TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

HL Deb 14 January 1913 vol 13 cc209-72

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.

Moved, That this Report be now received. —(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

I ask your Lordships' pardon for intervening at this stage, but if I say a few words now it may simplify and shorten the discussion which may possibly arise when we come to consider special proposals for the amendment of the Bill. As your Lordships are aware, under this Bill four options are given to the voters in the districts dealt with as to what should be the practice of licensing in the future. The voter may vote in favour of no licence being issued; he may vote in favour of disinterested management; he may vote in favour of a limited number of licences; or, finally, he may vote that no change whatever should be made. That is as the Bill now stands. It was, however, pointed out in Committee that the majority of the voters might desire some change, but inasmuch as their votes were divided amongst these several modes of action the minority might in the end prevail against a considerable majority of the voters desiring a change. For example, out of 100 voters 40 might desire that no licence should be issued; 30 might desire that licences should be issued only under the plan of disinterested management: 20 might desire that a limited number of licences should be issued—in other words, 90 out of the 100 might desire that some change should be made; but inasmuch as no one of the proposals had been carried, the remaining 10 voters who desired no change at all would have their will prevailing against the 90 who desired that some change should be effected.

When this matter was considered in Committee it was suggested, I think by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, that there should be some method of indicating subsidiary preferences, so that if the voter's first desire should not be accomplished his vote might, if he so wished and indicated his wish, be passed on to a second preference; and in that way the advocates of change would be able without any previous collaboration, without the inevitable conspiring together which would follow on the Bill as it stands, to secure that the change most desirable to the majority should be effected. I had supposed that Amendments would have been put down for this stage to carry out that plan, but I discovered to my surprise that that had not been done. I have, therefore, drawn up what I think are simple Amendments for effecting the purpose, and I propose to suggest their adoption to your Lordships. I know that it is inconvenient that Amendments should be moved of which no notice has been given, and if objection is taken to my moving these Amendments to-clay I presume I shall have no alternative but to bow to that objection and endeavour to get the Amendments introduced at the next stage. I submit, however, that my scheme involves little alteration. It is only necessary to provide that the voter should be able, not only to vote for his first wish, but to indicate, if he desires to do so, the next alternative which he favours.

I suggest that the papers to be first examined should be those which advocated the most stringent change. In the case I have imagined, out of the 40 voters it may be that 30 desired disinterested management; if so, that 30 added to the 30 who had already voted for disinterested management would give the necessary majority, and disinterested management would prevail. The proposal is a simple one, and one which would act with great simplicity. The effect would be to secure that what the voters really wished in any area should be accomplished. Under the present scheme in the Bill you might get 90 voters out of 100 voting for some change and yet no change could be effected because the 90 advocated separate forms of change. If they could be brought together and their action united in the way that I have suggested, you would then get the will of the majority of the voters in the area carried out. I have thought it desirable to make this short statement now, and when Clause 2 is reached I will, if your Lordships allow me, propose the Amendments which I have drawn up.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be more convenient if he would put down his Amendments for the next stage of the Bill. As he has said, it is not regular to discuss Amendments that are not on the Paper; and although I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said I do not know that I gather what the precise form of his proposal is. So far as the question of transferring a vote in favour of one option to another is concerned, the noble Lord will remember that that was in the Bill when we went into Committee. If I remember right, it was this—that the vote of a person who had voted for no licence would be held as transferred to a limiting resolution. That provision was considered by the House and was struck out on the ground that it virtually gave two votes to the man who voted for no licence. If that decision is to be reversed I think the Amendments by which it is to be done should be on the Paper. I therefore suggest that the noble Lord opposite should not propose his Amendments until the Third Reading.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP)

This is not a matter which directly affects His Majesty's Government, because, as I understand it, it is an Amendment which my noble friend behind me, Lord Courtney, proposes to move to an Amendment which was inserted by noble Lords opposite. The Amendment which noble Lords opposite inserted was not one to which His Majesty's Government could agree, and therefore they cannot feel the same interest in the Amendment now mentioned by the noble Lord behind me as if it were an Amendment to a proposal of their own. I venture, however, to say to my noble friend that I hope he will see his way to accede to the request made to him by the noble Earl below the Gangway. It is probably more convenient that your Lordships should have an opportunity of seeing the Amendments in print before you are asked to vote upon them. I may add that I shall be glad to consult the convenience of my noble friend Lord Courtney as to the date when we will take the Third Reading.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH

If no objection in point of form is taken to my proposal being moved on Third Reading I shall certainly defer to the suggestion which has been made.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 1:

Date of Act coming into operation.

1. This Act shall, except as otherwise in this Act provided, come into operation on the expiration of fourteen years from the first day of June nineteen hundred and twelve.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

I move to amend Clause I by substituting "ten" for "fourteen." Your Lordships will remember that while there was an almost overwhelming opinion when this question of time limit was under discussion in Committee that the period of five years was too short, there was also a considerable amount of opinion expressed on both sides of the House to the effect that the period of fourteen years was, on the other hand, too long. My noble friend Lord Lovat's Amendment really involved two proposals —the first was to strike out the word "five," and the second to substitute the word "fourteen." The House divided on the first of those proposals and I voted with my noble friend in that Division, because I was of opinion that the period of five years was certainly too short a limit but the House had no opportunity of dividing on the second proposition to insert the word "fourteen," because that was carried without a Division. I have put down this Amendment to give an opportunity to those who, like myself, think that fourteen years is too long to vote for a limit of years between five and fourteen. I think that neither in the case of the five years nor of the fourteen was the exact limit defended by any definite calculations. Indeed, it would be very difficult to do so. But I understood from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that the period of five years was justified by the Government on the ground that this was the figure recommended by the Peel Commission. Without entering into the question as to whether at the time that Report was issued a five years time limit was or was not a fair notice to give to licence holders in Scotland, I would remind your Lordships that since the publication of the Report of the Peel Commission a very important thing has happened. I The Finance Act of 1910 has been passed, and that Act imposes large additional burdens on the licensed trade throughout the Kingdom. However opinion may differ as to the extent of the difference which is made by the Finance Act of 1910, no one can hold, I think, that that Act has made no difference. Yet this Bill, as introduced by the Government, ignores it altogether. The Amendment which I have put down to-day is with the object of recognising the change which has been made in the situation by t he Finance Act of 1910. As far as I can gather from information which has reached me from many sources, the period of ten years seems to be the fairest and most reasonable limit from all points of view and as I am most anxious that all the Amendments made in this Bill by your Lordships' House should be as reasonable as possible and should obtain the largest amount of support within the house, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, leave out ("fourteen") and insert "ten").—(The Earl of Lytton.)

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

It is obvious that a figure of this kind must be a fair matter for argument. Nobody can say with any degree of confidence that "ten" is the right figure and "fourteen" the wrong one. I was, however, impressed by what my noble friend said a moment ago as to the desirability of taking a time limit which shall be a reasonable one and of avoiding any Amendment which might be regarded as an attempt to wreck the Bill. On the whole, therefore, if my noble friend presses his Amendment. I shall be glad to support him.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

It is only necessary for me to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they naturally look upon the period of ten years with a more favourable eye than they do upon that of fourteen years; but they still adhere to the original proposal, which, as Lord Lytton reminded your Lordships, was the far shorter period of five years.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2:

Poll of Electors on Resolutions submitted.

2.—(1) If, in the manner hereinafter provided, a requisition demanding a poll under this Act in any area is fin by the local authority to have been duly signed, the local authority shall cause a poll of the electors in such area (hereinafter called "a poll") to be taken in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) The questions to be submitted to the electors at a poll shall be the adoption in and for such area of (a) a no change resolution, or (b) a disinterested management resolution, or (c) a limiting resolution, or (d) a no-licence resolution.

(3) On a poll in any area—

1. (a) if two-thirds at least in number of the votes recorded are in favour of a no-licence resolution, and not less than thirty per cent. of the electors for such area on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to be carried; or if
2. (b) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a limiting resolution, or of a disinterested management resolution, as the case may be, and not less than thirty per cent. of the electors for such area on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to he carried; or if
3. (c) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a no-change resolution, or if no other resolution is carried, a no-change resolution shall be deemed to be carried; and

any such resolution so carried shall come into force on the twenty-eighth day of May immediately following the taking of the poll.

(4) An elector shall not be entitled to vote for more than one of the resolutions submitted at the poll.

(5) Any such resolution if carried shall remain in force until the resolution is repealed or superseded as hereinafter provided.

THE EARL OF DUNMORE moved an Amendment, in subsection (3), paragraph (a), to leave out the word "thirty" ["and not less than thirty per cent. of the electors"] and insert in its place the word "fifty." The noble Earl said: By this Amendment I ask the House to say that in order to prohibit entirely the retail sale of intoxicating liquor in any area the votes of not less than one-half of the whole number of electors shall be required. As the municipal electors represent about 17 per cent. of the population of Scotland, I may put it in another way and say that I ask by this Amendment that the votes of not fewer than about nine persons in every 100 in any area shall be required before a no-licence resolution is carried. To give your Lordships a concrete case, I will take an area with 1,000 electors and assume that 700 of them record their votes at a poll. Under the Bill as it stands 467 votes for a no-licence resolution would be required to carry it; if my Amendment were accepted 500 votes would be required. But when you get to a larger poll, to a poll of 75 per cent., my Amendment would cease to have any effect on the number of votes required to carry a no-licence resolution. All that my Amendment endeavours to do is to provide a safeguard against revolutionary changes being effected at a small poll.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 20, leave out ("thirty") and insert ("fifty.")—(The Earl of Dunmore.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Unless I am mistaken, this is the same Amendment as was moved by the noble Earl in the Committee stage, on which occasion the Government had the unusual experience of being able to negative that Amendment without a Division. I submit that it would be somewhat of a misfortune if on this occasion your Lordships were to reverse that decision. I ventured at the moment to flatter myself that my arguments had proved sufficiently cogent to persuade the noble Earl not to contest the point any further; certainly the Amendment was negatived without any further discussion. I think it is a somewhat inconvenient practice if Amendments which are negatived in Committee are moved again on Report without a great deal more consideration than this Amendment has received. In these circumstances I venture to hope that your Lordships will maintain the attitude which was held by this House in the Committee stage.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

It is quite true, as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said, that this Amendment was moved by my noble friend at an earlier stage. My recollection is that we did not think it worth while to divide the House upon the point then because at that moment the attendance of your Lordships was very thin and we thought it hardly desirable to have a Division in such circumstances. With regard to the merits of the proposal, I think that my friend in the Committee stage made a fairly strong case for adopting the fraction which he now proposes. But I am bound to say that I wish to avoid as far as possible the insertion of any minor Amendments which might have the appearance of taking away from the efficiency of this Bill; and as the noble Earl who has just addressed the House has claimed, and I think with some reason, that it would perhaps be unusual to ask the House at this stage to reverse the decision which it accepted in the Committee stage, I venture to suggest to my noble friend that he might be content not to press the Amendment upon the House.

THE EARL OF DUNMORE

I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF DUNMORE also had on the Paper an Amendment to paragraph (b) to leave out "thirty" and to substitute "forty." The noble Earl said: The principle which underlies this Amendment is the same as that which applied to the Amendment I have just withdrawn. In these circumstances I am not going to press my Amendment, but I would like to point out how these Amendments really would act. Take the case of a small area like Queensferry, which has a population of 2,812, represented by 419 voters. On a poll of 300, under the Bill as it stands 151 votes would carry a limiting resolution; if my Amendment were accepted 168 votes would be required. If under my Amendment 168 people can enforce a certain course of action on a population of 2,812, I do not think the Amendment can be called unreasonable; and, as I have already pointed out, both of these Amendments would cease to operate on a large poll. But in the circumstances I will not move this Amendment.

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, grain 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. Provided that any 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 in any year after the year in which it is first granted under the provisions of this section that the applicant shall satisfy the court by production of an excise licence or otherwise that lie 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 shell, 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 lie advertised by the clerk to the licensing court in a newspaper circulating in the area and shill be open to the inspection of the public for three weeks before the first day of March following the poll at a place to he 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 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 tin scheme, after hearing parties interested in any modification, shall decide upon the certificates to be a withdrawn.

(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 he 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 may thick 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, haying 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.

(3) An authorised public company means a company registered under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, one of whose objects shall be the sale of exciseable liquors and whose memorandum 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—

1. (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 four 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;
2. (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;
3. (c) thud 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 die report of such auditor with an abstract of the accounts shall be published in a newspaper circulating in each area in which the company holds a certificate.

(7) The decision of the licensing court in refusing certificates in pursuance of a no-licence resolution shall not be subject to appeal, 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.

