Sitting of 8 October 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Friday.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.

EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND).
Copy presented of Return of all Loans raised in England, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 30th September, 1912, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
COLONIAL STOCKS.
Return [presented 7th October] to be printed. [No. 331.]
MERCANTILE MARINE (SEAMEN EMPLOYED).
Copy presented of Return of the Number, Ages, Ratings, and Nationalities of the Seamen employed on the 3rd day of April, 1911, on Vessels registered under Part 1. of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in the British Islands [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 51) Warrant, 1912, dated 6th June, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copies presented of Reports Nos. 734 (Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate, Report for 1910), 735 (Southern Nigeria, Report for 1911), and 736 (Somaliland, Report for 1911–12) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH CREAMERIES AND DAIRY PRODUCE BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 313.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Putumayo Rubber District.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what progress has been made during the last two months for securng the inhabitants and traders of the Putumayo district of the Amazon against the cruelties disclosed by Sir B. Casement's report; and (2) whether he has any information from the British Consul at Iquitos about the present state of the natives in the rubber district of the Upper Amazon?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): His Majesty's Consul at Iquitos has been sent to the Putumayo district, which he is now visiting in company with his American colleague. No further action can usefully be taken until I have received and carefully considered the report which he will address to me. The answer to the second question is that I shall have no information until I receive the report of His Majesty's Consul at Iquitos.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is there any ground for hoping that any of those who have been guilty of the atrocities in Putumayo have been executed or punished in any way?
  Sir E. GREY: I would ask the Noble Lord to give me notice of that question.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Can the right hon. Gentleman set up the Select Committee referred to in the last part of the Session before he receives the report of the Consul?
  Sir E. GREY: These two things are not connected so far as I am aware. I am not aware of any reason why the Select Committee should depend upon our receiving the report of the Consul, because it relates to events prior to those to which the Consul's report relates. I would ask the hon. Member to address a question to the Prime Minister on Wednesday.

  Railways Bill.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, and, if so, when, he proposes to proceed with the Second Reading of the Railways Bill?
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am not yet in a position to state when it will be possible to take the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: In view of the multiplicity of interests affected by this Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman give due notice to this House before it is taken?
  Mr. BUXTON: I should like notice of that question.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    OUTDOOR STAFF OF INSURANCE COMMISSION.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that of the fourteen appointments to the outdoor staff of the National Health Insurance Commission made from 600 applications from the Customs and Excise service, one of the officers appointed to an assistant inspectorship was the son of a superintending inspector of Customs and Excise, formerly of the Excise branch, and one was the son of a collector of Customs and Excise, formerly of the Excise branch; what was the length of service and what were the special qualifications of these two officers appointed to assistant inspectorships; and whether, in view of the detrimental influence on the Customs and Excise service of indications which appear to point to an absence of impartiality, he can see his way to issue a general statement as to the methods of selection adopted in this case in order to remove the impression created in the Customs branch of the amalgamated service by these appointments?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Of the Customs and Excise applicants who were appointed as assistant inspectors under
    154
    the National Health Insurance Commission for England, one, who was an officer of Customs and Excise and had had thirteen years' service, was the son of a superintending inspector of Customs and Excise, and another, who was also an officer of Customs and Excise and had had about fifteen years' service, was the son of a superannuated officer (not collector) of Excise. As I have already stated, the Committee of Selection consisted of five members, including representatives of other public departments besides the Board of Customs and Excise, and for chairman the First Civil Service Commissioner. Neither its constitution nor its action affords any ground for the suggestion contained in the latter part of the question.

  Milk and Dairies Bill.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes this Session to introduce the Milk and Dairies Bill; and, if so, when?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Other Government Departments are concerned in the questions involved, but I hope to introduce the Bill very shortly.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he proposes to wedge this measure into our already overcrowded curriculum?
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member should have considered that contingency before he pressed me to introduce the Bill.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I did not press you.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Mr. CHAPLIN: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, and which I asked the President of the Board of Agriculture yesterday, but he was unable to answer, namely: Whether, in the event of the result of the deputation which he has promised to receive tomorrow on the question of the admission of Irish cattle into Great Britain being regarded as unsatisfactory, he will take care, in making any Orders for the future business in this House, that we on this side of the House are not precluded from raising this question in Debate, if it may be thought necessary or desirable to do so?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. Should the right hon. Gentleman consider the result of the deputation unsatisfactory, perhaps he will put down a question later, and the Government will certainly give the most careful consideration to any representation which the right hon. Gentleman may make on the subject.

GREAT POWERS AND BALKANS.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Foreign Secretary if he can give us any information about the position in the Balkans?
Sir E. GREY: No, Sir. So far as official information is concerned, I have not got anything which would enable me to add to the statement I made yesterday. I am, of course, aware of the serious news which has appeared in the Press, but I am not at present in a position to confirm or to contradict it from official sources.

ROSYTH DOCKYARD (STRIKE).
Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether the navvies employed on the Government works at Rosyth have struck work in order to obtain sixpence an hour for their work, and that the works concerned are thereby brought to a standstill, and what steps he proposes to take in order to end the dispute and secure to these men a living wage?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The work at Rosyth is being executed under the old Fair-Wages Clause, the contractor undertaking that the wages paid in the execution of the whole of the work shall be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district in which the work is carried out. In pursuance of this contract, Admiralty investigations showed that the rate for the district was from 5d. to 5£d. The men's contention appears to be that the minimum should be 6d. an hour. This, in our opinion, cannot be insisted upon under the terms of the contract. In point of fact, at the time of the strike the wages were, I understand,
156
from 5d. to 7d. an hour, and, with bonus, 5d. to 7¼d. On Sunday night, 22nd September, the men struck. There were then about 2,800 men employed. Of these about 1,630 were navvies and other labourers. There are now about 280 men at work, mostly tradesmen, so that some 2,400 to 2,500 men are out, including, I imagine, practically all the navvies and other labourers. During the course of the dispute the contractor undertook to make the minimum 5½d. per hour, and gave an assurance that this minimum would not be reduced. We have not so far intervened in the dispute, because it did not appear to us that there had been any infraction of the Fair-Wages Clause. I am quite prepared, however, to refer the Clause in the contract to the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee with the view to securing independent opinion on the matter.
Mr. WILKIE: Is it under the old Fair-Wages Clause?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
Mr. WILKIE: Even under the old or new there is practically no other work there which can be said to be at the rate of the district, therefore should not the rate of the district be the rate for the class of work?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Under the old Fair-Wages Clause the contract was signed on 1st March, 1909, and the rates had to be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district in which the work is carried out.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed the allegation of the contractor, that that is the current wage, and the statement that he is acting within the Fair-Wages Clause?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I may be wrong, but my opinion is that there is no infraction of the Fair-Wages Clause.
Mr. ADAMSON: Will the right hon. hon. Gentleman be prepared to confine the inquiries of the Advisory Committee to the district in which the dispute has arisen?
Dr. MACNAMARA: The Clause provides that we must see that the men get the rate of pay current for competent workmen in the district. What I am prepared to do is to take this Clause to the

