to carry that suggestion. That is all I have at the moment withdrawn, and I think that that is an obviously reasonable course.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It now becomes a question as regards my own Amendment. I have listened with the greatest attention to every word which has been uttered in this debate, and the speech which has just been delivered by Lord Courtney was a refreshing speech because he was able to speak of the position of the Government with much greater clearness than His Majesty's Government themselves have been able to do. I wish I could be quite sure that he spoke for the Government. I looked at the noble Marquess on the Front Bench to see whether he assented to what Lord Courtney was saying, but the noble Marquess maintained that attitude of impenetrable gloom which characterised his speech. I wondered as he hovered from one side to the other, finding first of all faults with Lord Balfour's Amendment and then faults with mine, whether at the end we should be able to gather anything clearly as to what the real frame of mind of the Government was. Let me say this if I may with respect to the noble Marquess. Do not let him carry away the idea that he can refuse this disinterested management principle because of differences of opinion amongst us sitting on this side of the House, because if the Government will indicate in one phrase
1080
in which direction they would be able to support an Amendment of this kind he will find that our differences would disappear immediately. We care too much for the principle of disinterested management to defeat a good opportunity of introducing it merely because we do not agree as to the details. Therefore if this Amendment fails the responsibility will rest upon the Government and upon the Government alone. I want to make that absolutely clear so far as I am personally concerned and so far as those who sit upon this Bench around me are concerned. I cannot hope that I shall be able to illumine any further the position of His Majesty's Government to-night, but perhaps on a future occasion they may be able to speak with a little more of the clearness of Lord Courtney.
Now comes the question what attitude I propose to adopt with regard to my Amendment. I propose, with your Lordships' consent, to move it and to put this Amendment into the Bill, but I hope very much that between this and the next stage if any noble friend of mine or any noble Lord sitting in any part of the House thinks the Amendment can be improved in any direction he will let us know and we will gladly consider it. People have spoken of the principle of the Bill. My Amendment involves several principles. The question of compensation I carefully did not discuss at great length because, as the noble Marquess who leads the House has reminded us, that has got to be dealt with in a much more complete manner upon the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Camperdown. But I do value intensely the principle of compensation. I believe that nothing would be more resented, and properly resented, among those interested in the licensed trade in Scotland than that they should be supplanted by somebody else who should make a profit out of the business from which they are ousted and no compensation given to them. The objection which I also feel to monopoly is not an objection of principle but a practical objection. If it could be shown that the monopoly plan would work practically better than my plan I should be quite willing, as far as I am concerned, to listen to any representation which might be made to me on that subject; but upon the other I confess I should, if I may say so, be inclined to be much stiffer. In that

1081
spirit I think I may venture to ask your Lordships to insert my Amendment in the Bill as it stands. Of course I quite expect that my noble friend Lord Balfour and others will have changes to propose in it when we come to the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, after ("(b)") insert ("a disinterested management resolution, or ('(c)')"—(The Marguess of Salisbury.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It is not necessary to detain your Lordships at any great length, but it is only right that we should reply to the invitation addressed to us by the noble Marquess opposite, although he probably anticipates the answer we have to give. It is not the first time that appeals of this sort have been addressed to His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Government have introduced a Bill dealing with a particular subject, and a principle which we consider inconsistent with the principles in the Bill is moved by noble Lords opposite and they then call on His 'Majesty's Government to assume the responsibility of correcting anything which is wrong in the schemes put forward. The noble Marquess to-night invited His Majesty's Government to say on which side we incline, whether we are in favour of the noble Marquess's scheme or of that of the noble Lord. On behalf of His Majesty's Government we refuse to undertake the responsibility which the noble Marquess invites us to undertake this evening. We believe that the scheme of the noble Marquess which is now before the House and upon which we are going to vote is a bad scheme. We have heard even from those who are themselves interested in disinterested management that it is an inadequate scheme. Therefore we have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to vote against the noble Marquess's Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I wish to point out to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and to the House that the particular Amendment now before the House has nothing to do with the merits of the scheme. This Amendment is only to put an additional option into the schedule of the Bill, and as it is quite clear from what has passed that my proposed substitution of a different schedule cannot be carried the only way in which we can get
1082
a disinterested management scheme into the Bill is by a fourth option. All that this particular Amendment now under discussion proposes to do is to put in a fourth option. So far as that is concerned I frankly say I shall give it under the circumstances my most cordial support. When it comes to the details of the noble Marquess's scheme, which I shall not discuss now, I shall venture to make an earnest appeal to him not to put it in the Bill at this stage but leave us to work out the scheme when we know a little more what is to be the idea of compensation, the time limit, and so on. It would be fruitless to discuss that now, because the only point at this moment before the House is whether or not there shall be a fourth option in the schedule of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I might explain that we entirely appreciate the position of the noble Lord who has just spoken, and we quite understand that it is the general principle of the insertion of an option of sonic kind for disinterested management of some sort upon which your Lordships are going to be asked to vote. We have explained that in our view it is not serviceable to insert such an Amendment in the Bill, and therefore we are obliged to go into the opposite Lobby to that of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The two speeches that we have just listened to make it absolutely clear to the House that His Majesty's Government have made up their minds to a frank repudiation of the principle of disinterested management. That is established beyond all question. And they do so upon the most singular and untenable ground that the proposal of my noble friend is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. We have been told again and again that. the sole object of the Bill is to transfer discretion from the licensing authorities to the voter, and to my mind it would be consistent and not inconsistent with the principle of the Bill that the voter should be given that fourth option which we desire to give him.
On Question?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Falkland, V.

Hindlip, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Devonshire, D. [Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Wellington, D.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Lansdowne, M.

Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

Linlithgow, M.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Salisbury, M.

Armitstead, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Avebury, L.

Monkswell, L.

Brassey, E.

Balfour, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Camperdown, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Muskerry, L.

Catheart, E.

Belper, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Clarendon, E.

Berwick, L.

Plunket, L.

Cromer, E.

Blythswood, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Grey, E.

Brave, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Londesborough, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Saltoun, L.

Lytton, E.

Colchester, L.

Sanderson, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Congleton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Minto, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Morton, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Northesk, E.

Estcourt, L.

Plymouth, E.

Farquhar, L.

Teynham, L.

Powis, E.

Glenconner, L.

Welby, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Greville, L.