(8) It shall not be competent for a member of a licensing court to sign a requisition for a poll under this Act.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I move to omit from subsection (1) the words "a certificate" ["notwithstanding the fact that a no-licence resolution is in force in the area, grant a certificate"] and to substitute "one or more certificates." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment, and is proposed in order to meet certain criticisms at a previous stage from Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who was afraid that as the Bill then stood it would not meet the case where more than one certificate was in question.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 23, leave out ("a certificate") and insert ("one or more certificates").—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to leave out from subsection (5) all words after "For the period during which a disinterested management resolution remains in force in any area," and to insert new words. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one of a series standing in my name dealing with the machinery for bringing into force the principle of disinterested management should that principle be accepted by the requisite number of voters. I am not going to re-argue at this stage of the Bill the principle of disinterested management. It was accepted very generally, practically universally, by the noble Lords who spoke on the last occasion, and the Division which was taken in regard to it was a very striking one. Only twenty noble Lords went into the Lobby against it, fifteen of whom were actual members of the Government, and four of the other five owed their seats in this House to his Majesty's Government during the currency of the last two or three years. As I say, I am not going to re-argue the point now, but I shall think it necessary to say something in defence of the principle of disinterested management at a subsequent stage, because on this point the action of your Lordships' House has been very much criticised, as I think unfairly criticised, and in many cases actually misrepresented. This, however, is not the stage or the time in which to enter into those Considerations.

The Amendments which stand in my name for this stage are designed entirely towards points of machinery and to enable the disinterested management system, if voted for, to be brought into force with less criticism, less difficulty, and less unfairness than would otherwise be the case; and it is perfectly obvious to any one who reads these Amendments, and the Amendments which stand in the name of the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) as to insurance, that they are framed to agree with one another and to make altogether a concrete, and, as I think, useful and sensible scheme. One criticism which was made on the last stage of the Bill about bringing disinterested management into operation was this. It was said that if the voters voted for no licences, of course the licence-holders must get what compensation they could out of their trade funds, or by an insurance scheme if they could establish one, but that it was obviously unfair to say that if a disinterested management resolution was carried—where in effect you substituted one class of public-house for another—the new system was not to hear any share of the burden for compensation. I said at the time that I thought that was a just criticism, but there were difficulties at the time in bringing a good scheme into operation, and therefore it was not possible then to give effect to what, as I have said, I admitted was a valid criticism. The Amendments which stand in my name to-day are designed to improve the regulations under which disinterested management will come into force. I am quite aware that noble Lords opposite will say that they do not approve of disinterested management, that they will take no responsibility for it; and therefore I do not suppose they care very much in what form the House ultimately adopts the Amendments for bringing it into force. With that attitude, of course, I cannot agree, and I may have something to say upon it by way of criticism on a subsequent occasion. All that this first Amendment provides is a sufficient form of security for the payment for which tire disinterested management company is making itself liable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 27, leave out from ("area") to the end of the subsection and insert ("no certificate shall be granted therein except to an authorised public company: Provided that a certificate shall not he so granted unless the company has given such security either by way of deposit or otherwise as the licensing court requires for the payment by the company by way of annual or other periodical instalments to the Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board established under this Act of one-half of the total declared value of the certificates in the area, as insured in accordance with the Third Schedule to this Act, which have been withdrawn in pursuance of the disinterested management resolution; or where applications for certificates within the area are entertained from more than one authorised public company, security for the payment of such proportion of half the total declared value aforesaid as may be fixed by the licensing court. The liability imposed upon any authorised public company in pursuance of the foregoing provision shall cease and determine if and when the disinterested management resolution in pursuance of which the liability was imposed ceases to be in force. (6) The Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board shall apply the sums received in pursuance of the provisions of the immediately preceding subsection towards the payment of the claims of the licence holders in the area in respect of the withdrawal of whose certificates such sums are payable").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I think it will probably be to the general convenience of the House if we take the discussion of the new scheme upon this Amendment and not defer until a later period what we have to say upon the general Amendments which are now introduced by noble Lords opposite; and, moreover, this Amendment does mention the insurance scheme with regard to which the noble Marquess on the Front Bench opposite (Lord Salisbury) has Amendments of a more detailed kind later on. Your Lordships, I am sure, will realise the interest with which we who are responsible for ads Bill awaited the Amendments which were going to be put down by noble Lords opposite on the general question of disinterested management, and it is not without considerable surprise that we find that these proposals, now that they are on the Paper, are made accessory to a compulsory insurance scheme which the House formerly objected to and rejected in Committee, very largely on the advice given by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The disinterested management proposals as they are now amended make it clear that where disinterested management comes in all existing licence-holders must go out. There is to be, in fact, a monopoly; there is to be that very monopoly to which Lord Salisbury objected when we were discussing this matter in Committee. Will the noble Marquess allow me to quote his words? Speaking on this subject in Committee on November 25 last, the noble Marquess said— Then comes the question of whether the option is to involve an absolute monopoly or only a limited monopoly a restricted trade. My noble friend says it mutt be all or nothing. I confess I rather shrink from so extreme a course. … If you try to press it intemperately and drive it, as it were, down the throats of the people, you will not get it in that way. Therefore, I suggest that it is a far wiser thing, wiser in the interests of the movement itself, to allow it to be tentative. Again the noble Marquess said— Would it not be a perfectly reasonable system that you should submit au option to the locality so that the electors may determine whether they wish to have this experiment tried or not, and then the precise details of the extent to which the experiment should be tried should be left in the hands of the licensing authority. Now what we are asked to agree to is a compromise. On the one side the noble Marquess surrenders his objection to the monopoly which is given to disinterested management, and Lord Balfour sacrifices his objection to compulsory insurance.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Compulsory insurance on very different terms.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I quite agree; but that comes later. It is proposed in this Amendment that no certificate should be granted until provision had been made by the new company for the payment to the insurance fund of one-half of the value of the withdrawn certificates. There, again, we have a remarkable example of compromise. While Lord Balfour of Burleigh said no compensation was necessary after the expiration of the time limit and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was in favour of compensation, having compromised they agree upon giving one-half of the value—a very neat instance, I think, of what compromise can do. But where such provision is not made the company loses any right to certificates, and if a company is not formed within three months after the resolution is carried the resolution becomes void.

The provision requiring the disinterested management company to guarantee one-half of the value of the existing licences is open to criticism on various grounds. It is provided that this liability is to cease if and when the resolution ceases to be in force. At the same time it is provided that the liability is to be discharged by way of annual or other periodical instalments. Therefore it would seem possible for the company to discharge its liability over a number of payments lasting for twenty, thirty, or even more years. But what is to happen if the resolution ceases to be in force within three or six years, and if, upon a local Option being applied, the majority of voters were in favour of no licence at all? What is to happen, again, if the company was to wind up its affairs? Further it is provided in the new insurance schedule standing in the name of Lord Salisbury that no claim is to be enforced against the Central Board except in respect of the year in which a certificate is withdrawn. It is difficult to reconcile that provision with different payments over a series of years by the disinterested management companies and the insurance board and the payments having to be earmarked to the compensation of particular licence-holders within the area.

The general question of compensation was dealt with by Lord Balfour of Burleigh when we were discussing the matter—on a very different scheme of compensation, I agree—and the noble Lord then used these words— Compensation should not be paid if the disinterested management resolution comes into force at the end of the period of the time limit, whatever that may be. In spite of that we have the noble Lord now agreeing to this compromise, which is not, I think, a compromise of which the organisation in Scotland interested in disinterested management would be likely to approve. They agree with the former position which was held by the noble Lord when we were discussing this matter in Committee—that disinterested management should be granted without compensation at any rate at the end of the time limit. That is a very different proposition from asking the companies interested in disinterested management to pay not less than one-half the value of the licences which are going to be taken away. We do not feel that this scheme is any more practicable than those that have previously been before the House, and therefore, although I certainly shall not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division, His Majesty's Government are unable to accept either this Amendment or the Amendments which hang upon it and which will be moved, no doubt, subsequently.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has taken the rather unusual course even in your Lordships' House, where the rules of order are not over rigidly enforced, of discussing upon this Amendment not only the view of my noble friend Lord Balfour who moved it, but my views upon a subsequent Amendment which is not yet before your Lordships' House. I am afraid I cannot promise to follow the noble Earl into defending the details of Amendments which I may or may not move hereafter. But I should like to say a word or two in respect to the speech of the noble Earl on the general question of the arrangement which has been come to between those in whose name Lord Balfour of Burleigh speaks and those who sit upon this Bench.

The noble Earl opposite has spoken with very good-tempered raillery of a compromise. One would really think that, although he has risen to a very high position in the State, he had never heard of a compromise in political matters before. Why, my Lords, we live upon compromise. The whole of our political life is nothing but a series of compromise, and any man who was surprised at a compromise or who shrank from a course because it was a compromise would certainly be unfit for British public life. There has been undoubtedly a compromise, and the noble Earl was good enough to quote my words, which are not of very great value in themselves, in order to show the extent to which I had compromised. I do not like to trouble your Lordships with any words of mine, which may or may not have been well chosen, on a previous occasion, but if they are to be called in question I should like to remind the noble Earl that I said, either on that occasion or the next evening, that there must be a certain distinction made between the cogency of principles, and that as regards the principle of monopoly I did think that we might come to an agreement about it. But as regards compensation to the publicans who were affected under the operation of this Bill by those who were to take their place and to make a profit out of a business from which they had been ejected—upon that I thought there could be no compromise, and your Lordships will see that it is upon those lines that the arrangement has been made. My noble friend Lord Balfour was convinced, and as far as I know those whom he represents were convinced, that it was a fair thing that if you turned out a publican—who was, after all, doing no more than he legitimately may do, making money out of a legitimate business—in order yourself to make money in his place, a certain payment was due from the person who supplanted him. That seemed to be elementary justice, and when we came to consider it we laid it down as an absolute principle from which we could not depart. That is carried out by my noble friend Lord Balfour, and I must say that I think it does credit to him that he should have accepted that principle.

The great point made on the last occasion by Lord Beauchamp was that the principle of the Bill was local option. He said that was the most essential part of the Bill. We are not responsible for the principle of the Bill. I hope no one will think, because we have done our best to make this Bill rather fairer than it was before, that therefore we accept responsibility for it. Nothing of the kind. This is not the kind of Bill that we should have proposed if our Party had the confidence of the House of Commons. But we have done the best we can, and one of the things we have been prepared to do is to accept the principle of the Bill, not because we approve of it, but because we feel that in a matter of this kind your Lordships should not place yourselves in opposition to the declared will of Scottish opinion as represented in the House of Commons, of which we do not doubt the truth. The principle of the Bill is that the electors themselves should determine. That carries with it the negative of the proposal which I made on the last occasion, because upon that occasion, as the noble Earl has pointed out, what was proposed was that authority should be given to the Licensing Court to make what arrangement they thought right in the matter of disinterested management. Personally, I think that is the best system, but undoubtedly it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, and therefore we are prepared to make a concession, a concession which the noble Earl certainly ought not to protest against because that was the very part which he thought the most essential part of his Bill.

The noble Earl made one criticism upon this arrangement. It was that all that the evicted licence-holder is to get is one-half of the declared value. Undoubtedly that is a considerable concession, but it must be remembered that he gets one-half of the declared value. Under the Bill he would have had a claim, perhaps, to what would have been a larger sum, but although he could claim more he was not by any means certain to get it under the words as they were left by your Lordships in Committee. He was only to get it if the Court thought it was a sum which the disinterested management company could reasonably pay; and, if I remember right, also he could not get it until after certain charges had already been paid to which other persons were entitled in priority. We have got rid of the uncertainty. One-half of the declared value is all the licence-holder can claim, but it is not subject to any deductions. The licence-holder asks for one-half of the declared value and gets it. That seemed so valuable that we were prepared to make a concession with regard to the full amount of the claim, and we recommend that the compromise, both in this Amendment and in the one which I shall subsequently move, should be accepted by the House.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

It is difficult to know what it is exactly in order to discuss at this moment. I do not propose to go into any of the details either of Lord Balfour's Amendment or of the Amendment standing, in the name of Lord Salisbury, but since the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has started a sort of Second Reading discussion upon the whole question of the compromise involved in the Amendments which appear on the Paper I would like to say something on that question in answer to his speech. I do not think this sneering at compromise comes very well from His Majesty's Government. It is quite true that the line adopted by noble Lords on this side of the House in the recent discussions of Amendments which now appear on the Order Paper was very different from the line which those in charge of this Bill have taken in the discussions since the Bill was introduced into Parliament; but this Bill has not yet become law, and I venture to suggest that it is unwise to sneer at compromise and to say, because parties who were previously in disagreement are now in agreement, that that is a bad and not a good thing. For myself I think it is entirely to the credit of all parties who have recently been engaged in this discussion that they have regarded the matter in the spirit of give and take, and that they have been able now to put their views on the Order Paper in a form on which they are all united and agreed.