157
Advisory Committee to determine what is the district within the meaning of the' Clause and what is the rate current for competent workmen.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing of a similar kind to compare it with unless it be the dock recently erected at Immingham?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say. I will refer the Clause to the Advisory Committee without instructions of any kind.
Mr. BOOTH: Do the questions of housing accommodation and hospital accommodation enter largely into the dispute? Does the right hon. Gentleman prefer to make a statement now or to answer my question to-morrow?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I had better first examine the question. Certainly the question of housing and hospital accommodation has been referred to by way of question and answer during the time this contract has been running.
Mr. HOGGE: If the right hon. Gentleman gives an assurance that he will refer the Fair-Wages Clause to a certain board will he take into consideration the fact that of these 2,000 men practically over one-third have now left the district?
Dr. MACNAMARA: I hope there will be no delay.
Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the navvies employed on the Government works at Rosyth are on strike; that Mr. Gemmell, manager of the Labour Exchange, has attempted to recruit men to blackleg the navvies by him-self visiting Ireland in order to obtain a supply of men; and that as a Jesuit of his visit a number responded and came over, but returned on learning the true condition of affairs; and further to ask that the President will at once issue the necessary instructions to the officials in charge of Labour Exchanges forbidding the use either of officials or the Exchanges for the purpose of securing blacklegs during this or any other trade dispute?
Mr. BUXTON: My hon. Friend is entirely misinformed as to the action of the Labour Exchange in this matter. Some little time ago the manager of the Rosyth Labour Exchange was notified by the contractors for the naval base that
158
they wished to engage additional labour at the existing rates on account of the extension of their operations. At this time there was no strike at the works, and so-far as I am aware no strike was apprehended, and the additional men were required not to replace local labour, but to-expedite the work of construction. The requirements were circulated in the ordinary course through the Exchanges, and as a result a number of Dublin men applied. In order to prevent unsuitable men being brought over from Ireland, the Rosyth manager visited Dublin in company with representatives of the contractors, and as a result fifty-two men were-engaged on terms mutually arranged, which, I understand, were those current at Rosyth. On the arrival, however, of these men it appeared that there was. some misunderstanding among them (not in any way attributable to the Labour Exchange manager) as to the rates of wages which they were to receive. I understand that the men already at work subsequently struck work, and were joined by-those who had come from Dublin. The latter were at once sent back to Dublin by the contractors. No step has been taken through the Exchanges to bring labour to Rosyth since the outbreak of the strike.
Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a copy of the circular signed by the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward) charging him and his Department with having done the very thing he says-they have not done?
Mr. BUXTON: I very much regret that the hon. Member should have issued such a circular without ascertaining the facts of the case. I am stating the absolute facts of the case. It is quite clear that as far as the Labour Exchange is concerned they had nothing whatever to do with bringing men in with reference to this strike.
Mr. LANSBURY. Is it true that the-manager visited Ireland?
Mr. BUXTON: Certainly, and I have explained why. This was before the strike had taken place and the contractor had asked the Exchange to provide a certain number of men, and, I think, very rightly, he went over to see that suitable men were brought over from Ireland.
Mr. ADAMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already in that

159
district four contractors had signed an agreement to pay their workmen 6d. per hour?
Dr. MACNAMARA: If that is so, if it is within the district within the meaning of the Clause, that is one of the things that the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee will take up. I cannot say.
Mr. ADAMSON: Will the First Lord of the Admiralty supply the names of the contractors?
Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. I will look into it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is just one correction I have to make in the Notice of Motion which appears on the Paper as to the allocation of time for the Government of Ireland Bill. On looking through the Order Paper I find a mistake has been made in allocating the time. On the Report stage seven days should be substituted for five, and I will have the necessary correction made.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the notice which stands in the name of the Prime Minister is in order. It appears to consist of a notice of two, if not three, different Motions. The first Motion is that Government business should have precedence of all other Orders of the Day, to-morrow, and on Friday. Then there is a second Motion, "and that this day and to-morrow the proceedings upon the Temperance (Scotland) Bill be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." The first point I desire to submit to you is that these two Motions are entirely separate and distinct, that there ought to have been separate notices given, and that they ought to be separate Motions. The second point is that the second part of the Motion appears to contemplate the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule both for to-day and to-morrow. Under the Standing Order it is not competent for a Minister of the Crown to move to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule to-morrow, except under the ordinary conditions of a Motion and not under the condition of that Standing Order. I wish to ask whether this Motion will therefore be capable of being debated in the ordinary way in which any other Motion is debated.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, the Motion can be debated. If the Noble Lord finds himself in any doubt as to how to vote upon it I shall be very glad to put it as two Questions.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should ask that the Question as to the precedence of
  Government business should be put as a separate Question, and then that we should discuss the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Government business shall have precedence of all other Orders of the Day and of Notices of Motions To-morrow and on Friday."—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I wish to ask the Government what is the meaning of this Notice of Motion—why it is necessary to have such a Motion at all at this stage of the Session I daresay there is a reason why such a Motion is necessary in order that Government business should have precedence to-morrow and on Friday. I do not myself fully understand why that should be so, and I should be glad if the Government would give some explanation of the point.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand the reason is that after Michaelmas the rights of private Members on Wednesday and Friday revert to them. It is, therefore, necessary in order to give precedence to Government business on Wednesday and Friday, to have a Motion of this kind.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Private Members have no rights of precedence on the whole of Wednesday, but they have on Wednesday evening.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is so, and therefore it is necessary that this Motion should be passed if Government business is to have precedence. The same thing applies to Friday.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should have thought that the Motion was not well drafted because it asks precedence for Government business on Wednesday. The Government have precedence at any period of the Session on Wednesday. What they have not got is precedence on Wednesday evening.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am told that this is the regular form, and that we are following the usual precedent.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes,105.

  Division No. 213.]

  AYES.

  [3.12 P.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Adamson, William

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Armitage, Robert

  Barnes, G. N.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Arnold, Sydney

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Boland, John Pius

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Brace, William

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W,

  Joyce, Michael

  Radford, George Heynes

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Keating, Matthew

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kelly, Edward

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Reddy, Michael

  Clancy, John Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Clough, William

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lansbury, George

  Richards, Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Leach, Charles

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cullinan, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Daizlel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Logan, John William

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Robinson, Sidney

  Delany, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roch, Walter F.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Doris, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rowlands, James

  Duffy, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  McGhee, Richard

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Maclean, Donald

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  McCallum, Sir John M.

  Sheeny, David

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Falconer, James

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Manfield, Harry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

  Field, William

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  Sutton, John E.

  Geldér, Sir W. A.

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Tennant, Harold John

  Glanville, Harold James

  Molloy, Michael

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Mooney, John J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Morgan, George Hay

  Verney, Sir H.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Morrell, Philip

  Wadsworth, J.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick (Dorset, E.)

  Morison, Hector

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hackett, John

  Muidoon, John

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Munro, Robert

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hancock, J. G.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Webb, H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Havclock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Hinds, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Shee, James John

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  NOES.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W,

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Baird, J. L.

  Barnston, H.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Barrie, H. T.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  164

  165

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Forster, Henry William

  Newman, John R. P.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nield, Herbert

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Goldsmith, Frank

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Colliding, Edward Alfred

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Grant, James Augustus

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Gretton, John

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Campion, W. R.

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Pollock, E. M.

  Cassel, Felix

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Cator, John

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Herbert, Hon, A. (Somerset, S.)