Wolverton, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Gwydir, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Westmeath, E.

Haversham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Allendale, V.

Lucas, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Rowallan, L.

Colebrooke, L.

St. Davids, L.

Cowdray, L.

Save and Sele, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Glantawe, L.

Shaw, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Strachie, L.

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Willingdon, L.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Clinton I beg to move the Amendment that stands in his name. This Amendment seeks to increase the number of votes which have to be recorded in favour, in order to carry it, of a no-licence resolution from three-fifths to two-thirds. It is certain that under the Bill in the present form there are a great number of licence-holders who would in fact lose their licences and their right of property subject only to a time notice. A great deal has been said in the course of the discussion by various noble Lords in regard to this right of property, but I think everybody agrees that an asset has grown up which has been recognised by the State in the past and which ought to be recognised by the State in any future action that may be taken. A great many people have invested their capital in a trade which has been recognised by the State and which has grown up under the authority and supervision of the law, and I think it would
1084
be not only unreasonable but would be treating these people with gross injustice if the power to carry out this deprivation of their property were to be placed in the hands of a very small minority of the people. According to this Bill three-fifths of the electors may carry a no-licence resolution. If you take into consideration that the municipal electors in Scotland on an average only represent about 17 per cent. of the population you arrive at the startling fact that this Bill proposes to enable about 5 per cent. of the population to dictate to the remainder whatever course of action they think fit. It has been said that this Bill is to place power in the hands of the people. I take it that what is meant by that is to place power in the hands of the majority of the people. I therefore have no hesitation in moving the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("three-fifths") and insert ("two-thirds").—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships would hardly expect His Majesty's Government to accept this Amendment, which really goes further, I think, than the noble Earl who has moved it realises. First of all two-thirds of the votes recorded have to be in favour, and not less than 60 per cent. of the electors have also to vote in favour at the same time before the resolution can be carried. If 60 per cent. of the electors go to the poll, which is the same as the three-fifths mentioned in the first part of the clause, 60 per cent. of the votes cast must be for the no-licence resolution in order to carry it, and a single vote given out of all those would be sufficient to defeat the resolution itself. This is a very complicated matter. We have received petitions, among others, from such an important body as the Church of Scotland against any alteration in this direction. The figures proposed by His Majesty's Government are those which are in force in other countries. Let me point out an answer to the point which was made by the noble Earl that 6 per cent. of the population would be able to carry a no-licence resolution. What that means, of course, is that to take 30 per cent. of the voters means 6 per cent. of the population. That is the calculation which, I think, is generally allowed. That would be true if not a single vote be cast on the other side. But it is equally true to say that 4 per cent. of the population would be able to stop the no-licence resolution from being carried, and I ask the noble Earl whether he seriously considers that in the event of a poll being held it would be impossible to find 4 per cent. of the population who would vote against the resolution—4 per cent. of the population meaning 20 per cent. in votes. Of course it is only true of the very smallest poll which is conceivable, and it is really not a thing which is likely to occur. Let me give the noble Earl the exact voting which would take place on an electorate of 5,000. The present proposal of His Majesty's Government is that 30 per cent. must vote in favour of the resolution. That means that out of the 5,000 not less than 1,500 must vote in favour, and no single vote be recorded against the no-licence resolution. If 40 per cent. vote then there must be 2,000 votes in favour, and not more than 500 against, and then the resolution can be carried. If 50 per cent. vote, 2,500 in favour and 833 against is sufficient to stop the resolution from being carried. It is unnecessary really to trouble your Lordships
1086
with the series of figures, but we venture to hope, having regard to the double safeguard in the Bill, which we consider perfectly ample, that your Lordships will not vote in favour of the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I rather hope that my noble friend will take the sense of the House upon his Amendment. I cannot follow the argument of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, who suggests that it is utterly unreasonable. We are dealing with the question of the no-licence resolution. That is a resolution which introduces a revolutionary change which may be absolutely ruinous to the owners of licensed premises within the area. My noble friend has worked the figures out, and I did not understand the noble Earl to dispute their accuracy. Upon a low poll and we know that in these cases the poll is very often a low one, for the voters are not always very energetic in coming to the poll, a 5 per cent. majority is sufficient to give effect to this great change. Then the noble Earl mentioned the case of the practice in foreign countries. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that if he will look to the practice in our own colonies he will find that as a general rule a larger percentage is required. As at present advised I am under the impression that the Amendment is a reasonable one, and I gladly support it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill, for obvious purposes, took a very large figure. He talked about a constituency of 5,000. He can hardly be aware that there are very few constituencies affected by this Bill which will approach anything like 5,000. You are proposing to divide any burgh of 10,000 population into wards for special voting. I propose to give an instance of my own burgh. There are four wards in Alloa, one of which has in its area about half the total number of public-houses in the burgh, and that ward has only 527 voters. Now 30 per cent. of 527 is about 160. Is it reasonable that 160 voters should be able to shut up the public-houses in one ward and destroy the whole conditions which exist at the present time without any control on the part of the voters in the other wards? In a population of 12,000, 160 voters can make this drastic change. That does not seem to me reasonable, and if the noble Lord behind me goes to a Division I shall feel bound

1087
to support him, having regard to the smallness of the areas affected. Of course, if we come to a different decision hereafter as to the size of the areas there may be something to be said for the noble Earl's (Lord Beauchamp's) argument, but it is ludicrous to take as an instance an area of 5,000 when at least nine-tenths of the areas in this Bill, as far as I can read it and understand it, will consist of less than 1,000 population.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I should like to inform the noble Marquess opposite that under the provisions of the Canada Temperance Act when there is a poll upon the
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: We now come to the number of electors on the register who will be required to vote in favour in order to carry a no-licence resolution. I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill brought forward as an argument that in our Colonies they had a more extreme measure than this Bill proposes, but I think if the noble Earl will go into the proportion of electors he will find, generally speaking, that in the Colonies they provide greater safeguards than His Majesty's Government are pro
question of adopting a no-licence resolution the petition is held to have been adopted if more than one half of the votes polled are for the petition. That is not nearly so extreme as the provision in the Bill. And in New Zealand, which is usually quoted on a question of this kind, the proportion is exactly the three-fifths mentioned by His Majesty's Government.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, L. (L. Chamberlain.)