Let me say one word as to what this compromise is. First of all, I understand it is proposed that where under a resolution provided by this Bill licence-holders in Scotland lose their certificates they are to be compensated out of a compulsory insurance fund which is to be established for that purpose. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill says that your Lordships decided against this insurance fund on the Committee stage and are now proposing to reinsert it. Let me point out to him that the scheme now upon the Order Paper is a very different one from that which was moved in Committee. Precisely those points to which Lord Balfour took exception have been met, and the scheme which we shall come to discuss presently is one upon which there is now very general agreement. Surely the noble Earl does not suggest that, because the House rejects one proposal on the ground that it contains certain objectionable features, it is therefore debarred from ever again introducing a proposal from which those defects had been eliminated. Where a certificate is taken away in pursuance of a disinterested management resolution the case is somewhat different, because in that case the licence-holder has a successor who will carry on the business, and, as Lord Salisbury truly said, it is therefore right that the successor should contribute something towards the compensation which the licence-holder is to receive. Lord Balfour's Amendment provides that in those cases one-half of the declared value of the licence shall be contributed by the disinterested management company. Then it is provided that the company so taking over the certificates should give some sort of security for the payment of this one-half of the licence value. That provision is made in the words which my noble friend has just moved.

I desire to call attention to a provision in the Amendment now before the House. It is provided that— a certificate shall not be so granted unless the company has given such security either by way of deposit or otherwise as the licensing court requires for the payment by the company by way of annual or other periodical instalments to the Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board established under this Act of one-half of the total declared value of the certificates in the area, and so forth. I notice that there is no provision made in those words of the source from which this payment is to be made, and I suggest to my noble friends that they should consider before the Bill reaches its next stage whether words might not be added to secure that this payment should be made from the profits of the company. For my own part I think that no disinterested management company would undertake the management of licences if any obligation were put upon them to raise capital for the pro vision of compensation, but I think the disinterested management company would be willing to undertake the obligation if they were to provide the compensation from the profits of the trade they were taking over. As regards the machinery of Lord Balfour's proposed Amendment, that, I think, meets all the objections which some of us who believe in the principle of disinterested management raised at the Committee stage of this Bill. This Amendment provides for a monopoly which will secure that a vote given under a disinterested management resolution shall be a real option. It is, as the noble Marquess who has just sat down said, much more in accordance with the principle of this Bill than is the provision as it stands in the Bill at the present moment. Then, again, the surplus profits of the company are to go to a national fund, and, generally speaking, the conditions which are to attach to disinterested management as provided in this Amendment are in accordance with the experience of disinterested management experiments in other countries.

The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has sought to make capital by quoting from speeches of noble Lords on this side of the House during the Committee discussion of this Bill, and he concluded, as he concluded in Committee, by telling us that His Majesty's Government as a Government were still opposed to the principle of disinterested management. May I remind him of the speeches made by sonic of his colleagues on this subject? I think I am right in saying that a large number of the noble Earl's colleagues in the Cabinet have at various times expressed themselves strongly in support of the principle of disinterested management. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack have, I think, at some time or another expressed themselves in favour of this principle; and the noble and learned Viscount's predecessor, Lord Loreburn, speaking some years ago on this subject, used these words— The effects of Local Option will, I believe, he only partial. What is to be done in those cases in which the population do not think proper to interfere for their own protection? My own opinion is that, supplemental to any addition to Local Option, localities ought to have also the right to insist that the element of private gain should be eliminated from all places where liquor is sold. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also said, in 1903— When they came to deal with a habit so deep-rooted, and so inextricably connected with human nature itself, they could not dogmatise as to the remedy. No man could say this would infallibly succeed, or that would infallibly fail. Nothing would bring them to the right conclusion, unless by experimenting long, until at last they got rid of this terrible evil that was ruining the country…. And let them proceed with these experiments side by side, working here and there, and they would be able to compare notes. All we are asking is that you should give an opportunity to these localities to try this experiment and compare notes. This Bill is introduced as a Local Option Bill. We say that at present it is nothing of the kind, and we ask your Lordships, by accepting these Amendments, to make it so and give to the localities a real freedom of choice. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept these Amendments, and will adhere to them and defend them as strictly and entirely in conformity with the principles of the Bill.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I do not think it is necessary for us to re-argue the question of the desirability of giving localities an opportunity of adopting disinterested management. A large majority of your Lordships in Committee voted for it. I voted for it myself. It is not the principle of disinterested management which is at stake now, but the possibility of adjusting that principle to suite fair means of providing compensation for the people who are ousted—as it were, tempering the wind to the shorn lamb, or in this case the shorn publican. As I understand, instead of imposing on the disinterested management companies the obligation to pay such compensation as the tribunal may think fair, the Amendment proposes to impose upon them the obligation to pay one-half of the value of the licences which are extinguished in their interests. The proposed schedule sets up a compulsory insurance board for the trade and, quite independent of the one-half of the value which is to be levied as a tax on the incoming retailer who is a disinterested manager, the schedule creates a fund the greater portion of which will go to the Central Board, but it is further provided in the schedule that when a certificate is withdrawn by reason of any resolution carried under this Bill a claim upon the appropriate fund to an amount not exceeding the remaining half of the declared value shall thereupon arise. Am I right in believing that where disinterested management is set up the publicans who are ousted will get one-half of the declared value at the expense of the incoming tenants, and will get the other half, if the funds will go so far, from the insurance fund which is established on behalf of the trade?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is so.

LORD SHEFFIELD

Then I am face to face with this practical difficulty. I do not see the justice of establishing a com- pulsory fund throughout the whole of Scotland to which well-managed public-houses in well-managed districts will have to contribute in order to protect ill-managed public-houses in ill-managed districts. I agree that it is perfectly fair that the publican should receive such compensation as is reasonable, but if disinterested management is to be mixed up with a compulsory system of insurance under which a tax is levied upon the trade throughout the country irrespective of the conditions, then I think you are coupling your machinery for disinterested management with a scheme which is not just or reasonable.

THE EARL OF CAM PERDOWN

I rise, not to intervene in the general discussion which has taken place, but to call the attention of the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment we are now discussing to certain words in it which seem to me to create a situation which is not met, and which ought to be taken into consideration before the next stage of the Bill. The words to which I allude are these— The liability imposed upon any authorised public company in pursuance of the foregoing provision shall cease and determine if and when the disinterested management resolution in pursuance of which the liability was imposed ceases to be in force. Your Lordships would think it quite possible, indeed not at all improbable, when a disinterested-management resolution has been passed that when the new poll takes place some other arrangement might be adopted by the voters. In that case the disinterested managers will have paid to the insurance fund for two years only, and it seems quite fair that when they cease to enjoy the premises which will be taken away from them by the repeal of their resolution they should not pay any more. But just see what will happen. Although these disinterested managers will have subscribed to the central insurance fund for only two years they will have a claim upon that fund in respect of the loss of their licence, and, of course, it will be necessary to ascertain what the value of that licence is. That is the first consequence. The second is: What will happen to the licence itself? Will the licence cease? The Bill does not say. I submit to the noble Lord that between now and the Third Reading he should take that matter into consideration and see how to meet it.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I am not entitled to speak again except by the indulgence of the House. I should not like to answer off-hand a difficult and complicated point like this, but I do not think it fair that those responsible for disinterested management public-houses should pay compensation if their licence is taken away. As to the other difficulty, in regard to how those who have been displaced for the purpose of putting in disinterested management can be compensated, I am afraid I am not able off-hand to say. But I will be glad to consider it before the next stage.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

It is very difficult to be perfectly fair to all parties in a matter such as this, but I think the point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Camperdown is an important one. If certain persons are dispossessed and certain other persons put in their place, it does seem to me rather hard that no provision should be made for them. Supposing that in the future another change takes place and the disinterested managers are in their place dispossessed, it is rather hard that the whole risk should fall upon the old holders of licences and that they should bear the loss because the community afterwards decides to make another change. The noble Lord, however, has said that he will carefully consider the matter. I only ventured to interpose because I thought the point an important one.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved— Page 4, line 6, after ("Association") insert ("shall") Page 4, line 7, after ("the") insert ("Memorandum and") Page 4, line 8, after "prescribe") insert ("either generally or with reference to any particular authorised public company") Page 4, line 10, after ("that") insert ("subject to the payment of all sums required in pursuance of this section to be paid by the company to the Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board") and leave out from ("at") to ("not") in line 12. Page 4, line 17, leave out from ("be") to the end of paragraph (a) and insert ("applied by him in making grants to local authorities to be expended upon such works of public utility as he may in each case prescribe") Page 4, line 23, after ("that") insert ("no profit or advantage from the sale of excisable liquors shall accrue to the shareholders or directors of the said company, beyond the aforesaid dividend, and") Page 4, line 33, at end insert ("The auditor so appointed shall disallow and surcharge upon the interest on capital all unreasonable payments for rent, salaries, and liquor and any use of the profits otherwise than as hereinbefore provided. The licensing court shall also have power to appoint an auditor who shall have the right to inspect the books of the company at any reasonable time")—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I do not know whether the House desires any explanation of the paragraphs which follow on the next page of the Order Paper. They are all matters of machinery. The only one of importance is subsection (8), which provides in more definite terms as to how the works of public utility to which any surplus profits are to be devoted are to be defined. I venture to say, having carefully considered them, that the paragraphs are all matters of machinery. I do not think, therefore, that it would be useful for me to give the House any detailed explanation of them. I beg to move—

Amendment moved— (d) That no person who, under Section 9 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act., 1903, is debarred from acting as a member of a licensing court shall be eligible to be a member or director or shareholder of an authorised public company within the meaning of this Act; and (e) That it shall be competent for such authorised company to apply to the licensing court for the provisional grant of one or more such certificates without stating in the Statutory application where the premises are severally situated or the proprietor's or factor's name and designation, and the licensing court shall make such provisional grants accordingly, but such provisional grants shall not be valid until declared to be final by the order of the licensing court to be made whenever tile court is satisfied that the premises selected by the authorised company are suitable.

"(7) Nothing in this Act shall entitle an authorised public company to apply for or to obtain a greater number of such certificates in any area than the number of certificates in force in such area at the date on which this Act came into operation; but it shall be competent for such authorised public company to apply for and to obtain a smaller number of such certificates than the number in force as aforesaid.

"(8) Before any grant is made by the Secretary for Scotland to a local authority under this section a draft scheme shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament during the Session of Parliament specifying the local authority to whom the grant is proposed to be made, the amount of the grant and the works of public utility upon which the grant is to be expended, and if within the next thirty days upon which that House has sat either House passes a resolution against the scheme or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft scheme.

"(9) The Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, as amended by this Act shall apply to any application by an authorised public company for the grant or renewal of a certificate and in addition to Ay terms or conditions in-posed under the Licensing (Scotland.) Act, 1903, as amended by this Act a certificate granted to an authorised public company shall be granted and held subject to the conditions specified in this section, and to such provisions in the memorandum and articles of association of the company as may have been required by the Secretary for Scotland to have been inserted therein, sad those conditions and previsions shall lie taken to be within the terms and provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, and any breach of those conditions or provisions shall be an offence within the meaning of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, against the terms and conditions contained in the said certificate.

"(10) Unless with three months after a disinterested management resolution is carried an authorised public company has made an application in writing to tile licensing court of the area stating that the company is desirous of carrying or business in the area in accordance with the provisions of this section and has satisfied the licensing con A that the company is able and willing to undertake the liability for payments to the Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board imposed by this section the disinterested management resolution shall be void."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I should like to call the noble Lord's attention to subsection (10). It says, "Unless within three months … an authorised public company has made an application … the disinterested management resolution shall be void." I do not see what is going to happen when that disinterested management resolution has become void. Who are to take the place of the disinterested people who have not acted? I would suggest that instead of saying the disinterested management resolution shall be void you should say the poll shall be void, and that will give an opportunity for another poll. Perhaps the noble Lord will take that point into consideration before the Third Reading.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I think that is entirely reasonable. But in conformity with the principle enunciated by the noble Earl a few moments ago I would rather put an Amendment down, after consideration, at another stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The next Amendment, and the two Amendments standing in my name to Clause 4, are purely matters of machinery and drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, after ("resolution") insert ("or, except where the grant of a certificate is refused to an authorised public company, in pursuance of a disinterested management resolution").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I would point out to the noble Lord that his words read awkwardly. He proposes that subsection (7) shall run thus, that the decision of the licensing court in refusing certificates shall not be subject to appeal "or except where the grant of a certificate is refused to an authorised public company in pursuance of a disinterested management resolution." I must say I had a great deal of difficulty in understanding what the noble Lord meant by the words "or except." Would he not attain what he wishes much more easily by striking out, the words "or except" and letting it run in this way, "but where the grant of a certificate is refused to an authorised public company, in pursuance of a disinterested management resolution, or" and then run on. That would be English, and the other is not.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

It is very difficult to follow in one's mind an intricate suggestion of that kind. Perhaps the noble Earl will put it down in writing.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I will communicate with the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4:

Resolutions at further polls.