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Cave, George

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Ceci, Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hills, Sir Clement L.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hills, John Waller (Durham)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Terrell, George (Wilts., N.W.)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Winterton, Earl

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Falle, Bertram Godlray

  Macmaster, Donald

  Younger, Sir George

  Fell, Arthur

  Malcolm, Ian

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Marquess of Tullibardine and Sir J. D. Rees.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Neville, Reginald J, N,

  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this day and to-morrow the proceedings upon the Temperance (Scotland) Bill be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to propose, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "and to-morrow." I regret that I was not in the House a moment ago when the Government attempted to alter our forms of procedure and smuggle through a Resolution in a manner in which it has never before been done.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet cannot make the speech now which he ought to have made on the last Motion.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This is only preliminary to the observations which I intend to make upon the Question now before the House. The reason I made the observation was we contend that having done one disorderly thing the Government are now proposing to do a second disorderly thing, and that is what we object to. If the Government had been content to bring in a Motion to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night, and another Motion to-morrow to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, provided it was necessary so to do, they could have done so without committing a great breach of the Rules of the House. Why should we decide to-day to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule to-morrow? How can we
  166
  know that at three or four o'clock tomorrow we shall not have finished, and that therefore it will be unnecessary to pass a Resolution to this effect? I would appeal to hon. Members below the Gangway to support this Amendment, that is assuming the Government do not accept it, which is, of course, a possibility, so as to help to protect the freedom of private Members. It may be that very soon hon. Members below the Gangway will be sitting on this side, and then they will be glad that they exercised a little foresight, and did something to preserve the rights of private Members, to whatever politics they belong.
  The main question, however, is: Why should we suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule at all for the Scottish Temperance Bill? We have only returned from a very short vacation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I challenge any hon. Member to get up and say that the two months during which we have enjoyed opportunities for health and recreation were too long. I do not think that such a suggestion would find a single supporter on the Government Front Bench. Why, then, at the beginning of a Session, which may last until next March, should we begin by suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule? That Rule was passed in the interests of labour Members, and all hon. Members who were in the House in 1906 will bear me out in that. I am not objecting to what was done. I am always very pleased to meet hon. Members in these

  167
  matters when I think that it is also of advantage to myself. I am not objecting to the Eleven o'clock Rule. But let us adjourn at eleven. Do not let us pretend to new Members coming into the House that they will not have to sit after eleven, and then the moment we come back here have them finding that the Eleven o'clock Rule is going to be suspended.
  Why this hurry? We are going to stay here until March. Why not, then, take time to consider carefully Scottish temperance? It is a subject of great interest to Scottish Members, and I want to hear their opinions upon it; but I do not want to hear them at three or four o'clock in the morning, when I am sleepy and when I shall not be able to give that weight which I always attach to the views of Members from Scotland. I ask the Government, at any rate, to proceed in a much more gentle manner. Fortunately they have put down this Motion in a way which will enable us to discuss it, and it is open to any hon. Member to show reason why he thinks I am wrong. Let me appeal to the Government to show a little consideration to those whose shoulders are tender after not having worn the collar for two months, and not to keep us out of our beds during the small hours of the morning so soon after our return from a pleasant vacation.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The arguments of the hon. Baronet are so irresistible, and the geniality of his appeal to the Government is such that I cannot find in my heart to resist the Amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I think the concession made by tire Government only serves to show how little consideration the Government have given to this matter. I suppose that if they had given any attention to it they would never have put down the Motion in the form in which it stands on the Paper. They are so very busy arranging their differences about land values that they have no time to consider how the business of the House should be
  conducted. It is only another instance proving that the Government give no-thought or consideration to our business.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I endorse the remarks made by my right hon. Friend. I am not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has conceded the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). If there is one man in this House who has very little sympathy with this Bill' it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after what he has done to the licensed trade.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Those observations are not relevant to this Motion.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg pardon. What I want to say is that I do not see why there should be any undue haste in pressing forward this measure in the small hours of the morning. It is one of great importance, and it is only right that there should be adequate reports of our proceedings; but if we are to be kept here until any hour of the morning to suit the convenience of the Secretary for Scotland, we cannot have those reports published in Scotland where the people will be ill-informed as to the trend of opinion in the House of Commons. At the present moment, I understand, the Prime Minister is receiving a deputation on this subject. A good deal may arise out of that interview, and it seems somewhat unreasonable and improper to push on this measure with only the shortest possible notice. It was only on the last day of the Summer Sitting that we were told this Bill was to be taken on our reassembling, and yesterday was our first opportunity to get Members together to consider Amendments. The whole thing has been most indecently and unfairly brought forward, and I object entirely to-the action of the Government.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, "That this day the proceedings upon the Temperance (Scotland) Bill be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."
  The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 108.

  Division No. 214.]

  AYES.

  [3.35 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Armitage, Robert

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Arnold, Sydney

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Adamson, William

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hinds, John

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hodge, John

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Boland, John Pius

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Brace, William

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Burke, E. Havlland.-

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Reddy, Michael

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Kelly, Edward

  Richards, Thomas

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  King, Joseph

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Clough, William

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lansbury, George

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Crumley, Patrick

  Leach, Charles

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cullinan, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Logan, John William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Delany, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Doris, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Scott, A. McCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Duffy, William J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  McGhee, Richard

  Sheeny, David

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Maclean, Donald

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Essex, Richard Walter

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Falconer, James

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sutton, John E.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Manfield, Harry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Tenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Field, William

  Meagher, Michael

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Millar, James Duncan

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Molloy, Michael

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wadsworth, J.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mooney, John J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Morgan, George Hay

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Morrell, Philip

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Morison, Hector

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Watt, Henry A.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Muldoon, John

  Webb, H.

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Munro, Robert

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hackett, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Hancock, J. G.

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Dowd, John

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Mazleton, Richard

  O'Grady, James

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shee, James John

  170

  171

  NOES.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Macmaster, Donald

  Barnston, Harry

  Fell, Arthur

  Malcolm, Ian

  Barrie, H. T.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Forster, Henry William

  Nield, Herbert

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bigland, Alfred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Boyton, James

  Grant, J. A.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Hall, Marshall (E, Toxteth)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

  Campion, W. R.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cassel, Felix

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Cator, John

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hills, John Waller

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Stewart, Gershom

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Kerr-Smlley, Peter Kerr

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Younger, Sir George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Croft, H. P.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Marquess of Tuilibardine and Earl Winterton.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Notices appeared on the Amendment Paper of a new Clause to be moved by Sir Charles Hunter and Mr. James Mason ("Saving for railway refreshment rooms") and of a new Clause to be moved by Sir G. Younger ("Spirits, etc., may be sold at 35 degrees under proof").
  Mr. SPEAKER: The first new Clause on the Amendment Paper should come as an Amendment to Clause 3. The second new Clause is really an Amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, and is not relevant.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: With great respect, may I point out that this is called a Temperance Bill, and surely one can move in a matter of this kind that spirits, which at present can only be sold twenty-five degrees under proof, may in future be sold thirty-five degrees under proof. I agree that the Chairman of the Committee took the same view as you, Sir, but it is not unusual when a particular Amendment comes within the scope of the title of a Bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act or any other Act.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's Clause does not necessarily tend towards
  172
  temperance; for the more spirits are diluted the more will probably be drunk.

  TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Penalty for Trafficking without a Licence.)
    Any person who solicits or takes orders in Scotland for exciseable liquors to be supplied from outside the United Kingdom without having obtained a licence or certificate in the United Kingdom authorising such sale shall be liable to the penalties provided by Section sixty-five of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, for trafficking without a certificate.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Although the matter dealt with in the Clause is not very large, it still is of importance, and is one which may and will grow in future if this Bill becomes law. It is the practice, I believe, of numerous French and German firms of wine merchants and distillers to send over representatives or canvassers to London to solicit orders for their products of wines and spirits, and to fill those orders from France or Germany, as the case may be. Whether that is legal or not I will not say, but it is done to a considerable extent under the present law. The proposal is that those canvassers who sell wines and