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Crewe, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Armitstead, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Ashby St. Ledgers, L.

Reay, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Colebrooke, L.

Rowallan, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

St. Davids, L.

Chesterfield, E. (L. Steward.)

Cowdray, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Glantawe, L.

Shaw, L.

Brassey, E.

Glenconner, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Craven, E. [Teller.]

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Russell, E.

Haversham, L.

Strachie, L.

Herschell, L. [Teller.]

Welby, L.

Allendale, V.

Lucas, L.

Willingdon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D. [Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Farquhar, L.

Wellington, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Hindlip, L.

Westaeath, E,

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Lansdowne, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Falkland, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Salisbury, M.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

Camperdown, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cathcart, E.

Balfour, L.

Plunket, L.

Grey, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

Londesborough, E.

Belper, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lytton, E.

Blythswood, L.

Saltoun, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Sanderson, L.

Minto, E.

Colchester, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Morton, E.

Congleton, L.

Northesk, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Teynham, L.

Plymouth, E.

Estcourt, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

posing to do under this Bill. I have already pointed out that in some of the small areas which are contained in this Bill 5 per cent. would be able to dictate to the remaining 95 per cent. of the population, and it must also be remembered that some of the 5 per cent. might be interested in licensed premises in neighbouring areas. I do think, therefore, where a change is involved which is going to operate so harshly on people engaged in this trade, that the power to enforce it ought to be placed with a clear majority of the people.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("thirty") and insert ("fifty").—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: This, like the last. Amendment moved, is one which His Majesty's Government cannot accept. Let your Lordships notice for one moment what would be the effect of it. It would not be unusual, I think, in a case like this, that 50 per cent. of the voters would come to the poll. The result of the noble Earl's Amendment would be that unless every single one of these people voted in favour of the no-licence resolution it would not be carried—that is to say, that if 50 per cent. of the people come and vote in favour of it then it may be carried, but if any people are to be found who vote for either of the other options then it cannot be carried. This is really so stringent and goes to such extreme lengths that I feel certain that on consideration, even if your Lordships carry it to-night, you will think that it goes even beyond what is fair in the way of giving protection to licence-holders. But after the Division we have just had we shall not ask your Lordships to go to the trouble of dividing on this.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, after ("resolution") insert ("or of a disinterested management resolution, as the case may be").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to delete from subsection (4) the words "but if a no-licence resolution be not carried, the votes recorded in favour of such resolution shall be added to those recorded in favour of the limiting resolution, and shall be deemed to have been recorded in favour thereof." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment because this is a Bill promoted by prohibitionists, and as they are such a very small body in the country I do not see why, if a no-licence resolution is not carried, the votes recorded in favour of such resolution should be added to those recorded in favour of the limiting resolution. I have no doubt that the majority of the prohibitionists in this country approve of no-licence, and are averse to any other option, but I do not see why if a no-licence resolution is not carried the votes recorded should be added to those in favour of the limiting resolution.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("poll") to the end of line 18.—(Lord Saltoun.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If I recollect rightly, we have already had special approval of this provision in the course of the discussion which has taken place, and even if that had not been the case I should have urged your Lordships to retain it in the Bill, because those of your Lordships who have studied the Bill will realise that we give something to both sides in connection with this matter. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing that those who give a vote in favour of prohibition should, if prohibition is not carried, he treated as giving a vote for reduction. I am not sure that it could not be almost spoken of as a transferable vote, and those noble Lords who are in favour of a system of that kind will certainly, I think, be found to be in support of this particular provision. But what I may call the set-oil to this provision is to be found in Clause 4 (2) (b) where the people who vote for the repeal of a limiting resolution are allowed to have their votes recorded in favour of a continuance resolution; so that this Bill, while it gives an advantage to those who are anxious for restriction, does in a similar case later on give an advantage to those who would wish to have their votes recorded in favour of a continuance resolution. His Majesty's Government have, in their own opinion at any rate, gone some way in preventing the unfair treatment of licence-holders, and a number of provisions have been inserted with that object—the provision, for instance, which says that a poll may only be taken once in three years. I do not think it fair that we should be expected to go as far as the noble Lord wishes us to go. We have done what we think is right, and in these circumstances I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I hope the noble Lord will insist upon his Amendment. Just let us read the clause and see the absurdity of it: "An elector shall not be entitled to vote for more than one of the resolutions submitted at the poll." Surely before he goes to the poll he ought to have made up his mind what he is going to vote for, and then when he has voted you are to construe another way in which he is supposed to be going to vote assuming that he is not in a majority in vote No. 1. Lord Beauchamp attempts to justify that by saying that two pages down he commits a similar absurdity but it is on the other side. I do not think that in either of these

1091
cases the second vote should be allowed. It is all very well to say that a man is only to vote once, but you provide that in both these cases he is to vote twice. That seems to me an absolute absurdity.
EARL RUSSELL: The position is not quite so absurd as Lord Camperdown imagines. We have had in principle, although not in terms, exactly the same thing on the Division we took on the disinterested management resolution. Lord Balfour voted for Lord Salisbury's Amendment putting in the words "disinterested management" although he was not in favour of the scheme. By the Bill some may vote for A and others may vote for A plus B, and you are desiring by this Amendment to take away altogether the effectiveness of those who wish to vote for A plus B. I think it is only right that you should enable the elector to say, "I will vote for A, but if A is not carried I may have the option of transferring my vote to B."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: May I point out to the noble Earl that Lord Balfour of Burleigh in his Amendment gave one vote and one vote only. What is proposed is that a man having voted for one thing shall then be held, if that vote is not successful, to have voted for another. As a matter of fact, there are people who will vote for a no-licence resolution who would not vote for a limiting resolution, because they take the extreme line of saying if you do not have a no-licence resolution a limiting resolution is of no good at all. Therefore in such cases you would be placing a construction on their first vote which even they themselves would not place upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I listened to Lord Russell with the respect which his observations always deserve. He was, of course, severely logical, as he always is. If we intend to give the electors a transferable vote we ought to say so, and put 1 and 2 so that the elector may know what he is about. But the noble Earl thinks that he can draw a useful analogy from the very complicated and intricate proceedings of Parliament and apply that to the electorate. In my experience very often people who have been in Parliament a long time do not even then quite understand the rules of procedure under which they act, and the idea that the
1092
elector is going to fathom these intricacies is mere moonshine. He must be told exactly what he is about. The noble Earl wants the result of the vote of the elector to be kept an absolute secret from him. That is not defensible on any ground whatsoever. What would be thought in our electoral system, to take the case of more than a single Member constituency, if it were to be assumed that when a man voted for one Liberal candidate and the result was unsuccessful the vote might then be transferred to the other Liberal candidate? Every one, I am sure, would admit that that was a very bad electoral system, and one upon which we could not depend. It seems to me that we must give the elector a clear choice of what he is to be asked to do, and if he votes for "no licence" let his vote be counted as a vote for "no licence," and if he votes for a limiting resolution let his vote be counted as a vote for a limiting resolution and nothing else. Let us have that understood, and let it be made clear to the elector so that he may understand what he is voting for.
LORD SHEFFIELD: It seems to me quite clear that as the House has determined to introduce disinterested management in this Bill we ought to give the elector a chance of voting 1, 2, or 3. I therefore hope that my noble friend will insist that the voting paper should be so marked, since we can no longer presume that one who votes for no licence would prefer restricted licences to disinterested management.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think this illustrates some of the difficulties which may be expected to attach to the Referendum when it is introduced by noble Lords opposite. It is true that what we are doing by this plan is to introduce in a quite rough-and-ready form something equivalent either to the second ballot or to the transferable vote, and the reason we propose it is this. As a matter of practice it may easily happen that a very small minority of those who vote may be able to carry a no-change resolution against a large majority of the inhabitants of the district, some of whom are extreme people and would rather see licences swept away altogether. Others, more moderate people, would like to see them reduced in number. Yet the great majority of the population will not be able to give effect to their