4.—(1) Where a poll has been taken, and such poll, or the declared result thereof, has not been declared void in terms of this Act, a further poll shall not lie taken before time month of November in the third year from the date of the last poll.

(2) Such further poll may be taken—

1. (a) if a no-change resolution is in force, or a limiting resolution or disinterested management resolution, or no-licence resolution has been repealed, for the following options, that is to say, for a further no-change resolution, or for a no-licence resolution, or for a disinterested management resolution, or for a limiting resolution;
2. (b) if a limiting resolution is in force, for the following options, that is to say, for the repeal or continuance of any such resolution, or for a further limiting resolution, or for a disinterested management resolution, or for a no-licence resolution;
3. (c) if a disinterested management resolution is in force for the following options, that is to say, for the repeal or continuance of any such resolution, or for a limiting resolution, or for a no-licence resolution;
4. (d) if a no-licence resolution is in force, for repealing the same.

(3) The provisions of section two of this Act, except as regards the questions to be submitted to the electors, shall apply to such further polls, provided that where a further poll is taken in any area where a limiting resolution or a disinterested management resolution, or a no-licence resolution is in force and the majority of the votes recorded is not in favour of the repeal of such resolution, such repeal shall not be carried.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved an Amendment, after the word "thereof" in subsection (1), to insert "has not become void under the provisions of this Act or"; and at the end of subsection (2), paragraph (d), to add "or for a disinterested management resolution."

Amendments moved— Page 5, line 9, after ("thereof") insert ("has not become void under the provisions of this Act or") Page 5, line 30, at end insert ("or for a disinterested management resolution."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 5

Supplemental Provisions.

5.—(1) The requisition for a poll shall be made upon a requisition paper which shall be in the form set out in Schedule I of this Act and shall be signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area, who shall append their full addresses. On the demand of ten electors made not earlier than the fifteenth day of August or later than the twenty-fifth day of August next preceding the date on which a poll can be taken under this Act, a requisition paper shall be prepared by the clerk to the local authority, who shall forthwith insert in not less than two newspapers circulating in the district a notice that such paper is being publicly exhibited at his office, or at such fit and convenient place within the area to which the requisition applies as he shall in such notice specify for signature and inspection until the thirtieth day of the next following month of September when it will be removed. If the requisition paper shall be found by the local authority to have been duly signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area, the clerk to the local authority shall thereupon insert in not less than two newspapers circulating in the area a notice that such requisition has been duly made.

(2) On the day on which a poll under this Act is taken in any area, all the certificated premises in such area in which exciseable liquors are sold by retail shall remain closed for the sale of such liquors until after the hour fixed for the close of the poll, but nothing in this subsection contained shall prohibit the sale of such liquors to lodgers or to bona fide travellers taking meals on the premises in any room usually set apart for that purpose, for consumption therein at the meal, or the sale, distribution, or delivery of exciseable liquors under the conditions prescribed by section sixty-three of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.

(3) A poll shall be taken on any day not being a market day which the local authority may fix in the month either of November or of December immediately following the lodging of the requisition: Provided that in a county a poll shall be taken only in the year of a triennial election of county coun- cillors, except in the case of a poll held in the year hi which a resolution under this Act is first competent; and provided further, that if a poll, or the declared result thereof, is by a judgment of the Court of Session declared void, the Court may, if they think fit, order the local authority to cause a new poll to be taken, or one-tenth of the electors in the area may, by requisition lodged with the clerk to the local authority within one month of the date of the judgment, demand a new poll, and the local authority shall thereupon forthwith cause such poll to be taken.

(4) Polls under this Act shall be by ballot, and the Secretary for Scotland shall make rules for regulating the procedure with respect to requisitions and the taking of polls, and providing for the recounting or scrutiny of the votes recorded on any poll when a demand is made therefor, and, without prejudice to the generality of the power hereby conferred, may by those rules apply for the purpose with any necessary modifications any enactments relating to Parliamentary or local government elections and to the prevention of corrupt and illegal practices thereat (including the penal provisions thereof):

Provided that where a poll is taken for the first time in any area, the ballot papers shall be in the form contained in Schedule II of this Act, with any modifications thereof to meet the circumstances of the case which may be sanctioned by the Secretary for Scotland, and in case of polls other than the first poll or in cases where there are no certificates or not more than one certificate in force in the area, in such forms as may be prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland, who shall fix a maximum scale for the expenses of a poll, and any expenses incurred within such scale by the local authority in connection with this Act shall be defrayed out of the county general purposes rate in counties (excluding police burghs) and the burgh general or police assessment in burghs, but shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the statutory limit of such assessment.

(5) If any returning officer, presiding officer, clerk or officer of the local authority is guilty of any wilful act or omission in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, or of any of the rules made by the Secretary for Scotland under this Act, he shall on summary conviction, in eases where no penalty is otherwise provided, be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds for the first and twenty pounds for every succeeding offence.

(6) Every person who forges or procures the forgery of any signature to a requisition, or alters or defaces a requisition, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, or, alternatively, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months with or without hard labour.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I have an Amendment a few lines down in subsection (1) to leave out the words "who shall append their full addresses." If you turn to the First Schedule you will see that provision is made there for the insertion of addresses, and it is unnecessary to put the provision in here.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 1, leave out ("who shall append their full addresses."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

If the words "who shall append their full addresses" occur in another place, as the noble Earl says, there is, of course, no necessity to put them in twice. I would merely observe that the words as they stand were taken from the noble Earl's own Bill. They are exactly as they stood in the original Bill, and the object of them is clear enough. The original Bill said that the requisition should be signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area, and that there should be appended the full addresses of the signatories. I apprehend the purpose of that was to enable the signatories to be identified. If, however, the noble Earl says the words are to be found elsewhere I accept his assurance.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

If your Lordships will agree to this Amendment now, perhaps the noble Earl will be good enough before the next stage to satisfy himself by referring to the Schedule. We can, if necessary, make an Amendment on Third Reading.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The provision is in the Schedule.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment at the commencement of the second sentence of subsection (1), after the words "On the," to insert "written."

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 1, after the second ("the") insert ("written").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 16, leave out ("made") and insert ("signed").—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The next two Amendments in subsection (3) are consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 6, line 39, leave out ("lodged with the clerk to") and insert ("found by") and after ("authority") insert ("to have been duly signed") Page 6, line 40, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have the honour to move the new clause which stands in my name. This subject has already been referred to this evening by more than one noble Lord, and I hesitate, unless your Lordships wish it, to go over the ground which was covered in Committee and defend in principle the system of insurance embodied in the schedule which is attached to my proposed new clause. Shortly, the object which we have in view, in the first place, is to see that something is saved out of the wreck for those who are deprived of their livelihood under the operation of this Bill—what I think the noble Lord opposite called "tempering the wind to the shorn lamb." I think that was the phrase he used, and it is a very appropriate one, although perhaps there is not any great analogy between a publican and a lamb.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I said the shorn publican.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

At any rate, he is a person engaged in a legitimate trade; lie is presumably a perfectly respectable man, and he is suddenly thrown out of his employment and deprived of his means of livelihood. It seems obvious that something must be done for him, some provision made to prevent him from going absolutely, as it were, to the workhouse under the operation of the Bill. The Government offered nothing. They suggested that on a future occasion, perhaps, a private Bill might be promoted embodying some of the provisions which appeared in the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Camperdown when we were in Committee. But that appeared to be very dim comfort for the evicted publican. We are not content with that. We think that some provision should be made before this Bill passes into law so that he may be rescued from absolute poverty. We are not in a position to choose the best method. We have to take what we can get. We cannot, for example, if we wanted to, lay a charge upon public funds. That would be out of our power; and although it might or might not be a fair proposal, I think it would not be likely to find favour in another place.

Then, my Lords, what plan can we adopt? It seems obvious that the best thing we can do is to adopt the plan which those who are interested themselves wish us to adopt. I hope your Lordships will not forget that the principle of compulsory insurance has been accepted practically, I was going to say by the whole of the interested persons, but it would be more accurate to say by 70 per cent., of those who are interested. I admit that the plan to which they gave their adhesion differs in certain respects from the plan which I am now submitting to your Lordships, because the plan to which they agreed was the plan which stood in the name of my noble friend Lord Camperdown when we were discussing the matter in Committee. As your Lordships saw fit not to accept that proposal, it is, of course, incumbent upon us to try and meet those objections to my noble friend's proposal which were fatal on that occasion. We have tried to do that. One criticism which was made against my noble friend's proposal was this. It was called an insurance scheme, and not only was it called an insurance scheme but it was said that there was nothing sufficiently clear upon the face of the clause or of the schedule to show those interested that they were not necessarily going to get the whole of the declared value for which they insured. That was pressed by Lord Russell, who is not at this moment in his place, and I think it had a good deal of weight with your Lordships. We considered in redrafting this proposal whether we could not avoid the word "insurance" altogether. We made a gallant effort to do so, but the drafting became so unwieldy that it appeared to be hardly necessary to trouble your Lordships with so bad a piece of drafting as that would have resulted in. Consequently we fell back on the word "insurance," making it, however, quite clear on the face of the clause that the persons who were entitled to receive money under it were not entitled to receive more money than the insurance fund could provide. That is put in the strongest form in the proviso at the end of subsection (3) of my proposed new clause. The words are— Provided always, and it is hereby expressly declared, that any claim in respect of the declared value of the certificate shall be enforceable only if, and in so far as, moneys for the payment of such claims are available under the said scheme. We think we have gone sufficiently far to make that clear.

Another criticism was made by my noble friend Lord Balfour that the provision itself was so vague that no one could tell exactly what was meant by declared value, or how much it would amount to. We have tried to meet that, and your Lordships will find that in Clause 2 of my proposed new schedule on the Paper there is a limit imposed on the declared value. Your Lordships will remember that the declared value is the value which the licensee himself places on his licence. I provide in the schedule that "the declared value shall be an amount not exceeding seven years' purchase of the net annual profit from the sale of excisable liquors carried on under the certificate, ascertained on the average of the three preceding years." So that we have tried to meet that difficulty also.

Lastly, I should like to call your Lordships' attention to one other change we have made which was the subject of criticism by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. 13 y my noble friend's clause what we called in the English Act the "monopoly value" of all new licences was paid into the insurance fund. If I am correctly informed, the noble Earl criticised that, and said that the monopoly value, if it belonged to anybody, belonged to the State, and certainly not to the insurance fund, and he objected on that ground. We have cut that provision out of the new draft, and make no such provision in respect of new licences. I do not mean to say that there are not other small changes, and many drafting changes, but those are the three substantial changes we have made in order to meet, if we can, the objections which were felt by your Lordships on the last occasion and which were fatal to my noble friend's Amendment.

The noble Earl in charge of the Bill criticised Clause 7 of the Schedule. The words are, "provided that no such claim shall be enforceable against the Central Board except in respect of the year in which such certificate is withdrawn." I am not prepared to say that the drafting of that particular provision is perfect. The matter is very complicated and it is difficult to find apt words, but I will try to explain to your Lordships what is intended. We are quite aware that if there is anything like a drastic reduction of licences in Scotland the Central Fund will not be by any means sufficient to cover the claims which will be made against it. We provide that in these circumstances the Central Fund is to be divided up pro rata, as it were, as far as it will go. But that would not be a possible provision unless we made a water-tight compartment of any particular year's claims against the Central Fund. It must be the claims made in any particular year against the Central Fund which are to be divided up in accordance with the money available in the Central Fund. Therefore we had to put in words to show that the money which is to be subject to this pro rata division shall be the money in respect of one particular year, and the proviso which the noble Earl has criticised has been drafted with a view to cover that point. Of course, if he suggests other words I need only say I shall be delighted to accept the co-operation of the Government draftsman in putting the provision into the best possible form.

Amendment moved— Insert the following new clause:

"Insurance of certificates.

"6.—(1) There shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act a Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board and also a Scottish Licence Holders Mutual Insurance Association or Associations, and every holder of a certificate shall insure in such an association in respect of each certificate held by him.

"(2) The insurance of certificates shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions set out in the Third Schedule to this Act.

"(3) A person from whom a certificate is withdrawn in pursuance of a resolution under this Act may, in accordance with the scheme set forth in the Third Schedule to this Act, recover the moneys payable to him thereunder. Provided always, and it is hereby expressly declared, that any claim in respect of the declared value of the certificate shall be enforceable only if, and in far as, moneys for the payment of such claims are available under the said scheme.

"(4) No excise licence for the sale by retail of excisable liquor shall be granted by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise except upon the production by the person authorised to hold the licence of a receipt for the insurance of his certificate and for any levy for the year to which the licence relates.