    173
    spirits in this way in Scotland should be put on the same footing as Scottish firms who have to pay rates and taxes, Licence Duties, and the other heavy charges which fall upon anyone engaged in the trade, and that those foreigners should pay the same as Englishmen or Scotchmen. We cannot think it is desired to lessen the revenue by allowing this practice to continue, because it infallibly does affect the revenue of the country. Not only does the practice affect the revenue, but it hits the Scottish retailers and dealers because they have less orders; and as the revenue from their licences is smaller, they are more likely to be kept at a high rate than they would be if those licences were spread over a larger number of people, so that a larger revenue would result, and it might be possible to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a reduction. Whilst this practice is carried on to this considerable extent I think it would be useless to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer with any suggestion of the kind. It is a surreptitious way of getting round the present Licensing Acts, but I see no reason why, when we have the opportunity now, we should not put this matter straight by this Bill, and let those men take out licences before they are allowed to sell wines and spirits in Scotland, just the same as Englishmen and Scotchmen have to do.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Clause is not in order. It ought to come as an Amendment to the Revenue Act.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Auctioneer may Not Sell for Unlicensed Person.)
    Any auctioneer who sells exciseable liquors in retail quantities for his own benefit, or in any quantity for the benefit of any person who is not licensed to sell the same, shall, unless in so far as such sale is covered by any statutory exemption, be liable to the penalties provided by Section sixty-five of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, for trafficking without a certificate.
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    It appears to me to be a necessary Amendment, because it is not an unusual practice for auctioneers to promote sales of wines and spirits for their own benefit. They sometimes advertise these sales, but they are not sales in the ordinary course of their business. It is asserted by the licensed trade that auctioneers sometimes
    174
    purchase certain quantities of whisky in parcels smaller than wholesale quantities, and in order to deal with these articles they ought to have a retail licence, whereas the auctioneers, if they have licences at all, have wholesale licences. There is nothing to prevent auctioneers from selling small quantities at retail prices at a bonâ fide auction when they are selling in the course of their trade as auctioneers, and not for their own benefit. It is surely not the business of an auctioneer to sell liquor on his own behalf in retail quantities, thereby obtaining an unfair advantage over his competitors.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to second the Motion.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): As far as I can see, the action which the hon. Member wishes to prevent is at present illegal under the Revenue Act of 1864. It is undesirable to bring into this Bill, with which it really has no connection, a matter which is already dealt with in the Revenue Act.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Drunken Persons Entering Licensed Premises.)
    Any person who is in a state of intoxication, or who is drunk, and found in of attempting to enter any licensed premises or any registered club, shall be subject to the same powers and procedure and penalty as provided in Section seventy of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Its object is to assist the publican, as far as may be, in the difficult position in which he is now placed in regard to intoxicated persons who obtain admission to his premises. In the case of an ordinary shopkeeper, if an intoxicated person comes into his premises, he may have him removed; but if the intoxicated person is there the shopkeeper has committed no crime. On the other hand, if an intoxicated person is found on licensed premises, the publican is guilty of a crime, and is punishable. That is a very serious distinction. This House ought to do everything possible to help the man who is managing his business properly, and to enable him to prevent these people from coming into his premises and creating a disturbance there by having to be ejected. I am told that considerable expense is

    175
    entailed upon the publican by the necessity of having to employ a man specially for the purpose of keeping intoxicated persons from entering his premises. If such a person enters with two or three other people it is very difficult for the man who is guarding the door to distinguish him, and yet the publican runs a very great risk if the intoxicated person is found on his premises. This Clause will help the publican to some extent, inasmuch as it will render the attempt to enter punishable, and it will be a matter for the police and not for the man whom the publican hires to guard the door. There is nothing so detrimental to publicans as having intoxicated persons on their premises. They wish to keep them out, and they require the help of the police in doing so.
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Motion. My hon. Friend's zeal in the cause of order and temperance is shown by the fact that he has moved this Clause. If it be accepted, I hope that some slight alteration in the wording will be permissible, as at present it does not read very well. What is the difference between "a state of intoxication" and "being drunk"? In England there is no difference at all; possibly there may be in Scotland. If the Clause be read a second time I shall propose to amend it in that connection. Such a Clause is, I believe, very necessary. If this Bill pass; it is possible that a large number of people living in a no-licence area may migrate, when their work is over, or before, to a more favoured area, and there obtain a considerable quantity of intoxicating liquor. The consequence will be that certain districts will be flooded by people in a state of intoxication, and it will be difficult for the publicans to prevent them from getting into their premises; but if they succeed in getting into licensed premises the publicans will be subject to very severe penalties. It is the greatest mistake to suppose that a policeman can arrest anyone who is drunk in the street, unless at the same time he is disorderly or incapable. The powers of the police, as they are at present, will not be sufficient to meet the danger which my hon. Friend thinks may occur. A similar point to this was dealt with by the Committee upstairs on a former occasion in which the point was raised of people going outside the district on a Sunday to get intoxicants. The question was whether when they obtained
    176
    the liquor they were drunk or sober. I think, therefore, there is every evidence that it will be necessary in the interests of order alone that this Clause should be inserted in the Bill, and I have much pleasure in seconding.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am exceedingly sorry not to be able to meet the hon. Gentleman, but if hon. Members will look very carefully at the proposed Clause, they will see that it not only introduces an entirely new legal position as regards intoxication or drunkenness—which I can assure the hon. Baronet opposite are the same thing in Scotland—but it introduces a very curious offence. This matter is dealt with under the Licensing Act of 1903, but as the hon. Baronet very truly said, it does not make intoxication by itself an offence. It is only when intoxication is accompanied by incapacity to take care of oneself or if the man concerned is not under the care of some person; or is disorderly. Under Section 74 of the same Act is an offence for any person, even on licensed premises, to attempt to procure drink for a person who is intoxicated. This matter was very carefully thought out in regard to the Licensing Bill of 1903, and the publican is not without protection, and can refuse admission to an intoxicated person or disorderly person who is at once liable to arrest. It is rather a serious matter to make a new offence. I should like the hon. Member to note the peculiar offence created by his proposal. It is not now an offence to be intoxicated in the streets, but this Clause would make it an offence if an intoxicated man attempted to enter his hotel or club for the purpose of going to bed. I should have thought the latter would be the best place for him under the circumstances. As the Clause stands, a person in a state of intoxication found in, or attempting to enter, licensed premises or any registered club would come under the law I have stated, though he is perfectly free from arrest so long as he wanders about the streets, however drunk he may be, and so long as he is not disorderly.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I do not quite follow the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. The best place for a man to be drunk is his club. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] The point the right hon. Gentleman has missed is that my hon. Friend wants to protect the proprietors of licensed premises, and though this proposed new Clause may be worded wrongly, the right hon. Gentleman and

    177
    the Lord Advocate together can easily put the wording right if they wish to do so. What it is desired to prevent is drunken men hammering at the door of a public-house and trying to get in, and to give powers, either to the proprietors or the authorities on their behalf, to move them on, I should have thought that there was no particular reason why such a Clause should not be passed. Section 70 of the Licensing Bill of 1903 does not really cover the matter. There is nothing in it at all about a man attempting to get into a public-house or being a public nuisance in the street just outside a public-house, the one place where you do not want to see him. I quite agree that a man in the state described is far better at home.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: The Secretary for Scotland has managed very successfully to dissemble the position he took up in his opening remarks, because I do not think he has advanced a single reason that will be considered by any reasonable person to carry any weight at all against the proposition of my hon. Friend. He tells us that the chief objection to the suggested Amendment is that it establishes an entirely new legal proposition and creates a new offence. I do really think that that is an extraordinary objection to come from a Member of a Liberal Government. It seems to me that we in this House should not shrink—and I hope the House never will shrink—from establishing any such proposition if we think it is for the good of the country or the people. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, if it is a serious matter to create a new offence, how many new offences are being created in the very Act we are considering! If the creation of new offences is necessary, let the House not shrink from creating them. The promoters of this Bill, I think, are anxious to avoid giving offence to those people who support them at the polls, and are anxious to give trouble to and thrust other responsibilities upon licensed holders, who are commonly reputed to vote against them at election times. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this Clause, as it stands, makes it an offence for an intoxicated person to go back into his hotel. I think that kind of argument is quite unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Clause is not as happily worded as it ought to be, he and his colleague could give it its proper wording, instead of the right hon. Gentle-
    178
    man formulating an objection so trifling. If the right hon. Gentleman is sincerely grieved that he cannot accept the Amendment as it is worded, the wording can be altered, but I should have thought that difficulty was one which was too trifling to put forward. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite decide that the Amendment is one which ought to be accepted, they can very speedily so amend it as to do away with any trifling objections. On behalf of the licensed holders, who have very great responsibilities, which many hon. Members in this House do not appreciate, and having regard to the difficulties which my hon. Friend has spoken of in discovering on a busy night, perhaps shortly before closing time, with the House full, whether a person is over the border line of intoxication or not, I do think the Government might reconsider their decision and endeavour to relieve licensed holders of one very great responsibility.
    Sir F. LOW: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appealed to us in the interests of the licensed victuallers. But I should like to point out that in the new Clause, as I read it, the licensed victualler who had the misfortune of being overtaken by drink away from his own licensed premises would be committing a penal offence to go home at all. When the interests of the licensed victuallers are being put forward, I think it is only lair that that point should be made.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the hon. Gentleman, under those circumstances, wish the licensed victualler to go back and serve liquor to those who are drunk?
    Sir F. LOW: I would suggest that the best place for him is to go home and go to bed.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I really hope that the Government or someone on the other side will try to deal with this Amendment seriously. It is a serious Amendment, which represents a policy which is not that, I know, of many hon. Members on the other side, but which, I think, is the right way to deal with this question. The broad distinction between the two policies is this: Hon. Members on the other side desire to put restrictions in the way of selling alcoholic liquor. I believe that to be thoroughly unsound, and an unsound way of approaching this problem. My view has always been that the right way to deal with the question