1093
wishes because a small minority of the entire number of those voting are in favour of no change. That seems in practice to be a most unfair and undesirable result, and it is that which we have endeavoured to meet in what I frankly admit is a rather rough-and-ready way.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I agree with Lord Sheffield that as we have put in a fourth option there ought to be a power of transfer to one of the other two options, either the disinterested management or the limiting resolution, But I sympathise with the Government to this extent, that it is quite clear that a prohibitionist will always be in favour of reduction. But supposing there are a large number of prohibitionists, not a majority, would it not be equally fair to add the no-change voter to the reduction schedule as against the prohibitionist, because if a man votes "no change" he would obviously rather have reduction than prohibition. If you are going to change the vote in one respect why not be logical and take the transferable vote right through?
THE MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I think the observations which my noble friend has just made point to the only conclusion at which your Lordships can arrive. We are asked to accept the proposal in the Bill on the ground that it has some connection with the transferable vote. What is the transferable vote? When von give a man a transferable vote he says, "I vote for A, and it is my desire, if A is not elected, that my vote shall be counted for B." That is a business proposition. But in this case the voter does not make any intimation of the kind. He votes for A and for A alone; and with regard to what was said, I think by the noble Earl, I am told there are a great many prohibitionists who are indifferent about the question of reduction. At any rate, if we are to have a transferable vote let us have the courage of our opinions, and let us introduce it with our eyes open and on the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: There is one small matter of fact on which I might, perhaps, direct the House. From the second schedule your Lordships will see that any voter who does go to the poll will be fully acquainted with the fact that his
1094
vote may, in the circumstances which we have been discussing, be taken from the no-licence resolution and put to the limiting resolution. The schedule makes it perfectly clear to the voter, and when noble Lords opposite say this vote will be taken away from the voter and given to a cause which he does not support without his knowledge they must have forgotten that it is very clearly and expressly put in the schedule.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Effect of Resolutions, if Carried.
3.—(1) For the period during which a no-licence resolution remains in force in any area, no certificate shall be granted therein; except that the licensing court may, on being satisfied that under the special circumstances of the case any certificate is reasonably required notwithstanding the fact that a no-licence resolution is in force in the area, grant a certificate for an inn and hotel or for premises structurally adapted for use and bonâ fide used or to be used a restaurant: Provided that ally certificate so granted shall be deemed to include the conditions that there shall be on the certificated premises no drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the sale or consumption of exciseable liquors, and that such liquors shall be sold therein by retail only and to none but persons lodging or residing in the inn and hotel, or persons taking a meal on the premises of the restaurant or (if the court so sanction) of the inn and hotel, for consumption with such meal; and provided further that it shall be a condition of the renewal of any such certificate that the applicant shall satisfy the court that he is entitled to a reduction of duty in terms of section forty-five of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.
(2) For the period during which a limiting resolution remains in force in any area, without prejudice to the other powers or discretion of the licensing court, it shall not be lawful for the licensing court to grant a greater number of certificates in such area than the nearest integral number which shall not exceed seventy-five per cent. of the number of certificates in force at the date at, which such resolution is carried.
(3) If a limiting resolution is carried the licensing court shall, before the first day' of February following the poll, meet for the purpose of preparing a scheme for carrying out in the area the requirements of the resolution, which scheme shall give the particulars of any premises the certificates of which the court propose to withdraw, and every scheme prepared as aforesaid shall forthwith be advertised by the clerk to the licensing court in a newspaper circulating in the area and shall be open to the inspection of the public for three weeks before the first day of March following the poll at a place to be stated in the advertisement.
(4) Before the general half-yearly meeting of the licensing court held in April, the licensing court shall meet for the purpose of hearing the parties interested in the said scheme and adjusting the said scheme for consideration at the said April