"(5) This section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act".—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Having already been rebuked by the noble Marquess opposite for dealing with Amendments which come later on the Paper I will not follow his criticism of Clause 7 of the Schedule.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

By all rules of order, as far as I have known them, it is always permissible to discuss the schedule to which a clause refers when you are discussing the clause.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I quite agree. But the noble Marquess will remember that the schedule which he discussed on this Amendment dealt with the functions of the central insurance board which was mentioned in Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment which we were then discussing. That is the reason why I dealt with it. I do not rise to enter any objection on behalf of His Majesty's Government to this clause on the present occasion. The views of His Majesty's Government are well enough known to your Lordships. I can only say, as I have said before, that we cannot accept any responsibility for the Amendment which is now moved by the noble Marquess, although we do not propose to trouble your Lordships with a Division.

Two criticisms, however, I would venture to make upon subsection (4) of this new clause. I would ask the noble Marquess whether he has considered what would be the effect supposing the licence-holder was refused permission to insure by the secretary of the Mutual Insurance Association which is set up under this clause. I quite see that under this subsection the person authorised to hold the licence must produce a receipt for an insurance of his certificate if he can get it. Supposing he cannot get it and they ref use to give it to him, what is to happen then? Supposing the secretary of such an association were to say, "We know quite well that this will be one of the first licences to be swept away," or "We know quite well that as soon as there is a power of local option this district will at once adopt a no-licence resolution; we are not going to accept this licence either because it is in itself a house which is unnecessary or because we feel sure that at once the whole of the licences will be swept away; we are not going to accept this licence because we are going to pay so much money." Has the noble Marquess considered what would be the effect in those circumstances? Will it not be that the Mutual Insurance Association will be able to relieve itself of the whole responsibility with regard to any district or any licence which it thought might involve it in expense? That is one criticism. The other is that I understand the licence duty is due on May 29, the beginning of the licence year, and is payable at once. That would make the operation of sub, section (4) of this new clause very difficult from the practical point of view. Beyond those two small criticisms I do not propose to detain your Lordships on this occasion.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I must remind the noble Earl, who has rebuked me as severely as his kindly nature will allow him to do for having apparently changed my views in supporting a compulsory insurance scheme on this occasion, that this is a new scheme and meets the very objection which I then raised—namely, that there was no limit to the claim which any licence-holder might make on his declared value. There is now a controlling power, and it will be, I hope, fairly managed. I cannot understand how any reasonable person can say that there is no claim for compensation when a licence is arbitrarily taken away. I have received a large number of communications saying there is no vested interest and nothing for which people ought to be compensated. I cannot understand that position. It is perfectly well known that the interest of a deceased licence-holder is taxed, and heavily taxed, by the Government as part of his estate. There may be a dispute about the words "vested interest." As to that I say nothing. It would be difficult to define what a vested interest really is; but there is a real interest of some kind which is made the subject of taxation, and which it seems to me ought to be legitimately compensated if an arbitrary change in the law is made. This custom of renewing licences has grown up over a long series of years, and it is for the public interest that it should have been supported because it was a premium upon good management, and as such it would be, in my opinion, grossly unfair if it were taken away without compensation. I venture to say that the period of five years is not sufficient. It is very difficult to get exact facts. I asked the Government to supply a Return, and they gave us a certain amount of information. I have had an immense amount of correspondence with lawyers and accountants in Scotland since the last stage of this Bill, and concrete cases have been given me, but unless you can go into the whole of the details and see whether it is really the net value upon which the calculation is made, you cannot form a really definite opinion as to whether a particular case is or is not fairly put before us. I venture to say that the Government might do a very valuable work, and that it would be greatly to their own credit, if they would go into the question of what is the fair number of years' purchase to take for these licences. I have had cases sent me, though it is not worth while attempting to discuss them in detail here; but I believe, after you have made every deduction, that some will rise as high as six or seven years' purchase of the net value; and if you are going to have a fair insurance scheme with a fair compensation you must extend the compensation over a greater number of years than the several number of years you are going to compensate for. I do not want to lengthen this discussion, but as what I said was interpreted by some to mean that in my view there was no case for insurance, I say there is a case for insurance, and that equity will not be met unless some scheme of this kind is put into the Bill and is fairly worked.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6:

New licences.

6. Where the licensing court is of opinion that a new licence is required in any area where neither a "no-licence" resolution nor a limiting resolution is in force, and in the event of an authorised public company constituted for the purposes of this Act being prepared to apply for and manage the said new licence, the licensing court shall (subject to such procedure and conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland) grant a certificate for such new licence to the said authorised public company, but to no other applicant.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The next Amendment stands in my name, to leave out Clause 6. I may say that the history of this clause, the insertion of which was moved by Earl Grey, is peculiar. It was, I think, circulated on the morning of the day before it was brought forward, and when the noble Earl in charge of the Bill spoke about the clause he pointed out that it was quite inconsistent with the Bill, and yet somehow or other he did not object to it. My objection is that this Bill is for the purpose of providing for a poll of the electors upon a certain definite resolution, and that this clause confers a right of giving licences and is therefore not consistent with the Bill. There is another objection to it which was pointed out, I think, by the noble Earl on the last occasion, and that is that it would be quite possible in a district where a disinterested management resolution had been rejected that any new licence which was given could be given to disinterested management only. I have a third objection, which is this. This principle of disinterested management has been approved by a very large majority of your Lordships' House, and I myself shared that view. But because I believe in disinterested management that is not a reason with me for giving everything to disinterested management that they choose to ask for, and I think that if your Lordships were to keep this clause in the Bill the result might be that it would be naturally said elsewhere, "The House of Lords was so favourable to disinterested management that they not only gave them everything that was given by the compromise but also conferred upon them a thing which was only asked at very short notice and which really was inconsistent with the Bill." Fur these reasons I move the omission of the clause.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 6.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

EARL GREY

I am always prepared to bow to the superior knowledge of my noble friend on all points regarding the rules of order in this House, but when he says that this clause, winch was put into the Bill on my motion in Committee, is inconsistent with the object of the Bill I differ from him in toto. The object of the Bill is to promote temperance—I am sure my noble friend will agree with me in that—and the way in which this Bill endeavours to promote temperance is by limiting the discretion of the Licensing Court. The Bill when it came up to this House limited the discretion of the Licensing Court by enabling the people affected to veto the grant of licences by the Court. This House has further increased the power of the people. It has given them the power, denied to them by the House below, to insist that the houses in their district shall be administered under the principle of disinterested management. Now we go one step further and say that if the Licensing Courts, in the exercise of their discretion, decide to create a new licence, that new licence shall be brought compulsorily under the principle of disinterested management.

I would point out to my noble friend this fact. Take Scandinavia. There you will find just as wide a difference of opinion between the party which is in favour of total prohibition and the party which is in favour of disinterested management as there is in this country, but you will fail to find throughout the length and breadth of Scandinavia a single temperance reformer who is in favour of public-houses coming under the management of the private trader. That is the principle which I maintain this House ought to assert—that when a new house is created, instead of being handed over to a private trader to administer for his own benefit it shall be handed over to an authorised company whenever possible, which company shall be approved by the Secretary for Scotland, to administer the house in the interests of the community. It is a principle of temperance reform and I understand it is part of the functions of this House to guide the public in the direction of those higher ideals on the attainment of which the social well-being of the community depends, and I maintain that this House has no right to hand over to a Licensing Court power to give a licence to a private trader when it has an opportunity of handing it over to an approved authorised trust company who will undertake to manage it in the interests of the whole community. I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment to a Division. H he does I shall certainly have to go into the Lobby against him.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We are waiting, as we always do, for the guidance of His Majesty's Government. We wish to know what view they take of this clause. The House is in a difficulty, not through the fault of my noble friend who has just sat down, but he put clown his Amendment, which is now Clause 6 of the Bill, just a clay before it was taken, and the debate which took place upon his clause was not of such an important character as probably the subject demanded. A very few remarks passed. I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill contributed a few words, and we thought he would take this opportunity of telling us what the mind of His Majesty's Government is. Of course, they have made their minds up with regard to it.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am very glad to repeat, if it is any satisfaction to the noble Marquess, that His Majesty's Government cannot accept the new clause, now Clause 6 of the Bill, which was inserted on the motion of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Earl Grey). We did not, however, think, having met with so little success on the last Occasion, that we were likely to meet with more success this afternoon, and I thought that if it was left to the eloquence of Lord Camperdown he might be more likely to persuade your Lordships.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The noble Earl accepted the clause on the last occasion and allowed it to pass.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

The words I used on the former occasion were practically what I have just said. What I then said —I am reading from Hansard—was this— Although His Majesty's Government cannot accept this proposed new clause, we shall certainly not put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing on the subject in view of the decision which was come to yesterday on the general question of disinterested management. I shall content myself, therefore, with pointing out some of the difficulties into which the noble Earl will place the authors of the disinterested management resolution by the adoption of this Amendment. I then pointed out some of the difficulties that it would give rise to, and that even if we did accept the Amendment it would probably be necessary to make some amendment in it on Report. As your Lordships know, this is one of the many Amendments which have been put into the Bill against the wishes of His Majesty's Government, and therefore, as is usual in such cases, His Majesty's Government cannot accept the responsibility of putting the Amendment into such a shape as would be agreeable to themselves. I think your Lordships will see that the position of any Government would be impossible if, when Amendments are put into a Bill against their will, they are then expected to make an Amendment which is wholly contrary to the general principles of the Bill one which they could accept. Therefore our position now is just what it was on the last occasion.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am sure my noble friend who is responsible for this clause will not suspect us who sit on this Bench of any indifference to the cause of disinterested management. Throughout these discussions we have to the best of our ability fought for that cause. If I am in any doubt as to whether I shall support my noble friend, it is certainly not because I am out of sympathy with his object. But I wish to examine the matter a little further. The noble Earl told us a moment ago that the object of this Bill was to promote temperance. That, no doubt, is the motive which has impelled the authors of this Bill. But we have to keep very distinctly before ourselves what are the methods by which this Bill proceeds. This Bill is primarily—we have been told so again and again by members of His Majesty's Government—a measure for transferring from the present licensing authorities to the electors the right of deciding what kind of arrangements they shall have with regard to licences. It is a Local Option Bill. When it first came to us there were only the three options in it—prohibition, reduction, and no change. We have obtained the addition of a fourth option—the disinterested management option; and in future under this Bill the friends of disinterested management will get an absolutely fair chance alongside of those who favour options of a different kind. Up to that point the ease seems to me to be perfectly clear. But then the noble Earl, Lord Grey, wants to go a good deal further. He wants under this clause to say that for the future in all areas where there is neither a prohibition resolution nor a reduction resolution in force no new licence shall be given except for disinterested management.

EARL GREY

Where there is an authorised company.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Where there is an authorised company. That seems to me to be a very wide extension of the claim of those who favour disinterested management, and I should be inclined to say that in the interests of disinterested management itself it would be wiser to leave the matter where it is in the Bill without this clause and to let disinterested management stand its fair chance with the other options, rather than claim on the top of that what would, after all, be a special privilege for disinterested management in other areas. Therefore very reluctantly indeed, if my noble friend goes to a Division I ant afraid I cannot support the clause.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7:

Structural alterations.

7. As from the passing of this Act, and until the first day of June nineteen hundred and seventeen, it shall not be competent for a licensing court to order any structural alterations of licensed premises under section forty-two, subsection (3), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The words "first day of June nineteen hundred and seventeen" were five years from the 1st of June, 1912. Your Lordships having altered the period to ten years, my Amendment to this clause becomes necessary.

Amendment moved— Page 8, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("first day of June nineteen hundred and seventeen") and insert ("earliest date when Resolutions under the provisions of this Act can come into operation").— The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8:

Later Hour of opening.

8. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, the licensing court shall insert in all certificates granted from or after the twenty-eighth day of May nineteen hundred and thirteen the hour of ten o'clock in the morning in lieu of the hour of eight of the clock in the morning and the forms of certificate contained in the Sixth Schedule to the said Act shall be construed accordingly:—Provided that where sale of commodities other than exciseable liquors is otherwise lawful, such commodities may be sold before such hour, and provided further that exciseable liquors may be despatched before such hour in fulfilment of orders received as prescribed by section sixty-three of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, and that section fifty-six of that Act shall apply to this Act.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

On this clause I ask the indulgence of your Lordships for a moment because I want to make a personal explanation which is due not only to myself but to the House. On the discussion of some words in this clause on the last occasion I made a statement which subsequent inquiry has convinced me was not wholly accurate. The clause provides for making the hour of opening public-houses ten o'clock instead of eight o'clock. In speaking in support of time clause I said it was very important because of certain things which happened when men were leaving off work on Monday mornings. The actual statement which I made, and which has been subsequently challenged, was that as the men went from their work to their breakfast they found outside the public-houses along the highway rows of tankards of ale and stout, and so on, ready for their consumption. It was inaccurate on my part to say that these vessels were placed outside the public-houses. I made the statement, I need hardly tell your Lordships, in perfectly good faith upon the information of another person to whom I can no longer refer because he is not now with us. I thought I had verified it, but I am convinced that that particular statement was inaccurate, and I believe that it would be illegal to put these vessels outside the public-houses under such circumstances. Therefore to that extent the statement I made was wrong. I have had some of these public-houses watched on Monday mornings since the last occasion, and one of my informants is good enough to suggest to me that on the whole my statement was accurate because the tankards and so on could be seen from the outside of the public-houses. My Lords, that is rather too thin for me. I said they were outside, and it was inaccurate to say they were outside. Therefore I frankly withdraw that part of the statement. But that there is a great deal well deserving of reform in this matter is proved by the fact that at a certain public-house, the name of which I can give if anybody wants it, which was watched on the morning of Monday, December 23 last, in nine minutes—between nine o'clock and nine minutes past nine—eighty-three people were seen to enter and forty-seven to come out. Those were all workmen going from their morning's work to their breakfast under the circumstances I detailed to your Lordships on the last occasion. I have a number of other figures here with which I shall not weary your Lordships, but the little observation I have had conducted since that time confirms me in the belief that this clause is a wise clause.