    179
    is not to hamper the sale of alcoholic liquors but to make it exceedingly disagreeable, difficult, and undesirable to get drunk. That is a broad distinction. The object of this Amendment is to add to the difficulty and disagreeableness of being drunk. I think it is a very desirable thing to pursue. It is perfectly futile for the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland or the hon. Gentleman who spoke last to put forward verbal criticism of the proposed Clause, and to point out that its effect will be what the Mover does not desire to bring about. That is not the way to deal with an Amendment or with the House of Commons. The Clause ought to be dealt with.
    Sir F. LOW: May I ask the Noble Lord whether he suggests that the criticism I ventured to put forward is ill-founded?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I really do not propose to give myself the trouble to consider whether it is well founded or ill founded. It really is a perfectly futile and irrelevant one. The question is whether we shall read this Clause a second time and whether we desire the principle in this Clause to be adopted and inserted in the Bill. Whether that principle is properly carried out by the wording of the Clause is a different matter, which can be raised a little later. What I would like to ask the House to do, and what I have a right to ask it to do, is to consider this Clause on its merits. Do hon. Members think that the evil pointed out by my hon. Friend is a real evil? Do they think it sufficiently dealt with by the Bill? If not, do they not think that some Clause of this kind ought to be put into the Bill to deal with the matter? That is the broad point. I venture to hope that even now we shall have some attempt made by those who oppose this Clause to approach the question properly, and that we shall not be "fobbed off" with miserable verbal criticism.
    Mr. HOGGE: If this Clause goes to a Division the hon. Gentlemen opposite will, I am sure, get some support from this side. Obviously this Clause means, if the words do not quite express it, that a person in a state of intoxication, found in, or attempting to enter, any licensed premises or any registered club, shall be subject to the same power, and procedure, and penalty as provided in Section 70 of the Licensing Act of 1903. Obviously
    180
    the man goes for the purpose of securing more drink, not for the purpose of securing rest or sleep. That man ought to come under this Section. Anyone who has gone out, say, on one of the busy nights of the week, and has watched the efforts of the publican to prevent certain people entering his place, must have been struck with the degrading aspect of it. Probably what you would find would be, especially near closing time, a man of a muscular type near the door of the public house employed very frequently in the work of forcing people into the premises. I do not see why a respectable publican trying to conduct his business respectably inside the law should not be protected from this type of man, any more than the general public, both in the streets and on his stairs very often in Scotland. I hope that on a small point of this kind obviously designed to promote the efficiency of the licensed Clauses in Scotland, we will get a more sympathetic answer than that already given from the Front Bench.
    Mr. CLYDE: I see a point in this Amendment to which I am sure the Secretary for Scotland will give his full consideration. As to the objections put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Scotland, and by the hon. Member for Norwich, I do not think there is any great force in the first, but I think there would be great force in the second if the conditions in England and Scotland were the same. I want to say a word upon both these things and also a word about what I understand really to be the point which this new Clause raises, because I think it is a point of importance in view of the legal conditions that surround licences in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman says, as the Clause stands—and, of course, we are only on the second reading of the Clause—it would mean that a man who was drunk could not get into the hotel or the club where his bed was and where he lived at the time. So far as that objection goes I do not want to depreciate it at all, but I think it is answerable. It seems to me that the Clause would require to be amended in some way to prevent that result, and I think the real mischief would be remedied by substituting for the expression "licensed premises or any registered club" the expression "public-house." That is really the mischief which the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind, but with regard to the point taken by the hon.

    181
    Member for Norwich I believe it to be true that in England, in country towns and districts, the public-house and the premises of the public-house proper are very often not only directly connected, but that you cannot get into one without getting into the other. In Scotland, if that is ever so, it must be very rare. I cannot remember any instance in which I ever knew it was so. I do not want to profess special acquaintance with the interiors of many public-houses, but one gets to know these things in other ways. I do know that, although it is not the law of the land in the sense of being statute law, it is the law of the justices in Scotland that if a publican lives on the premises which, as a rule he does not at all, that there shall be not only complete separation—I do not mean that the publican cannot get in by one of the doors and the like—but the residence must have a separate entrance. The licensing law of the land in that sense differs from that of the justices.
    What I ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to is this: it is quite true that, under the Act of 1903, an offence is committed if the person is on licensed premises and complies with the double qualification (a) that he is intoxicated, and (b) cannot take care of himself and has no one to look after him. Therefore, to a certain extent, expressing my own view, this Clause goes a little bit too far, because the Clause would make it an offence simply for a person intoxicated to be found on licensed premises. I think there would be difficulty in amending the Act of 1903 in that way, but then it must be remembered that this is not in any Act in terms or in any of our Statutes directly, but it is in the statutory terms of the public-house certificate: it is an offence even for the publican if a man be drunk upon his premises, or for the publican to promote any drunkenness upon his premises, and, if he does so, his certificate is brought into peril and he has committed a breach of the certificate which involves forfeiture if he promote drunkenness upon his premises and the charge is proved—if you proved against the publican that so-and-so was on his premises drunk—and although this is not statutory, it is in the terms of the certificate, and it is really a very important affair for the publican, and also for the public, whom we want to protect, and it is important that if there are people whom it is dangerous for him to admit into his premises at all, to strengthen the law of
    182
    the land in protecting the publican in this matter. Therefore, I do think, there is a point in helping the publican to keep these people out of his premises who ought not to go there, by making it an offence for a person who already has more than is good for him to try and get into the public-house. It seems taking a certan amount of liberty with this new Clause to try and bring it into harmony with what is in my mind, and although I cannot propose any Amendment now, it is only fair I should suggest what my Amendments would be. My Amendments would be to omit the words "or who is drunk"—I cannot understand how a person can be in a state of intoxication and not be drunk—and to leave out the words "in or" ["and found in or attempting to enter"] and to leave out the words "licensed premises or any registered club," and to insert instead thereof the words "public-house" so that the Clause would then read:
    "Any person who is in a state of intoxication and found attempting to enter any public-house shall be subject to the same powers and procedure and penalties as provided in Section 70 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903."
    I think that would give effect to what I have said, and therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman may consider my suggestion and allow the Clause to be read a second time, and if that is done then I should move these Amendments.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the House will allow me, I wish to say I accept the suggestions of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I do so because he has agreed with all my criticisms and put forward an entirely different Clause, and I think it is desirable to see that the publican's position should not be made too onerous.
    Amendments made: Leave out the words "or who is drunk" ["any person who is in a state of intoxication or who is drunk"].
    Leave out the words "in or" ["and found in or attempting to enter"].
    Leave out the words "any licensed premises or any registered club" and insert instead thereof the words "public-house."