1095
meeting, and the licensing court shall at that meeting or at any adjournment thereof take the scheme so adjusted into consideration, and after hearing parties interested therein, so far as not already heard, and, if they modify the scheme, after hearing parties interested in any modification, shall decide upon the certificates to he withdrawn.
(5) The decision of the licensing court in refusing or reducing certificates in pursuance of a no-licence resolution or of a limiting resolution shall not be subject to appeal.
(6) It shall not be competent for a member of a licensing court to sign a requisition for a poll under this Act.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, moves his Amendment in subsection (1) I wish to ask a question in regard to the proviso in the middle of the subsection. There is a provision that in a prohibitionist area a licence may be granted for a hotel or a restaurant. The leading case on this matter is well known. It is the case of the Central Hotel at the Caledonian railway station in Glasgow. Opposite that hotel there is a large restaurant of a very important kind, and a representation was made that if a hotel licence was to be given and the restaurant licence shut out it would be very unfair. There are to be hotel licences in a prohibitionist area according to the Bill, and then is put in "or to be used as a restaurant." It is put in in the singular, and the Bench may grant a licence for an inn or for premises structurally adapted for use and bona fide used or to be used as a restaurant. Does that mean only one licence which may either be an inn or a restaurant, so that there may be only one inn and one restaurant, or does it mean that we may have more? It is clearly absurd that there should be a monopoly to one restaurant in a district, and surely the Bill means that they should grant one or more certificates for a hotel or a restaurant. I should like to ask those in charge of the Bill whether they mean only one licence, or whether they mean to retain discretion in the licensing Bench.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): The meaning of the clause certainly is that they may grant as many certificates as are desirable, and not create a monopoly by limiting the grant to the case of one restaurant. The words are—
"Except that the Licensing Court may, on being satisfied that under the special circumstances of the case any certificate is reasonably required notwithstanding the fact that a no-licence resolution is in force in the area, grant a certificate for an inn and hotel or for premises structurally adapted for use and bona fide used or to be used as a restaurant."
1096
I read these words as governed by the word "any"—"on being satisfied that under the special circumstances of the case any certificate is reasonably required." "Any" certificate may mean that ten certificates may be required, and wherever a certificate is required they may grant it for an inn and hotel or for premises "structurally adapted for use and bona fide used or to be used as a restaurant." I certainly think that is the sense of it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Would it not in those circumstances be wiser to say "one or more certificates."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes; we will see to that on Report and make it clear. Certainly that is what the Government have in their mind.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The first Amendment to Clause 3 is in my name. I propose to leave out the proviso at the end of subsection (1), which runs, "and provided further that it shall be a condition of the renewal of any such certificate that the applicant shall satisfy the Court that he is entitled to a reduction of duty in terms of section forty-five of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910." This proviso has rather a curious history. It was introduced by the Government on Report, and is an attempt on their part to define what is a restaurant. Being interpreted this proviso means that any restaurant in which more than two-fifths of the receipts are for alcoholic liquors is to cease to be a restaurant. That will, I think, tell very hardly. In fact, Mr. McKinnon Wood, in moving the words in another place, said that the proviso would tell hardly. He said—
"There may be cases on the margin. There always must be when von have an arrangement of this sort."
And then the Opposition said, "We are willing to accept the statement that Mr. McKinnon Wood has given the matter consideration, but we do not know that he has provided a complete solution of the difficulty. In the circumstances we shall take his proposal subject to the reservation that it must be reconsidered if necessary elsewhere, because we shall not have another opportunity of dealing with the matter again here." It has been considered since, and, as your Lordships will see, it will operate in this way. Where by any accident in the case of a restaurant, say a high class restaurant conducted perfectly

1097
properly and rightly, the receipts for liquor exceed two-fifths of the total receipts they will absolutely lose their licence as a restaurant. As the clause stood before these words were added in this hasty manner the discretion was left to the Licensing Court. Observe the way in which the Licensing Court was to act "except that the Licensing Court may, on being satisfied that under the special circumstances" and so on, "grant a certificate for an inn and hotel or for premises structurally adapted for use and bona fide used or to be used as a restaurant." Is it likely that under those words the licensing authority would grant a certificate to any restaurant which was not really meant to be used as a restaurant? As I say, this proviso enacts that if by any accident more than two-fifths of his receipts are for alcohol the man is to lose the licence. I do not know what would happen to him if he lost his licence. He would not have a public-house licence. I think that without the proviso the clause is a perfectly legitimate and right clause, and sufficiently protects the public.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out from ("meal") to the end of the subsection.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: It would probably be to the convenience of your Lordships if I gave the history of how these words came to be in the Bill. When the Bill left Committee the only certificate allowed in a no-licence district was a hotel certificate. In this case we are only dealing with a no-licence district, a district in which by an enormous majority a no-licence resolution has been carried. Therefore we must assume that there is an overwhelming feeling in regard to drink in that area. It was represented to the Government that it might have an effect upon a bona fide restaurant, and the question arose as to how "restaurant" could be defined in such a way as to make sure that any licence given to a restaurant should not be abused. It was felt that great care must be taken to hedge round a concession of this kind by real safeguards in order to prevent restaurants being used simply as drinking places, or as public-houses, because if such a thing could take place the effect of a no-licence resolution would be very small indeed. In order to guard against the danger this proviso was inserted at the end of subsection (1), and I propose to make it somewhat clearer by Amendments which
1098
are on the Paper in ray name. Supposing your Lordships agreed to the Amendment of the noble Earl, what would be the result? The clause would end at the word "meal." What is a meal? It has been suggested that the words "square meal" should be put in, but even that is a phrase that would hardly get one much further. Is a penny biscuit or a half-penny biscuit a meal? There would be great difficulty in saying what a meal really is if the noble Earl is content to end the subsection at the words "for consumption with such meal" and does not make a further provision of this kind. We really thought that the distinction made in the Finance Act of 1910, which was a distinction we had at our hand, was a suitable one. It makes some distinction in regard to the duties which are payable. It seemed to us to be not an unreasonable one to make, and we think this is the best definition available in the circumstances. Here we have a concession made on behalf of a bona fide restaurant, and we think that this particular proviso does secure that it shall be a bona fide restaurant and that the permission or licence which is given should not be abused.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Might I point out to the noble Earl that the Finance Act is for the purpose of taxation, but a restaurant is a matter of business, and to construe what is a restaurant from a Finance Act is surely a very extreme course to take. I agree with the noble Earl that we are, of course, only dealing with a no-licence area; but the Court is only to grant certificates for a hotel or for premises structurally adapted for use and bona fide used or to be used as a restaurant. Surely the licensing authority is the best judge of what is a bona fide restaurant, and if there was any complaint made with regard to the restaurant of course the Court would have it in their power to take away the licence the next year.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I appeal to the noble Earl not to press this Amendment. I think the provision in the Bill a reasonable one, and one which is really in the interests of the licence-holder. Section 45 of the Finance Act, which is incorporated in the Bill, begins in this way—
"Where in the case of any licensed premises which are structurally adapted to he used and bona fide used for the purpose of the reception of