But the matter does not rest there, for I have received unsolicited testimony from two gentlemen. They were not known to me, but since they wrote the letters I have inquired as to the position they occupy. I find they are both of them excellent specimens of the best of our wage-earning classes in.Scotland who have raised themselves to good positions in the walks of life which they follow. I am prepared to give the names if it is absolutely necessary. I have their permission to do so, but I do not do it because I do not want to draw upon them more correspondence than is necessary. I will read to your Lordships the two letters which I have received. One gentleman writes to me— I observed in the newspapers the report of your statement in the House of Lords that publicans near large works prepared for the rush of trade at the meal hours and at closing times. When I was in the ship yard many years ago I know it was the practice of publicans near the gates to fill up beer and whisky for the men coming out of the yards. Not only that, but they had men who worked in the yards and went in behind the bar during the rush times in their blue dungaree jackets and black hands and faces to help the regular barmen. On Saturday, December 28th"— that is, since we had the Committee stage of the Bill in this House— I went down to Govan to see if the practice continued, and I found that the swing doors of public-houses near the yard gates were fixed back and row upon row of glasses of whisky, no half glasses, were filled out ready for the men swarming in out of the yards after twelve o'clock. I write this letter to you as I understand your statement has been challenged, and I think it right that one who knows should support you with this information. The other gentleman writes from a place near Glasgow, between Partick and Clydebank, which was mentioned the other day. I ought to say that when I made my statement I did not refer to Clydebank, and I have said so publicly since. This gentleman writes— During the discussion on the Scottish Temperance Bill presently before Parliament you made some comments on the mode of pushing the liquor trade by certain publicans in Clydebank, especially in the vicinity of large public works. Though the actual mode of procedure is somewhat different from what you described yet in substance your statement was substantially correct, and from what I have witnessed to-day in one of the public-houses near Brown & Co.'s shipyard I am prompted to write to you and state the actual facts. The men are usually paid at 12.15 p.m. and half an hour before that I saw a large number of glasses (I counted about 200 on one side of the counter alone) being filled each with a glass of whisky, while a number of pint measures were filled with beer till within about an inch of the top in order to enable the bar-tender to meet the rush which was presently to ensue. I do not want to read the whole letter. He says he does not doubt that the pro-motors of the Local Veto Bill mean well, but what they will do may aggravate the evil. He goes on— For instance, in the vicinity of the shipyard I have mentioned there are, perhaps, five or six public-houses. Local Veto may restrict the number to three or four with the result that the remaining publicans, instead of preparing 300 glasses of whisky and beer, will probably double that number in order to meet the increased rush. On the other hand, it is unthinkable that under disinterested management so sordid and debasing a sight as I have witnessed to-day could possibly take place. I hope it may yet be possible to make the Bill a real temperance measure. I thought it right, when I had myself fallen into an error and perhaps to some extent misled the House, that I should make this statement, and I promised to do so to correspondents who challenged the accuracy of what I had said. I am bound to add, in my own justification, that although what I said was not literally correct I do not think I overstated the difficulties and evils of the present system.

^*LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON moved an Amendment to substitute "nine o'clock" for "ten o'clock" as the hour of opening. The noble Lord said: It will be in the recollection of the House that when we were in Committee on this Bill I had an Amendment on the Paper in exactly the same words, but in consequence of the effect produced on myself as well as on the rest of the House by what was then said by Lord Balfour I thought it desirable not to move the Amendment. I have since heard that Lord Balfour, as he has now done, intended to modify the statement he then made, and I shall rather base the arguments which I will use with reference to the opening hour on what he has said. The present hour of opening, eight o'clock, is by the Bill to be changed to ten o'clock. At nine o'clock the men leave off work in the ironworks and steelworks with which I am acquainted and go and get breakfast. They have from nine o'clock till 9.45 for their breakfast, and they mostly go to public-houses, which are all obliged to supply them, besides liquors, with tea and coffee and bread and cheese if they choose to call for it. Many of these men have come from Glasgow—I am speaking of the district in which I live—by the five o'clock train, and by nine o'clock they have been at work and travelling for four hours. It is not unreasonable that they should want some refreshment by that time, and it is very hard upon them that the public-houses should not open until ten o'clock as they have to get back to their work by a quarter to ten. I submit, therefore, that it is only reasonable that the hour of opening should be nine o'clock. Lord Balfour has quoted to us, in the first letter he read, that in the dinner hour and at the conclusion of work these men rush in and get so many glasses of whisky and beer, and so on. How will changing the opening hour from eight to ten o'clock in the morning affect that? That will not produce any effect upon the men. Then, again, in the second letter that he read his correspondent said that it was on Saturday, the pay-day, at half-past twelve that they all came out and had a drink. I do not see how that would be affected by a clause which provided that the opening hour should be ten o'clock instead of eight. Therefore I move that the opening hour should be at nine o'clock.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 15, leave out ("ten") and insert ("nine").—(Lord Belhaven and Stenton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I think I should repeat the reluctance which His Majesty's Government naturally feel towards accepting this Amendment. After all, a great deal of what was said by Lord Balfour of Burleigh really applied to this very hour which the noble Lord wishes to alter. In the figures he gave us he spoke of the very large numbers of men who went into the public-houses between nine o'clock and nine minutes past. They would be allowed to go in and get this drink under the Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite, although I am quite sure it was the general feeling of your Lordships' House when this Bill was last before us that it was desirable to restrict these facilities. This is, I would almost say, one of the very few provisions of a purely temperance kind which has not been amended in this House during one of the stages of the Bill, and I venture to hope that your Lordships will agree to let it go through on this occasion without amendment. There is no doubt at all on the part of every social reformer that it is eminently desirable to restrict drinking at these early hours of the day.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 9:

Amendment of law relating to clubs.

9.—(1) Section seventy-eight, subsection (1), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903 (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the Act of 1903"), shall be amended (a) by substituting the words "and the names and addresses of the members" for the words "and the names of the members"; (b) by substituting the words "two members either of the licensing court or of the court of appeal for the county within which such premises are situate, or one member of each of such courts not being the same member, or, where such premises are situate within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace who for the time being are members of the court of appeal from the burgh licensing court or by two magistrates of the burgh, or by one justice, as aforesaid, and one magistrate," for the words "two justices of the peace for the county within which such premises are situate, or, where such premises are situate, within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace, as aforesaid, or by two magistrates of the burgh, or by one justice and one magistrate"; and (c) by adding the words "(1) any such justice of the peace or magistrate may, within ten days from the date on which he signed the certificate, withdraw his name from the certificate granted by him; and (2)," after the words "Provided that."

(2) Section seventy-nine, subsection (2), of the Act of 1903 shall be amended by including amongst those persons who may lodge objections to the grant or renewel of the certificate of registration the procurator fiscal and any person, or the agent of any person, owning or occupying property in the neighbourhood of the club, and by substituting the word "twenty-one" for the word "ten."

(3) Section seventy-nine, subsection (4), of the Act of 1903 shall have effect as if the power conferred thereby on the sheriff (to award expenses against the unsuccessful party where objection has been taken to the grant or renewal of a certificate) included the like power where a summary complaint has been lodged.

(4) Any person or council competent under the Act of 1903 to lodge objections to the grant or renewal of a certificate of registration may, within twenty-one days of the receipt of the notice of application for the grant or renewal of a certificate, lodge with the registrar objections to such grant or renewal of the certificate on one or more of the following grounds, and that in addition to the grounds specified in section eighty one of the Act of 1903:—

1. (a) That the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable or convenient for the purpose of a club; or
2. (b) That the club is to be used mainly as a drinking club; or
3. (c) That the officials and committee of management, or governing body, or the manager, or a servant employed in or by the club have, or has, or will have, a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the club of excisable liquors, or in the profits arising therefrom; or
4. (d) That persons are habitually admitted or supplied as members without an interval of at least two weeks between their nomination and election as ordinary members; or
5. (e) That the officials and committee of management or governing body or the members are persons of bad character or who follow no lawful occupation and have no lawful means of subsistence; or
6. (f) That the club has been or will be used as the resort of criminals or persons of bad character; or
7. (g) That men or women of bad fame assemble in or frequent the club.

(5) Section eighty-nine of the Act of 1903 shall be read as if the words "an application with the "accompanying documents specified in section "seventy-eight, subsection (1), of the Act of 1903 "anyone of" were substituted for the words "an application for registration."

(6) This section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved to amend paragraph (a) of subsection (4) by inserting, after the word "club," the words "or that there is a drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of excisable liquors." The noble Viscount said: After what the noble Earl opposite has just said I hope, as the Amendments standing in my name are intended to, and I believe would, promote the cause of temperance, he will be able to give them the favourable consideration of His Majesty's Government. I think any one who has taken an active part in the administration of the licensing laws must feel that, however much good may be done by the total closing of public-houses in any district or by the diminution of their number, more harm than good will result from those processes if what happens afterwards is the starting of clubs where drink can be obtained in unlicensed premises without police supervision, open at any hours, and subject to practically no control. I have known cases where infinite harm has been done in that way in England, and I am quite sure that any one who has had similar experience in the administration of the law must have found the same state of things existing with regard to many clubs.

The law at present as to the registration of these clubs is by no means stringent. His Majesty's Government have felt that this is a serious danger, and have in Clause 9 of this Bill stiffened up the law and enabled objections to be made to the registration or the renewal of the registration of a club on additional grounds to those which are at present allowed. The first of those grounds is that the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable or 'convenient for the purpose of a club. I propose to acid to those words, "or that there is a drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of excisable liquors." If noble Lords will turn to Clause 3 of this Bill they will find that in cases where a no-license resolution is in force in any area no certificate shall he granted therein, with this exception—that a certificate may be granted for "an inn and hotel or for premises structurally adapted for use and bona fide used or to be used as a restaurant: Provided that any 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 excisable liquors." I propose to apply those words in the case of clubs, and to enact that the existence of such a bar shall be a ground for the objection to the registration or renewal of registration of such a club.

I do not think anybody can argue that the existence of a drinking-bar is necessary in a club. There are very many clubs where no such drinking-bar exists at all, and when I heard the noble Earl opposite state, in the discussions in Committee on this Bill, that His Majesty's Government had endeavoured to treat clubs as private houses it occurred to me that certainly it is not a usual thing to have a drinking-bar in any private house. The temptations that arise from, and the mischief that is done by, the existence of drinking-bars of the kind is notorious, and His Majesty's Government have admitted it by inserting in the Bill in Clause 3 the words I have read with regard to hotels and restaurants. I hope that, this being the case, they may he willing to agree to this Amendment. I trust your Lordships may feel that, although there are many reasons why we should not interfere with anything that is really necessary for a club, yet where a case of this kind exists, where the existence of a drinking-bar cannot be said for a moment to be necessary, it is no unfair interference with the freedom of those who desire to establish a club that a drinking-bar should be prohibited. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 26, after ("club") insert ("or that there is a drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of excisable liquors").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

On behalf of His Majesty's Government I rise to say that we shall offer no opposition to the insertion of this somewhat drastic proposal, but we think it not unlikely that before we reach the Third Reading the noble Viscount himself may wish to make some amendment even to his Amendment. I am quite sure that we all realise that there are some clubs which are perfectly reputable and conducted in a perfectly respectable manner although they have drinking-bars on their premises. The other point to which I especially wish to direct the attention of the noble Viscount is whether this Amendment is not one which might have a very different effect upon clubs of a different social status. It is not easy to define "or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of excisable liquors." Some people might think that the smoking rooms of some clubs which shall be nameless are very largely devoted to that purpose. Certainly it is a very difficult thing to judge, I should say, of any special room in any particular club whether it was mainly or exclusively used, or not used, for the consumption of excisable liquors. I think that some further precision is desirable in connection with this Amendment, something which would define more precisely the objects of the noble Viscount; but whether or not he would wish to make any amendment on a future occasion is not a thing we need discuss now, as I only rise to say that we accept the proposal On the present occasion.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

If the noble Earl will suggest amending words I shall be glad to consider them. I have simply taken the words in another part of the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

I beg to move the second Amendment which I have placed on the Paper. Paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of Clause 9 provides that it may be an objection to the registration of the club— That the officials and committee of management, or governing body, or the manager, or a servant employed in or by the club have, or has, or will have, a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the club of excisable liquors, or in the profits arising therefrom. I propose to add to those persons "the owner of the promises (when the same are not owned by the club) or the immediate lessor of the premises." There is a slight alteration of the words as they stand.