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Compulsory Insurance of Certificates.)
    (1) Before the twenty-eighth day of May next after the passing of this Act every holder of a certificate, as defined by this Act, shall constitute himself a member of a mutual insurance association (hereinafter called "an association"), which must be an association not carried on for profit, registered under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, or under the Friendly Societies Acts, whose affairs are subject to the absolute control of its members and one of whose objects is the insuring of a member against the loss of his certificate by reason of any resolution carried under this Act.
    (2) The application to become insured in an association under this Act shall be in writing, signed by the applicant, and shall contain a declaration of the value (hereinafter called the "declared value") of the certificate to be insured and such further particulars as the association may require.
    (3) The premium payable in respect of the insurance of a certificate under this Act shall be an annual premium payable in advance, and, inclusive of the expenses of administration, shall be at such rate, not exceeding one-half per cent, of the declared value, as the central board may from time to time determine.
    (4) The holder of a certificate who has paid the premium or levy payable in respect of the insurance of the certificate shall be entitled to deduct from the interest on any loan advanced to him under any agreement, undertaking, or covenant, binding him to obtain a supply of exciseable liquor from the lender, a sum bearing such proportion to the said premium or levy as the loan bears to the declared value of the said certificate, and in default of agreement the amount of premium or levy to be deducted shall be determined by the sheriff.
    (5) In each year the secretary of an association shall, on the payment by the insured person of the premium then payable, give him a receipt therefor, and the receipt shall be evidence that the applicant is insured for the year to which it relates; provided that, if in any year the association shall have imposed any additional levy on its members in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the secretary shall withhold the receipt for the premium from any member who has not paid the amount of the levy due from him.
    (6) No excise licence for the sale by retail of exciseable liquor shall be granted by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, or by any officer of Customs and Excise, except upon production by the person authorised to hold the licence of a receipt for the insurance of his certificate for the year to which the licence relates.
    (7) As soon as may be after the passing of this Act there shall be constituted a central board, hereinafter referred to as the central board, consisting of not more than nine members, of whom four shall be on-licence holders, two off-licence holders, and the remaining members a brewer, distiller, and wholesale dealer, respectively, elected by the holders of certificates, and the central board shall elect a chairman from their own number.
    (8) The central board may act with a quorum of five and shall, within twelve months after the passing of this Act, make rules prescribing amongst other things—

    (a) The principles on which the declared value of certificates is to be ascertained and conditions on which these may be modified or readjusted;

    (b) The manner of subsequent election of members of the board and the duration of their office;

    (c) Any matters incidental to the proper conduct of the affairs of the board and to carrying out the provisions of this Act.

    Provided always that the rules shall not be contrary to anything in this Act contained, and shall be approved by the Secretary for Scotland.
    (9) On or before the thirtieth day of June in every year every association insuring certificates under this Act shall pay over to the central board the amount of the premiums received by the association under the provisions of this Act, after payment of necessary expenses which must not exceed fifteen per cent, of the annual premiums, exclusive of levies, and shall at the same time send to the central board full particulars of all insurances effected with the association, together with such observations on the declared value to which each insurance relates as the association may think fit.
    (10) The amounts received in respect of premiums or levies paid by holders of certificates for on-licences and by holders of certificates for off-licences, respectively,

    185
    shall be carried by the central board to two separate accounts to be called respectively "The On-Licence Holders' Insurance Fund" and "The Off-Licence Holders' Insurance Fund." No part of the "On-Licence Holders' Insurance Fund" shall be applied to the payment of any claim relating to an off-licence, and no part of the "Off-Licence Holders' Insurance Fund" shall be applied to the payment of any claim relating to an on-licence.
    (11) The central board shall have the management of the said funds and the investment thereof, and, subject to the payment of necessary office and administration expenses which may include fees to members of the board of an aggregate amount not exceeding seven hundred and fifty pounds a year, the whole of the said funds shall be applied to the payment of claims as provided by this Act.
    (12) The claims payable by the central board to an association shall in no case exceed the declared values of certificates insured, or an amount (hereinafter called the maximum subsidy) which is double the amount which such association could claim if the appropriate fund were divided in proportion to their declared values among all the respective existing contributing certificate-holders of each separate association.
    (13) If the available funds of the central board are insufficient to pay the maximum subsidy, the aggregate claim of the members of each association against each fund shall be proportionately abated.
    (14) A claim upon the funds of the central board shall not be valid except in respect of the year in which a certificate in respect of which, a claim is made has been withdrawn under the provisions of this Act.
    (15) Where in any year the respective amounts paid over by the central board are insufficient to enable an association to pay in full the respective claims of its "off" and "on" members arising in that year, the directors of an association shall impose upon the on-licence holders or off-licence holders (as the case may require) who are members of the association a levy not exceeding one and a-half per cent, of the declared value in respect of which each member is insured.
    (16) If the proceeds of the levy are insufficient to pay in full the claims in respect of which it was made, the unpaid balance of the claims shall be carried forward for the two following years; and in
    186
    each of these years the like levy shall be made and the proceeds thereof shall be applied to the payment of all outstanding claims referable to the fund in respect of which the deficiency has arisen.
    (17) After the distribution in the third year all claims in respect of the insurance of a certificate against the association shall be deemed to have been discharged.
    (18) The holder of any new certificate for premises not certificated at the time of the application for such certificate, and not being premises in substitution for certificated premises from which a certificate is being withdrawn, shall pay to "The On-Licence Holders' Insurance Fund," or "The Off-Licence Holders' Insurance Fund," as the case may be, a sum equal to one-third of the declared value of such certificate in two half-yearly payments, on 28th May and 28th November, in addition to the foresaid premium or levy, and the Excise Licence Duty in respect of said certificate.
    (19) The clerk of a licensing Court shall on request furnish to the central board or to any association formed under the provisions of this Act, or, before the constitution of the central board, to the secretary of the Licensed Trade Defence Association of Scotland, a list of all the persons who have obtained certificates for the sale by retail of exciseable liquor in the district within the jurisdiction of the Court for the current year, together with such information contained in the register of certificates for the district as may be required under the provisions of this Act. Such list as aforesaid shall be prepared by the clerk to the licensing Court in conformity with the conditions set out in Section twenty-five of The Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, and the clerk shall be entitled to remuneration as prescribed in that Section.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    We are dealing with this Bill under rather unfortunate conditions, because the only attempt to consider the interests of the dispossessed licence holders is made in Clause? by providing a period of five years before any of the options in this Bill can be brought into effect, and therefore we have to deal, in the shape of a new Clause, with a scheme of compensation without knowing what view the House will take of the proposed length of time as threatened in the Bill. This course entails-very great difficulty, because one cannot