1099
guests and travellers desirous to sleep in the premises, or which are licensed premises structurally adapted for use and bone fide used as a restaurant, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the receipts from the sale of intoxicating liquor were in the preceding year less in the case of a restaurant than two-fifths"
of the proceeds they are entitled to a reduction of duty. That seems to me just about as good a definition as you can get under the very difficult circumstances. If the noble Earl's Amendment simpliciter were to be adopted you would be giving in the no-licence area absolute freedom to the licensing authority to put in as many restaurants as they chose without the slightest check or without any materially important check upon the management of the restaurant, and where it was really only a place for the sale of drink over the counter with or without a trifling biscuit, or something of that sort thrown in. I am far from saying that the definition is a perfect one or that there will not be great difficulties in carrying it out, but I venture to suggest to the noble Earl that if he strikes out this proviso without substituting something for it he will, in effect, nullify a prohibitionist vote.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I differ from the noble Lord. Let me read the words, "The licensing Court, on being satisfied that under the special circumstances of the case any certificate is reasonably required." Therefore they would not give a certificate for a restaurant unless it was quite certain that the certificate was reasonably required. I must say I cannot agree with the noble Lord with regard to this financial definition at the end. It is admitted that there will be many hard instances, and therefore it seems to me it would be better that those words should be removed, particularly when you bear in mind that they were only placed into the Bill at a very late stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is true that the words were put in at a late stage. The reason was that some kind of definition was necessary, not merely as regards the structure of the premises, but as regards the way in which the business is being carried on. If a man having premises the structure of which is adapted to a restaurant business carries on his business to the satisfaction of the Commissioners and in such a way as to show that he has really used his premises as a restaurant and his profits are apportioned as Section 45
1100
of the Finance Act provides, then he is entitled to the renewal of his certificate. The purpose of this is to make sure, not only that the structure is of the character which is necessary, but that the applicant is carrying on his business in the mode which the structure would suggest.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Unfortunately the proviso goes further than that, because the Finance Act says that if more than two-fifths of the proceeds is derived from alcoholic liquor the certificate is to cease. With regard to the conduct of his business, as the Lord Chancellor very properly observes, the man would be entitled to a renewal of his certificate if he carried on that business reasonably; but, unfortunately, this provision as to the two-fifths stops him absolutely. Whenever more than two-fifths of the proceeds is derived from liquor ipso facto the restaurant ceases to be a restaurant. In that case, how could the proprietor get a renewal of his certificate? He could not, and that is the reason I object to the proviso.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: If he does not supply three-fifths of solid food in proportion to the drink he loses his reduction of duty.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Reduction of duty is a different thing from the business of restaurant keeping.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think it necessary to put this Amendment in two halves. Otherwise if carried as it stands it might have the effect of ruling out Amendments of other noble Lords on the Paper. The Question I shall put, therefore, is to leave out from "meal" in line 36, down to and including the word "certificate" in line 38.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The two Amendments standing in my name are both intended to make this provision perfectly clear. The first one is to take away the ambiguity with regard to the renewal of certificates by making it quite clear that renewal has reference to any re-grant of a certificate granted for the first time under the provisions of this section. It is not an Amendment of substance, but really a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, after ("certificate") insert ("in any year after the year in which it is first granted under the provisions of this section").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, after ("court") insert ("by production of an excise licence or otherwise").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE THE EARL OF DUNMORE moved to omit from the end of subsection (2) the words, "not be lawful for the Licensing Court to grant a greater number of certificates in such area than the nearest integral number which shall not exceed seventy-five per cent. of the number of certificates in force at the date at which such resolution is carried," and to insert "be the duty of the Licensing Court to reduce the number of certificates to be granted in that area by such number, not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of the number of certificates in force at the date at which such resolution is carried, as the Court, having regard to the fact that a limiting resolution has been carried, shall think fit."
The noble Earl said: Under this clause as it stands the Licensing Court would, in pursuance of a limiting resolution, be obliged to take away at least 25 per cent. of the licences in that area and in some places more. For instance, if there were ten licences in that area they would have to take away three of them. But the point is that it seems absurd to set up a Court with judicial discretion in the matter of licences and then go and set up a lot of cast-iron instructions which would have the effect of effectually taking away any latitude which that Court might have in the exercise of its discretion. I believe that a great deal of discretion will be required in putting a limiting resolution into effect in some of the small areas under this Bill. There is one important point which I would like your Lordships to notice—that is, that the people have been given no power under this Bill to indicate as to what number of licences they would like to see reduced under a limiting resolution. Therefore there is all the more reason that that power should be given to the Licensing Court. If any Amendment is accepted the actual reduction of the
1102
licences would be a matter for the judicial discretion of the Licensing Court subject to a mandate from the electors to reduce the licences up to 25 per cent.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 43, leave oat from ("shall") to the end of subsection (2) on page 3, and insert ("be the duty of the licensing court to reduce the number of certificates to be granted in that area by such number, not exceeding twenty-five per cent. of the Humber of certificates in force at the date at which such resolution is carried as the court, having regard to the fact that a limiting resolution has been carried, shall think fit")—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Your Lordships will not expect His Majesty's Government to agree to this Amendment. Under the limiting resolution, if carried, 25 per cent. of the licences must be taken away by the Licensing Court. I do not think it is unfair to say that anybody who votes for that resolution is really voting for something which he understands and for a perfectly definite number by which he believes the licences ought to be reduced. The noble Earl does not seem to think that this gives a sufficient option. There we join issue with him. The Amendment of the noble Earl goes quite contrary to the tendency of the Bill. The Bill gives to the voters themselves the power of saving what shall be done. The noble Earl's Amendment gives that power to the Licensing Court. If a limiting resolution were carried the licensing justices, under this Amendment, would have fulfilled the law if they took away one single licence. In those circumstances I venture to hope your Lordships will not agree to the insertion of the noble Earl's Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am quite satisfied from the reply of the noble Earl that my noble friend's case is not as weak as he supposes. This clause is undoubtedly a restriction, not only upon the licensing authorities, but also upon the voters. The licensing authorities are compelled, supposing a resolution of this kind is carried, to reduce exactly 25 per cent. of the licences, and the voters are obliged, when they give their vote, to vote for that figure and for no other. That seems to me to be an unreasonable restriction of the discretion, not only of the licensing authority, but also of the voters. We have often heard in this House of the necessity of having regard to the superiority of the knowledge of these local authorities. Of course they have exceptional