This and the following Amendment arise from cases which have come under my own knowledge. I remember in a parish in a neighbouring county to my own that the only public-house in that parish was closed by its owner. Directly afterwards a neighbouring brewer who had supplied that public-house built a small house very near to it, formed a club in that house, anti for years that place was carried on as a most mischievous club. It could not be suppressed. Year after year he applied for a licence for those premises and year after year the magistrates refused a licence, and in the end it became such a public nuisance that they were obliged to grant a licence in order to bring it under police supervision.

I will state another case which came within my own knowledge. A brewer gave up a licence on condition that a licence should be granted to him in another district. As soon as the licence was given up he started the tenant of that public-house as the secretary of a club and supplied the club with beer and other liquors. He formed a club of the persons who had been frequenting the public-house at a nominal membership subscription of 1s. a year and that club has gone on to the present day. Those two instances are within my own knowledge, and I have put down these two Amendments in order to prevent that sort of thing happening in places where public-houses are closed.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 20, after ("That") insert ("the owner of the premises (when the same are not owned by the club), or the immediate lessor of the premises, or").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I shall be glad to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 38, after ("members") insert ("or for a subscription of a merely nominal amount").—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I would ask the noble Viscount to be good enough to consider the question again somewhat more precisely as to the words "nominal amount." This phrase is one which it would not be very easy to have a decision upon, and in Scotland, where these questions come before the sheriffs, one sheriff might think one sum a sufficient amount and another might think it wholly inadequate and demand something greater. It is desirable, therefore, that something more definite should be in the Bill. Perhaps the noble Viscount will think it over between now and Third Reading so that more definite words may be put in on the next occasion.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHANNING

The new clause which I have placed on the Paper is to restrict the days and the hours of sale on the premises of registered clubs to the same days and the same hours as intoxicating liquors can be legally sold in public-houses. I will at once refer to one point which may occur to noble Lords—namely, that this would not be operative in a no-licence area. You would require, perhaps, further restrictions, which might be introduced later on, to deal with that difficulty. Provisos might also be suggested with regard to residential clubs and otherwise which might have to be added if this clause were adopted. I am moving this clause at the request of the City Council of Glasgow in order to lay before your Lordships the definite claim which has been set up by the greatest municipality in Scotland to have these provisions placed at their disposal which in their opinion are necessary for social order and to carry out their immense responsibility for a population about a fifth of the whole of Scotland. They passed resolutions last spring and again this last autumn demanding these powers, and they have laid a Petition before your Lordships' House asking that this Amendment shall be inserted in the Bill. It seems to me that the demand of a great municipality of that kind does deserve some consideration from your Lordships' House.

Another point which seems to me to call for some consideration on this occasion is this, that this Amendment was moved in another place by one of the ablest of the Labour representatives in Parliament, Mr. Barnes, the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow, in a speech of remarkable ability and searching power. I would remind your Lordships that Mr. Barnes was for many years the representative of the greatest trade union affecting the whole of the Glasgow area—that of the engineers. You have, therefore, this proposal backed, not only by the municipality of Glasgow, but also by the representative of the greatest body of trade unionists in that district.

The whole course of licensing legislation has been to go farther and farther in the direction of restricting the opportunities of sale in public-houses. We have placed greater restrictions upon them, and the greatest and most important of these restrictions has always been conceded to be that limiting the hours during which the sale of liquor may be carried on. A similar tendency has been shown in all the legislation on this subject to apply to clubs the same restrictions that have been applied to public-houses, and undoubtedly this restriction as to the hours seems to anyone who is acquainted with the subject the most vital and most important of all. It seems to me it can be put in the briefest way thus. The hours during which the sale can be carried on in clubs tend to mark off the definite area, in which the good club passes into the bad club, and if your Lordships were to adopt a principle of this kind you would be asserting the claim of Parliament to rescue the clubs from the graver temptations which tend to degrade and destroy the usefulness of clubs in themselves.

The noble Viscount who has just addressed the House and carried several Amendments of vital importance to this Bill spoke of his own acquaintance with this subject. I represented in the House of Commons for many years a division which contained, I believe, the largest number of workmen's clubs and of club men in any constituency in the country, and I am well acquainted with both the good and the bad side of clubs. Some clubs are praiseworthy; they have contributed largely to social life, to the promotion of hospitals and infirmaries, of horticulture, small holdings, art exhibitions, and every sort of good work in their area, and have legitimately met a real social want in providing for wholesome intercourse and recreation which is absolutely necessary in industrial districts. Other clubs in villages and towns with which I am familiar have not infrequently, I have been assured, poured out night after night, crowds of drunken men carrying uproar through the streets for hours and hours and causing discomfort and disorder in the district. I have had many representations from the clergy and from ladies who take up social work that the effect, especially upon young girls who are tempted to keep the late hours which obtain at drinking concerts in clubs, have sometimes been of the most disastrous and saddening description. These are matters deserving of the consideration of all who care for social well-being.

When you touch this question of hours you get to the root of the matter. There are many restrictions in Clause 9 of this Bill which will do good in removing the special difficulties which the Scottish authorities have found in dealing with the registration of clubs in Scotland. But I say that the City of Glasgow and the Labour representatives who have supported this principle have touched on the real point when they ask for this further restriction in regard to clubs. I remember very well when the present Prime Minister introduced his Licensing Bill in 1908 that the very first thing the then Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Henderson, who was respected by all Members in the House of Commons, said was that he hoped that the proposal of this Amendment would be a portion of that great Bill. That is an illustration of the attitude of Labour in this matter. The worst mischiefs which arise from clubs are largely due to providing liquor at hours when it cannot be got at public-houses. I would draw attention specially to the fact that Scotland is a country under Sunday closing with general approval. The adoption of this Amendment would be to diminish what is, perhaps, the greatest social evil in the present state of things arising from clubs in Scotland. The City of Glasgow obtained figures at the time when they prosecuted some forty-three of the clubs under the Act of 1903. Those figures gave 3,285 persons coming out of the clubs in a state of intoxication during the years in which observations were carried out, and of those persons no fewer than 2,200 issued from those clubs in a state of intoxication on Sundays. That, I think, is a most deplorable and saddening state of things.

Again, it seems to me that if you do not restrict the hours of clubs to the same hours as public-houses you are doing away with the real value of the reform in Clause 8 of postponing the opening of public-houses to 10 o'clock, to which Lord Balfour of Burleigh alluded. The evidence given before Lord Peel's Commission was decisive on the point of the danger to industrial efficiency and social morality of this early drinking by workmen. That would be, of course, at once passed over to the clubs, and the clubs would be tempted to drop into that line of action. I have thought it my duty to bring this question before the house. It seems to me a matter of very vital importance, and I am confident that this principle will be, at one time or another, carried into effect in practical legislation. It seems to me utterly unreasonable and unjust that it should be assumed that it is a great crime, a crime which society should employ all the instruments of law to prevent and check and punish, for men to get drunk in public-houses, and at the same time to allow unchecked the destruction of social morality which goes on in clubs owing to the late hours at which they keep open and to the Sunday morning drinking which is one of the worst features of club life in England, and a feature which an Amendment of this kind would certainly meet and deal with. This has been demanded, as I say, by the voice of Labour and by the voice of the largest municipality in Scotland, and I venture, in moving this new clause, to submit those considerations with all respect to your Lordships' House.

Amendment moved— Insert the following new clause:—

Hours for supply or sale of excisable liquors in clubs.

. Excisable liquors may be supplied or sold in a registered club to any member thereof only on the days on which, and during the hours within which, excisable liquors may be supplied or sold in public houses within the burgh or county or county district, as the case may be, in which the said club is situated, and at no other time.—(Lord Channing).

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Your Lordships have already passed Amendments of a somewhat far-reaching character dealing with clubs, and I venture to hope that they will be found satisfactory to my noble friend behind me. We all admit the existence of a general desire that the law with regard to clubs should be somewhat tightened up. That has been done by the Amendments to which your Lordships have just agreed, and I am inclined to think that a great part of the support which my noble friend who has just sat down tells me is behind his Amendment would be equally behind those Amendments to which we have just agreed. I feel sure that a large number of those who sympathise with the noble Lord's Amendment also sympathise with the Amendments which we have just put in, and I therefore am inclined to ask him whether he does not think, for the present at any rate, we have gone far enough in altering the law with regard to clubs, and whether he would not rather wait and see how the Amendments we have made in the law with regard to clubs work before asking for further Amendments to this Bill.

Your Lordships will see in a moment that if this Amendment were accepted it would put clubs even in a worse position than hotels in so far that no excisable liquors could be supplied even to residents in the clubs during the days on which, or after the hour at which, public-houses are closed within the burgh or county or county district within which the club was situated. Hotels and restaurants, under very careful supervision, are excepted under certain conditions. Those conditions apparently would not apply to clubs if the Amendment of my noble friend were accepted. I must tell him also that during the short time this Amendment has been on the Paper many representations have been received from clubs of all shades of political opinion against it. They all object to it, and I am quite sure that your Lordships would be acting in accordance with their wishes if this Amendment were rejected this evening. I venture to hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be content with the real alterations which have been made in the law and will not press his Amendment to a Division.

LORD CHANNING

I shall not proceed further with this Amendment. At the same time I would remind the noble Earl on the Front Bench that the objections taken to the suggestion of the Glasgow Corporation by the clubs are not an absolutely conclusive argument on this question. The chairman of the largest conference of clubmen that I have ever had the pleasure of addressing rather accepted the principle by saying that the best clubs always wished to be closed at the same time as public-houses. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10:

Amendments of 3 Edw. 7. c. 25 ss. 16 and 31.

10.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section sixteen of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, it shall be lawful for the licensing court and the licensing appeal court, in any case where there are more than one application for a certificate for the same premises, to hear and consider the said applications together.

(2) Section thirty-one, subsection (2), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, shall be amended by substituting the, words "until the twenty-eighth day of May or the twenty-eighth day of November following, as the case may be," for the words "until the next general half-yearly meeting of the licensing court."

(3) This section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I have an Amendment to this clause to insert a new subsection. This is in accordance with an undertaking which I gave to meet a point raised by Lord Balfour of Burleigh in Committee.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 12, at the beginning of the line insert as a new subsection: ("(1) Section 5, subsection (9) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, shall be amended by the insertion at the end thereof of the words 'provided that in the absence of a quorum the chairman of the court or in his absence, the clerk may call a further meeting in lieu of the meeting not held'").—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LAMINGTON

I move the insertion after Clause 14, of the new clause standing in my name. My Amendment deals with a subject which I have previously brought before your Lordships' notice, and I do not think what is aimed at in this new clause in any way conflicts with the principle of the Bill. What it seeks to do is to allow those licence-holders who wish to raise the status of their houses to put them in a better position than hitherto. I think everyone who speaks at all on temperance matters, except the very fanatical opponents of any licences at all, agrees that it ought to be the aim and object of all to improve the condition of public-houses and make them places to which decent people can take their families. I need not enlarge on that point now. The opponents to any such proposal have always been people on the licensing Bench who half-heartedly approve this desire to make public-houses better but who impose such onerous terms upon the licence-holder that he is unable to give the undertaking that is demanded of him. There are also those on the licensing Bench who are sometimes animated by corrupt purposes, and cases have arisen where it has been a distinctly lucrative operation for persons to get on the Bench in the guise of strong opponents of any licence. By that means publicans have been corruptly induced to offer money or bribes to these gentlemen who have been entrusted with the question of the determination of licences, and it is to obviate this danger that I propose to introduce this clause. As I say, it does not conflict ill any way with the provisions of the Bill, but it will put houses where there have been real bona fide improvements executed in a better position than hitherto.

Amendment moved— Insert the following new clause.

"Improved Public House Certificates.

".—(1) Where licensed premises are not merely places for the consumption of intoxicating liquor, but can contain adequate provision for the supply of food, light refreshments, and for recreation, and are airy, commodious and comfortable, and have proper seating and sanitary accommodation, the licensing court shall, on the application of the licence holder, when the application for the grant or renewal of a licence is heard, issue a certificate that the premises form 'an improved public house.'