    187
    move to postpone a Clause on the Report stage of a Bill, and it is essential to take the new Clauses first, and unless the Secretary for Scotland makes some declaration about Clause 1 and the time limit there granted, the House will have to decide this question without knowing precisely what is going to be done later on. There has been a great deal of discussion about this question of mutual insurance. We had a scheme submitted by the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) before the Standing Committee which, for one reason or another, the Secretary for Scotland did not see his way to accept, and effect has been given to some of these criticisms, if not to all of them, in the scheme now before us in this new Clause. Under ordinary circumstances I should consider it my duty to apologise to the House for the fact that this scheme only appears upon the Paper this morning, but if any apology is due it is due from the Liberal Whips, and not from me, because I only knew on the last day of the earlier portion of the Session that this Bill was to be taken to-day, and there was no opportunity until yesterday of calling together those interested in this question to ascertain their views. Therefore, any apology due to the House should come, I suppose, from the Scottish Whip, and not from me.
    The House is asked to deal with this very complicated situation on far too short notice. It is a very complicated Clause and a very long Clause, and it would take a very long time to explain it even shortly. Of course, time is of no object to-day; we may be sitting here until nine o'clock tomorrow morning. I do not intend to take up any length of time explaining the Clause, but I will say something about it in order to meet, by way of anticipation, some of the criticisms which may be applied to it from the Government Front Bench. In the first place, I wish to say it is not pretended in any shape or kind to be a scheme of full insurance. That in the circumstances of the case is quite impossible; it is not possible to predict beforehand with what circumstances this particular insurance fund may have to deal. The whole situation is complicated by the licence options, so that it is impossible to arrive at a reasonable suggestion as to what particular licences may be taken away or as to what may be the effect of the options. Therefore, the scheme is only a partial scheme; it is nothing better
    188
    than a solatium to what promises to be absolute ruin to a great number of people under the Option Clauses of the Bill. It is the best we could do, and when I said a while ago that I did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take any great interest in the Bill I said so because it is impossible to propose anything but a partial scheme since the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his own Bill imposed such obligations upon the licence holders that it is impossible to place upon them now anything more than an obligation to meet partial insurance. It is an astonishing thing to me, although really nothing astonishes me in the case of the present Government. When the Government took this Bill out of the waste-paper basket they did not realise that what was considered unjust in 1908 would be equally unjust in 1912. With the five years' time notice it is impossible to do much in the way of insurance. My proposal in the first place is to make the scheme compulsory, for without compulsion it is of no use. There are a good many areas in Scotland in which it is very improbable that either a limiting resolution or a local veto resoluton will be carried, and under these circumstances the licence holders will have no inducement to insure, and they will rather run the risk. They will benefit by the possibility of one or other of those resolutions being carried in a contiguous area, because they will get an immense accretion of business, and therefore it is only right that they should pay something to those who are being dispossessed, and whose businesses they are going to acquire.
    The scheme is shortly as follows: That an approved society, or as many approved societies as the licence holders choose, may form themselves into associations for the purpose of mutual insurance under the Act. The retailers of the societies as a whole and as a group shall constitute a central board of nine, who are to be the administrators of a central fund. That fund is derived from the payment in respect of each member of an association of 8s. 6d. per head. They pay 10s. each, but 1s. 6d. is for management expenses. When licences are withdrawn under the Clause an insured person has sources of compensation, first, from the central fund, and secondly, from the members of his own association. The claims of any association against the central fund are not absolute, and they are restricted to double the amount of its proportional interest in that fund. That is to say,

    189
    supposing the central fund amounts to £1,000,000 at the end of a certain period of years, and the share of a particular association, taking its membership into account, is £50,000 in the event of its being divided up equally according to the interests insured, the extremest claim of an association upon that fund is £100,000 if the members lost their licences to an extent in excess of the available fund. It is essential to limit it, otherwise the fund would be depleted straight away, and that is why insurance can only be partial. The members of an association who do not secure full compensation from the central fund are entitled to a three years' levy of 30s. per cent, on declared value from the other members of their own association within their own district who would naturally be left in possession, and would benefit from the fact that the other licences had been withdrawn.
    I have had provided for me by a thoroughly capable and thoroughly accurate person one or two figures to show what the central fund would amount to under certain circumstances. If the time notice is five years, at the end of that period there will be £238,402 in the central fund; if the time notice is ten years, the amount will be £514,777; if the period is twenty years, the amount will be £1,206,597. In five years the insurance a man has paid will be £2 2s. 6d. per cent., in ten years £4 5s., and in twenty years £8 10s. By the above figures he would receive on the basis of a double share in five years, for his 8s. 6d. per £100, £4 15s., in ten years £10 6s., and in twenty years £22 15s.; and in addition, without further contribution, he would be entitled to receive the share of the 30s. levy which members of his own association would be obliged to meet. That is limited to three years. Polls are allowed to be taken every third year, and it is essential to limit the claim upon the association during which there would be a period of rest before another poll was taken. It is not at all probable that at first 25 per cent, of all the licence holders would be blotted out, and by every fraction less the available funds for the dispossessed would be increased. Under the Temperance Bill the risks are unknown and undeterminable. Therefore the members are prepared to group themselves for insurance with their eyes open to the fact that in certain contingencies they may only receive something over 20 per cent., or 4s. per £ of their declared value. Even then
    190
    each individual will only have subscribed five and one-fifth pence. We hear a good deal at the present time about giving ninepence for fourpence in connection with another Bill, but in this case you get 3s. for fourpence, with an off-chance of 20s. for fourpence. So that they are better off than the unfortunate insured person under the Insurance Act.
    I do not want to go very fully into the question of all these funds, because they are complicated and would take a very long time, but I wish to point out to the Secretary for Scotland that he made an entire misstatement in Committee when he talked about the unfortunate publican having to pay a flat rate in the same way as the insured person under the Insurance Act. The publican does not pay a flat rate, but a percentage on the amount insured. If he insures for £1,000, he pays the same percentage as for £400, but not the same amount, and therefore the Secretary for Scotland is entirely wrong. One of the Lord Advocate's other objections was that there was no evidence that Members of the trade were in favour of a mutual insurance scheme. A postcard has been sent out to all the licence holders in Scotland within the last few weeks, and I have the latest figures with regard to the replies given to the question as to whether they were in favour of a compulsory insurance scheme or not. If there happened to be any very active opposition or any very serious objection on the part of members of the trade to a compulsory scheme, one would naturally imagine that they would sign their postcard and send them in at once. Out of 10,000 postcards which have been issued only 4,300 have been returned. Of these, 3,900 are in favour of compulsory insurance, whilst only 433 are against it. There have been some answers received to-day, in which forty-two people are for and only one against it. Of these, twenty-eight came from Caithness, ten of them publicans, seven hotels, and eleven grocers, and all of them are in favour of this proposal.
    I think it may be assumed that there is no active opposition in the trade to this scheme of compulsory insurance, and that those who have thought it necessary not to reply are content to leave the matter in the hands of their leaders, who have unanimously agreed to back up this scheme. The percentage of those replying is as follows: There are in favour of a compulsory scheme 93.7 per cent, publicans, 83.6 per cent, grocers, and 81.6 per