1103
knowledge. They know all about the local conditions and local requirements, and I should have thought it reasonable to anticipate that if a resolution of this kind had been carried the licensing authority would know better than to comply with it merely technically by reducing one single licence and thereby rendering the resolution nugatory and of no effect.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We now come to subsection (4), at the end of which I have an Amendment. I propose to insert two new subsections if my noble friend will permit me to do so with a view to allowing him to make any proposition he likes hereafter. The ordinary Parliamentary course, as every noble Lord knows, is that when you have altered a Bill in such a way that without subsequent alterations it does not make sense there is then an obligation upon the noble Lord who was responsible for moving the House to alter the Bill to put in subsequent Amendments in order to make the thing complete. That is the course I propose to pursue. I was fortunate enough to persuade your Lordships to put in my original Amendment, and now I propose to insert the necessary consequential Amendments, without which, of course, the Bill would not make sense.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, after ("withdrawn") insert the following new subsections:
"(5) For the period during which a disinterested management resolution remains in force in any area the licensing court may in lieu of any existing certificate within the area grant a certificate to an authorised public company as defined in this section, and no new certificate shall be granted within the area except to an authorised public company. A certificate may be granted to an authorised public company subject to such conditions as the licensing court tray think fit, and where a certificate is so granted in lieu of an existing certificate the grant of the certificate shall be subject to the payment by the authorised public company of such sum as the court, having regard to the provisions of this section, may consider to be reasonable. The sum so received from the authorised public company shall be paid as compensation to the holder of the certificate which has been withdrawn in pursuance of the disinterested management resolution, or if the licensing court so order, the sum shall be divided between the holder of the certificate and such other persons as in the opinion of the licensing court are interested and in such proportions as the Court may order.
"(6) An authorised public company means a company registered under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, one of whose objects shall be the sale of excisable liquors and whose memorandum
1104
and articles of association have been approved by the Secretary for Scotland. The articles of association shall make provisions for such matters as the Secretary for Scotland may prescribe and shall provide among other things:

"(a) that the whole of the profits after payment of interest at four per centum on any sum paid as compensation and not more than hair per centum on the paid-up capital, and after making provision for the formation of a reserve fund equal in amount to the paid-up capital upon such terms as may be fixed by the memorandum and articles of association, shall be paid to the Secretary for Scotland, and shall be expended upon works of public utility for the benefit of the inhabitants of the area in accordance with a scheme prepared by the county council, or in the case of a burgh by the town council, which scheme shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland;

"(b) that the salary or remuneration of the managers or employees of the company shall not be dependent on, and shall not be subject to increase or decrease in proportion to, the sale of intoxicating liquors in any licensed house under the control of the company;

"(c) that the accounts of the company shall be submitted to an annual audit by an auditor to be approved by the Secretary for Scotland, and that the report of such auditor with an abstract of the accounts shall be published in a newspaper circulating inn each area in which the company holds a certificate."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP: I quite agree with the noble Marquess. I look upon this as a consequential Amendment, and in the circumstances shall offer no opposition to its insertion.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This Amendment is not in the strict sense consequential. Some Amendment of the kind was necessary, but this is not really a consequential Amendment because all we have done is to put a fourth option in the schedule. This is for the first time putting in a particular form of disinterested management. I have said what I think of it and I am not going to repeat it, but I do not want to be responsible for this in any shape or form. I agree that the course taken by the noble Marquess is according to ordinary Parliamentary practice, and that if we did not put in something the Bill would not read and therefore could not be construed. On that ground I think it necessary that the Amendment should be inserted at this stage. But I hope it will not be taken that I am in any way departing from my preference for the other form.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Two Amendments to subsection (5) stood on the Paper in the names of Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH and the Earl of DUNMORE. Lord BALFOUR first sought to alter the subsection so that it would read, "(5) The decision of the licensing court in refusing certificates in pursuance of a no-licence resolution shall not be subject to appeal"; and then the noble Lord proposed to add the following new subsections—
(6) The scheme adjusted by the licensing court in pursuance of a limiting resolution and the decisions by the licensing court following thereon, at the said April meeting, reducing the total number of certificates shall be subject to review by the licensing court of appeal. Provided that without prejudice to all other powers or discretions competent to such court appeal such court of appeal shall not increase or reduce the total number of certificates granted by the licensing court in pursuance of the said limiting resolution.
"(7) The clerk of the licensing court shall within three days after the April meeting of such court or any adjournment thereof, transmit a certified copy of the scheme as adjusted by the licensing court, in pursuance of a limiting resolution and of the decisions following thereon to the clerk of the court of appeal to be submitted to the court of appeal. The court of appeal shall meet not earlier than fourteen days nor later than one month after the date of the last meeting or adjourned meeting of such licensing court to consider the scheme and decisions thereon of the licensing court, and shall have power to confirm or vary the same. The date of meeting of the court of appeal shall be advertised in at least one local newspaper at least ten days prior to the meeting of such court, and all parties interested shall be entitled to appear and be heard."
The alternative Amendment standing in the name of Lord DUNMORE was to add, at the end of subsection (5), the words "but where any certificate has been withdrawn to give effect to a limiting resolution an appeal shall lie from such decision as in the case of the refusal of the renewal of a certificate under the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903: Provided always that if the result of any appeal or appeals under this provision is to render the certificates in existence in the area in excess of the number allowed by the limiting resolution, the licensing court shall, before the next general half-yearly meeting of the licensing court, prepare a scheme for the reduction of the certificates to the aforesaid number, and shall notify the same in manner similar to that prescribed in respect of the original scheme and shall proceed to give effect thereto."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Bill as it stands at present provides that there shall be no appeal from the Court of first instance either in the case of a limiting
1106
resolution or of a no-licence resolution being carried. Clearly there can he no appeal in the case of a no-licence resolution, because an appeal in that event would be an appeal from the voting people to the licensing Bench, but I do not think it stands quite in the same position in the case of a resolution to reduce. The choice from among those public-houses which are going to be struck off will be a very delicate duty, and I think that in that case, just as in the case of the granting of new licences or in the case of a refusal of a certificate, there ought to be an appeal. The Courts of appeal in this matter were set up for the first time under the Act of 1903, and upon the whole they have worked extremely well. In the case of very small areas, like burghs of 4,000 or 5,000, it is a matter of great difficulty for those actually living in the district and amongst people whose licences they have to take away to select the quarter in which the licences are to be reduced, and from my knowledge of the circumstances I think it would be a great advantage to everybody concerned and likely to lessen friction if there was some system of appeal to a larger body. The Amendments in my name and in the name of Lord Dunmore are the same in effect. They cannot both be carried, and so far as I am concerned it is a matter of practical indifference to me which of the two is put in. With that statement perhaps the noble Earl will say what is the position of the Government with regard to it. I move my first Amendment, to omit from the subsection the words "or reducing."
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("or reducing").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL. BEAUCHAMP: I am glad to respond to the invitation addressed to me by the noble Lord. Your Lordships will see that under the Bill the reduction is left to the Court most intimately acquainted with the locality—that is to say, the Licensing Court which until now has had to deal with these questions. It might, of course, have been left to the Appeal Court to decide, but that is not the view that His Majesty's Government take. Our distinct and firm opinion is that in a matter of this kind a system which allows first one Court and then another to work its will on the same subject would be a tedious and expensive way of dealing with the matter. Supposing in the first Court