"(2) An appeal to the Court of Appeal shall lie against refusal by the licensing court to grant such a certificate, and against withdrawal thereof.

"(3) For the period during which a non-licence resolution remains in force in any area, licensed premises within that area to which an 'improved public house' certificate is attached shall be taken to be premises structurally adapted for use and bona fide used or to be used as a restaurant."— (Lord Lamington.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Your Lordships will hardly expect us to accept this Amendment. I think the subject of this Amendment has been debated before. If I remember right, the noble Lord introduced a Bill specially dealing with this subject in a previous session, but it did not receive unanimous approval' in this House.

LORD LAMINGTON

It passed Second Reading.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Yes; but it did not meet with unanimous approval. The noble Lord, apart from the question of principle, will expect me also probably to say something with regard to the form in which he has moved his Amendment. The first section of this proposed clause, in our opinion, is far too vague for statutory purposes. For instance, the questions of proper seating and sanitary accommodation and the question of "an improved public-house" are so much matters of opinion that we do not think it would be very easy to administer the law, certainly not in the direction which the noble Lord would wish it to be administered. Let me point out an apparent contradiction between the first subsection and the second. In the first subsection the noble Lord seems to say that the Licensing Court shall issue a certificate; but in his second subsection he appears to contemplate a power to refuse to grant that certificate, because he allows an appeal to th3 Court of Appeal. In our opinion subsection (3) would practically nullify the whole of this Bill. Your Lordships will see that during the time when a no-licence resolution remains in force, after all the conditions and all the difficulties have been overcome with which the attainment of a no-licence resolution is surrounded, even then any licensed premises to which an improved public-house certificate is attached apparently are to be used for a public-house or for a restaurant as the owner might wish. This is really taking directly away, not only from the voters but also from the Licensing Court, any real power to deal with the licences in their area.

LORD LAMINGTON

It only comes under the operation of Clause 3 in the same way as the other case of hotels and restaurants.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

It allows anybody apparently who chooses to spend the money in making these improved public-houses attractive to have a licence, and so far removes, as I say, not only from the voters but also from the Licensing Court, their power to prohibit the licence from being issued. The Amendment is so entirely contrary to the whole principle of the Bill that His Majesty's Government are unable to accept it, and I venture to hope that your Lordships will not agree to insert the proposed new clause.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD

May I ask the noble Lord opposite whether subsection (3) of his Amendment would bring such improved public-houses under the same regulation as applies to restaurants?

LORD LAMINGTON

Yes, exactly the same.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD

If so, they would have to dispense with any "drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the sale or consumption of excisable liquors," and such liquors would have to be sold therein "by retail only and to none but persons lodging or residing in the hotel, or persons taking a meal in the restaurant." The improved public-house would therefore really to all intents and purposes be a restaurant, and would not be a house used for the purposes of an ordinary public-house.

LORD LAMINGTON

To all intents and purposes yes, according to the definition in the first subsection.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD

I am glad that the noble Earl has pointed out the extreme uncertainty of the first section of this clause. Anybody who has followed, or who has had anything to do with, the proceedings of Licensing Committees can see at a glance that this would create a great many questions which would be extremely difficult to decide, and I am afraid, although I know it is not the intention of the mover, that as it stands the effect of this proposed clause would be that a very large number of public-houses would be able to place themselves entirely out of the control of the Licensing Committee.

LORD LAMINGTON

I do not think so at all; they would have to get their certificate.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

Having taken a great interest in the object which my noble friend Lord Lamington has in view, I would like to say a word of thanks to him for having brought this Amendment forward. I do not think that any one who heard the cordial reception that was given by a large majority in this House to the words used by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Grey, on the Second Reading, when he was describing the value of what he called the improvement in the condition of public-houses, can doubt that there is a great amount of sympathy in this House with the object which the noble Lord has in view. For my part I feel that the future improvement of public-houses is a most important element in the increase of temperance throughout the country. At the same time I am not unaware of the difficulties of suggesting any new clause of this sort in the present Bill. After the observation made by the noble Marquess behind me (Lord Lansdowne) on another suggested Amendment and the view that he then took of the difficulty of introducing into this Bill fresh matter which was not entirely in conformity with the rest of the Bill, I should not be surprised if he took the same view about this proposed clause. But I could not allow the opportunity to pass without rising to say that for my part I think the objects and intentions of this clause are thoroughly sound, and I sincerely hope that before very long, in some shape or another, the objects which my noble friend has in view may be carried out.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I remember very distinctly the occasion on which my noble friend behind me introduced a Bill in this House dealing with the subject of his Amendment, and I am sure he is right in believing that on that occasion he received a great deal of support from different parts of the House so far as the general idea of his measure was concerned. But I must say that I doubt very much whether he will be well advised to press this Amendment after what has been said by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. My noble friend observed incidentally that he thought his Amendment did not conflict with the Bill, but I must; say there would, in my opinion, be considerable difficulty in fitting it into the scheme of the Bill on the Table. This Bill is already not wanting in complication, and the Amendment would have the effect of introducing into the Bill a new variety of public-house—the "improved public-house" of my noble friend's Amendment. I doubt extremely whether it would be possible to make this addition to the Bill without rendering an already complicated measure even more difficult to administer than it will be as it is at present.

LORD LAMINGTON

I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16:

Definitions.

16. The several words and expressions used in this Act shall unless otherwise provided or unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction have the same respective meanings as in the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903:

Provided that in this Act— Area" means—

1. (a) in the case of a burgh the population of which within the police boundaries thereof according to the census for the time being last taken is less than twenty-five thousand, the whole burgh;
2. (b) in the case of a county, the parish, as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1891, excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein, and where a parish is situated within two counties, the portion in each county shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a separate parish:

Burgh" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh: County means a county exclusive of any burgh or part of a burgh comprised therein: Certificate" means any certificate for the sale by retail of excisable liquors granted in terms of or under the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903: Provided that for the period during which a no-licence resolution is in force in any area, no dealer's licence for the sale of excisable liquor by wholesale shall be granted therein by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise, except to brewers of beer for sale, distillers, rectifiers, or compounders of spirits, makers of sweets, or wholesale dealers in spirits, wine beer, or sweets for premises for which similar licences have been taken out for twelve months before the date of the poll, including any reconstruction of, addition to, or extension of such premises on the same or an adjoining site, and any premises in substitution for such premises from which the holder of the licence removes without the production of a certificate authorising such sale from the licensing court; which certificate shall be applied for, granted, confirmed, transferred and renewed in the same manner as though it were a certificate authorising such sale by retail; and provided, further, that subject to the variation of conditions prescribed by this Act the form of certificate for an inn and hotel or for a restaurant granted under section three of this Act shall be, respectively, the first and second form prescribed by the Sixth Schedule of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903. Elector" means, in the case of—

1. (a) a burgh, any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of town councillors for that burgh, and when used in relation to any area in a burgh means a person so registered as entitled to vote at an election for that area; and in the case of—
2. (b) a parish (excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein), any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of parish councillors for that parish, excluding as aforesaid: Provided that the last preceding supplementary register made up under section twenty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall continue in operation for the purposes of a poll taken in the first year in which a poll can be taken under the provisions of this Act; and provided, further, that for the purposes of a requisition in the, year of a triennial election of county councillors before the register of parish council elector; is made up "elector" means any ratepayer within the parish, excluding as aforesaid:

The expression "grant" when used in relation to a certificate includes the grant of a certificate by way of renewal or transfer: Local authority" means in the case of—

1. (a) a burgh, the town council thereof; and
2. (b) a county, the county council thereof:

No-change resolution" means a resolution that the powers and discretion of the licensing court in regard to the grant of certificates or otherwise shall remain unchanged, and in section two as applied to a further poll in any area where a limiting resolution is in force means a continuance resolution.

EARL BEAUCHAMP had two Amendments on the Paper to amend the definition of "Area" so that it would read— (a) in the case of a burgh which is not divided into wards, or of a burgh the population of which within the police boundaries thereof according to the census for the time being last taken is less than twenty-five thousand, the whole burgh, and in the case of other burghs each ward thereof. The noble Earl said: On Clause 16 I have two Amendments to meet a criticism which fell from the noble Earl below the Gangway, who pointed out, quite rightly, in Committee that further words were necessary. I was unwilling to accept them without seeing them. I have now put the words on the Paper, and I hope they will be generally acceptable to your Lordships. The Bill as it stood provided that where a burgh was divided into wards the ward should be the area provided the population of the burgh was not less than 10,000. The noble Earl below the Gangway proposed to raise that to 30,000. We compromised at 25,000, and that figure was inserted in the Bill. We did not deal with those burghs where the population was more than 25,000, and it is with those burghs that this Amendment will deal. Let me take Aberdeen and Dundee, where the average population of the ward is, in the first case, 14,000, and in the second case, 18,000. Then I take two small places such as Hamilton and Clydebank, in which the population respectively is only 38,000 and 37,000. In the first case the average population of the ward is 7,700, and in Clydebank 7,500, so that your Lordships will see there will be a considerable number of people voting in each area as defined by the Bill. Although we may not be going so far as suggested by the noble Earl below the Gangway, as this carries out practically what was agreed upon in the Committee stage I hope your Lordships will look upon this as a consequential Amendment. I beg to move the first of my two Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 11, after ("burgh") insert ("which is not divided into wards, or of a burgh")—(Earl Beauchamp.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

The object of my noble friend's Amendment, I understand, is that in all burghs above 25,000 the ward shall be taken as the area. Where we do not agree is on this question of the ward being the right area in all cases The question of the ward being the suitable area was argued in Committee, and I do not think it is necessary that I should repeat the arguments. But your Lordships will remember it was said, I think in the case of Glasgow, that there were three wards which run down close to the Central Station. The result would be that if one ward was a no-licence ward and the others were not, a person from the no-licence ward could go into one of the wards where drinking was still permitted by simply walking a few steps. It is for that reason—and I need not elaborate it further—that I object to the ward as the area. I have an Amendment which follows which deals with this in a different way. It says that the ward is not necessarily to be; he area, but that the ward or a part of the ward or a combination of wards may be taken in these large towns by the town council, who, of course, would know all the local circumstances. The town council would submit their suggestion of the area to the Secretary for Scotland, and if he approved of it it would be the area. Those are the two opposing views in the matter, and I naturally prefer my own. I do not object to the first of the noble Earl's two Amendments.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My second Amendment applies only to those burghs winch have a population of more than 25,000. You must have some limit, and whatever limit you adopt you must somewhere or other suddenly drop into the wards which are generally the more convenient things to take. We all know what a ward is. It is a well defined area in local government, and it seems to me the most convenient area we can take.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 14, after ("burgh") insert ("and in the case of other burghs each ward thereof").—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON

May I give your Lordships one case which is just on the boundary line? I refer to the burgh of Wishaw, which happens to have just over 25,000 inhabitants. There are four wards there. Those wards are very small ones, and if one only had adopted a no-licence resolution you would merely have to walk across the street from the no-licence ward into the one with full licences.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The matter is not quite so easily disposed of as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill seems to think. There must be some difficulty somewhere whatever dividing line you take. I venture to suggest to him that the divisions set-out in the next Amendment in the name of Lord Camperdown would meet the case much better than the words in the noble Earl's Amendment. What you want to do is to avoid an arbitrary line. It is all very well to say that the wards are well defined for the purposes of local government, but the purposes of local government are very different from the purposes we are discussing. An almost imaginary line is quite good enough when you are dealing with sanitary questions, or police adminis- tration, but when you are dealing with a case of a man going out of his own district into another district an imaginary line will not do. You must take the local and the central authority into consultation with each other, and that is done in simple language in the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend. From such knowledge as I have of local government in Scotland I would prefer the words of Lord Camperdown's Amendment than the words of the Amendment of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I hope the Government will give way on this. I have not any special knowledge of this particular matter, not being a Scotsman, but it does seem very hard indeed to have the cast-iron area of the wards. The objection to the ward area might be very great indeed, and it might be quite obvious when you came to the administration of the Act that the arbitrary line of the wards could not be defended. Therefore what you want is to introduce some elasticity. It is quite probable in the case of a very large burgh that you could not treat it as a whole, and therefore you must divide it up; but there must be some elastic provision so that those who are interested can make suitable areas, and, failing a better one, I should have thought that the suggestion proposed by my noble friend Lord Camper-down was the better one.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I now move my Amendment, after the word "burgh" at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of "Area," to insert "and in case of any other burgh, any ward or combination of wards or parts of wards, proposed by the town council and approved by the Secretary for Scotland, of which the population shall not be less than twelve thousand." I have already made the few remarks I wanted to make on this Amendment, and I will not trouble your Lordships by saying anything more.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 14, after ("burgh") insert ("and in the case of any other burgh, any ward or combination of wards or parts of wards, proposed by the Town Council and approved by the Secretary for Scotland, of which the population shall not be less than twelve thousand").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.