1107
they decide that licences A, B, C, D, and E are to be withdrawn. If an appeal is granted they will all appeal. Then the Appeal Court may decide that A and B ought to be withdrawn, but not C, D, and E. In the case of a limiting resolution it is necessary under the law that a certain number of licences should be withdrawn, and therefore the Appeal Court, which has not the intimate local knowledge which the Licensing Court has, will have to say, Instead of withdrawing C, D, and E we would rather withdraw G, H, and I. The Appeal Court will either have to substitute other licences or else, since the reduction proposed must be equal in number to those sent up to them by the Licensing Court, the Appeal Court would have to refer the matter back again to the Licensing Court to suggest otherwise. The noble Lord proposes one method and the noble Earl proposes another, and there might be a very long system of seesaw. Under one of the proposed systems it is left to the Appeal Court to select licences for withdrawal in lieu of those which they decline to withdraw. The result might be that a very large number of licence-holders might claim to have a right to appear before the Court. We do not think, in view of the fact that there will be a distinct direction from the electorate, that there is any sufficient reason for conferring a power to reduce licences upon Courts which contain a considerable non-elected element. That is a separate point from the one of the practical inconvenience of having two Courts to settle the one subject. It is really a point of practical importance upon which His Majesty's Government lay stress. I would venture to ask the noble Lord whether he would consider as an alternative the question of giving the Appeal Court sole responsibility in this matter, because we think that that would very largely diminish the objections we feel to the suggestion made. If that commends itself to the noble Lord I would venture to suggest that he should bring up an Amendment to that effect on Report.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I intervene with great diffidence on this Bill, but what the noble Earl has just said has such great relation to what goes on in England that I feel bound to say what my experience has been. I have taken an active part in the licensing committee of my county. There you have the authority which selects the licences that are to be got rid of. Then
1108
all those licences come before the licensing committee of the county, who finally decide which licences shall he got rid of and which shall not. I can assure the noble Earl it is of the greatest importance that there should be that kind of double hearing, or at any rate that the licensing authority of a small district should not be able to settle anything itself. It constantly happens in my own county, which I may call the noble Earl's county also, that the licensing committee, having heard a case in Court, sitting as a judicial tribunal, have found it necessary to reverse the decision of the primary committee; and judging from that analogy I would hope that some better tribunal might be obtained for Scotland than the mere licensing committee of the local area.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have been chairman of a licensing committee for many years, and my experience is very much the same as that of the noble Viscount. It has constantly happened that when a matter has been tried in Court, and all the evidence submitted to the Court, they have been obliged to reverse the first hearing.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: I am by no means satisfied with the proposal put forward by the noble Earl. What we want to get is a re-hearing of the case. There is a difference between lay Amendment and that proposed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. In my Amendment I propose to follow the ordinary procedure of the law as it stands at present, which always admits of appeal in all cases of the refusal of a licence. Lord Balfour proposes to give the Court of appeal not only the right to re-hear a case and if necessary reverse the decision previously arrived at by the licensing authorities, but he goes further and proposes to give the Court of appeal the right to substitute some other victim for that which was originally selected by the Licensing Court. I should have thought on the score of administration it would have been better to have left the duties of the Appeal Court simply those of appeal—that is, to re-hear a case and, if necessary, reverse the decision. That is why I would prefer to follow the present law as it stands in England, and if a decision is reversed by the Appeal Court then let it rest with the Licensing Court to, if they think fit, find another substitute for refusal of a licence. But the main

1109
point that I adhere to is that there certainly ought to be a re-hearing of each case where necessary. It is a very invidious duty which is thrown upon the Licensing Court, and I would be by no means satisfied with the suggestion thrown out by the noble Earl opposite.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The inconsistency between the Amendments arises in this way. The point which impresses the noble Earl behind me, whose Amendment is on the Paper and has received support from the noble Viscount, is the idea of a first hearing and of an appeal. The point which was uppermost in my mind was the invidious nature of the duty which in a small burgh would be cast upon those who had to choose between two or three people with all of whom they were probably personally acquainted. I wanted to remove it to the area of the licensing authority of the larger district—what we call an Appeal Court, but which is also in some of its capacities a Court of first instance. It has this advantage, that t hose who sit upon it are drawn from a, wider area and would be more likely to take a dispassionate view of the case before them, unprejudiced by personal predilections. But rather than have nothing I frankly say I would accept the offer of the noble Earl if I was sure it would be adhered to in another place. If, however, I did not receive that assurance I should certainly support the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Dunmore.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("or of a limiting resolution").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE THE EARL OF DUNMORE then formally moved his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, after subsection (5) insert ("but where any certificate has been withdrawn to give effect to a limiting resolution an appeal shall lie from such decision as in the case of the refusal of the renewal of a certificate under the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903: Provided always that if the result of any appeal or appeals under this provision is to render dm certificates in existence in the area in excess of the number allowed by the limiting resolution, the licensing court shall, before the next general half-yearly meeting of the licensing court, prepare a scheme for the reduction of the certificates to the aforesaid number, and shall notify the same in manner similar to that prescribed in respect of the original scheme and shall proceed to give effect thereto.")—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed and to be again in Committee To-morrow.
House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.