    191
    cent, hotel keepers. Although there was an agitation in Glasgow against the scheme, 98 per cent, of the voters there were in favour of it, and only fifteen, or 2 per cent., against it. So I think it is pretty clear that the trade as a whole is in favour of a scheme of this kind, not because they believe in any kind of way it is going to insure them anything like fully, but because naturally they regard half a loaf as better than no bread. They see in front of them in the Bill now before the House nothing but the direst ruin, and naturally they are anxious to go out with something to start afresh, and that they will secure under this proposal. When this scheme was first suggested in the Committee it had no more beneficent supporter than the Lord Advocate, and he said that a scheme of this kind must have certain distinctive features. One of them was that it should in no way interfere with the machinery of the Bill or the carrying out of the Bill's proposals. The scheme I have suggested in no way whatever interferes with that principle. It does not prevent polls being taken every three years, or options being adopted. Therefore it fulfils the essential principles which the Lord Advocate demanded. It does not interfere with the discretion of the justices. It creates no new vested interest of any sort or kind, and therefore I am entitled to claim that the Lord Advocate ought to support this scheme as he did in the Committee two years ago, although he did not do it on the last occasion. The right hon. Gentleman has supported it in the country over and over again.
    I cannot for the life of me understand why it is that the extreme teetotalers have been making such desperate efforts to prevent the Government from accepting some scheme of this kind which is to be entirely carried out and paid for by the funds of the trade itself. Why in the world this House should in any way desire to prevent these unfortunate people palliating as far as they can the extremely uncomfortable position in which some of them are likely to be placed after the passing of this Bill I cannot understand. What arguments there are against this course I cannot conceive; in fact there can be no arguments against it. We had a declaration that there was no evidence that the trade favoured it, and I have tried to show that there is a very small minority of the
    192
    trade against it. It does not matter whether the time limit is five or ten years, although I hope it may be fifteen years, but in any of these cases you still require an insurance scheme. It is impossible that any voluntary scheme can insure a man even within a fifteen years' time limit. I had hoped that the Government would have taken up this question in quite a different spirit. They have taken up a Bill which I understand was pieced together in a backroom by two or three hon. Gentlemen opposite, simply with a view of testing the House of Commons on this question in 1907 without the serious hope that it would ever become law. The Government picks up this practically derelict scheme which the last Secretary for Scotland never found any time in this House to give a Report stage to, and he would have found it very difficult to explain how in the end the Government had come to adopt this Bill.
    The Government ought to have taken a comprehensive view of the situation, for they had an opportunity of dealing with the matter in a comprehensive and final way. If the State wishes to resume the control of the licences in Scotland, it is perfectly entitled to do so, and I see no reason why it should not do so on fair terms. I have not suggested that it should pay out the licence holders, I have only suggested that they should have sufficient breathing space to ensure their capital interest, and not run the risk of going out with the loss of all their money. When I come to his own Government's record in the matter, what do I find? In the Licensing Bill of 1908 the Government was infinitely more generous to the English licence holders than it is going to be to the Scotch licence holders. At that time the bitterest tears were wept over the unfortunate position of the free licence holders. They are all free licence holders in Scotland. The licence holder of Scotland is a free man who owns the place, it is his sole means of subsistence, and you give him five years' notice, and call that reasonable. It is monstrous. It is ruthless cruelty. In England, where the licences are held in great blocks by wholesale people, you proposed to take away a third of them in fourteen years, and compensation was to be given for those taken away. Two-thirds were left those people, but nothing is left to the Scotch licence holders. If this House is ruthless enough to pass this Bill, I do not believe the people

    193
    of Scotland will adopt it. You will begin by putting the greatest possible difficulty in the way of your Bill becoming a workable measure at all. It is essential, if you desire to attempt this experiment in Scotland, and if you desire to attempt to try on the Statute Book the principle of local option, that you should make the Bill so fair and justly reasonable that the people of Scotland will feel they can take advantage of the privileges of local option without bringing blue ruin to people who have embarked in a trade under the ægis of the law in a perfectly honourable and straightforward manner. It is for that reason that, in addition to any time limit which may be granted, the traders desire to be permitted to have a compulsory insurance scheme, which, while not giving them anything like the value of their premises, will give them something to start afresh in the world when they are turned out.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I desire to second the Motion for the Second Beading of this Clause. We wish to know what is the reason the Government are opposed to this scheme. It is felt not merely on this side of the House, but in certain parts, at any rate, on the other side of the House that if you desire to try this experiment and try it with some chance of success, then you must have common British fairness. You must not penalise these unfortunate individuals because the State wishes to alter its policy. That will be felt from end to end of Scotland, and you will have to face an opposition of your own raising if you insist on refusing that which practically the whole trade is asking for, namely, not State compensation, but simply State compulsion placed behind the organisation which they themselves have set up. That is the position, and we can hardly understand the opposition to it; but, without dealing with the matter at length, I merely desire at this stage to second the Motion for the Second Reading of the Clause in order that we may obtain a statement of the reasons which can possibly induce the Government and their extreme teetotal supporters, though not all their supporters, to insist on their objection to compensation.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: It will be in the recollection of hon. Members that when this Bill was before the Committee last Session an Amendment of this nature was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes). It was debated at some length,
    194
    but it went perhaps a little too much into detail, and the Secretary for Scotland found it was practically an unworkable scheme, and would not hold water. I then myself had the honour of moving an Amendment which I think was so elastic that it would have met all the desires of the gentlemen on whose behalf the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) has just spoken; but, not being in the confidence of the trade of Scotland, my Amendment did not receive that support which I think it was worthy of receiving. I make no claim to speak at all on behalf of the trade of Scotland, but I do claim the right to speak on behalf of the people of Scotland apart altogether from the trade and the temperance party. They have some right to be considered in this matter. They have some right to say, "We are not going to be driven by the temperance party or by the public-house party into a corner, one way or another, and we wish our case to be fairly and squarely put before the House of Commons," as it has already been put in most eloquent language by my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate. No one spoke with such eloquence as he did upon the necessity of doing something for the moderate men in Scotland. The moderate men and women in Scotland have some claim to be heard before the Bar of the House of Commons.
    What is the position in which we find ourselves now? Those people who are neither connected with the trade nor with the temperance party directly, those people who form the vast majority of the Scotch people, are strongly in favour of a measure of temperance reform. They see the evils of drink, the devastation and ruin it brings upon homes, every day of their lives, notably in the great towns. The position of the country districts is a little different. There in almost every village—outside my own district of Orkney and Shetland, which is specially favoured in this matter—there are two or three houses where one would be ample. I know many villages in the South infinitely overstocked with public-houses. The result of an overplus of public-houses upon the people at large is excessively mischievous, as anyone, like myself, who has gone among the people and know how they talk and feel about the matter, is aware. It results in this: Farmers coming into a local village or a small town go into one house to have a little meat and refreshment. If there was only one house they would walk out and have no more

    195
    to drink, but they feel they must go to the next house in order to show there is no ill-feeling. I am speaking of what I have heard myself and seen. They go, not because they want a drink, but because they want to show a kindly spirit towards their neighbour. Perhaps they go to a third, and the state in which they go home to their wives is very much to be deplored, and we should very much rejoice if something could be done to alleviate some of these distressing circumstances.
    What is to be the position of those who live in the country districts of Scotland? I do not think it makes very much difference in a town like Glasgow, though the representatives of that city will speak for themselves, but in the country districts we are exceedingly desirous that two at least of those three houses should be closed, and we should carry closing resolutions with very little difficulty. We are face to face, however, with this: When we go canvassing we shall be told, "You are going to ruin that poor widow who has the next house, and that old man whose family have been there for time immemorial, and you are going to make the one that is left infinitely richer and better off than he was before." That will not appeal to the common sense or the kindly feeling and honesty of the people of Scotland. They will feel you have passed a measure which it is absolutely impossible to put into practical working effect, and we shall not be able to get the houses in the country districts closed, though we are exceedingly desirous they should be closed. I therefore in Committee moved the Amendment I did, and I regret to say it was not accepted by the Government.
    I sincerely trust something in this line will be done. We have all been deluged by the appeals of the temperance societies to vote for the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill, and to take it line for line. I hope the House of Commons will not do that, and I hope the Secretary for Scotland will not do that. He has already given us a very good instance of the manner in which he can meet a critical situation, and I hope before the Debate closes he will show some consideration and feeling for his supporters, not in this House, because that is of very little importance, but in the country, who are exceedingly desirous of having a temperance measure passed for Scotland. I have discussed this matter with many of my Friends in the House, and in Committee
    196
    there was not a single objection made to the principle of this suggestion of mutual insurance except by the Secretary for Scotland, who said the scheme was not watertight, and the Member for Greenock (Mr. G. P. Collins), who also thought it was not watertight. Other Members for Scotland said, "Oh, yes, let them have a separate Bill of their own, and we will all vote for it." Is the trade to be put in that position? What chance will they have of getting a Bill of their own through the House of Commons at this stage, or, in fact, at any at all, in view of the attitude assumed by certain hon. Members? We have to make it perfectly clear to the House of Commons and to the country that there is no responsibility taken by the Government in respect of this Clause. There is no charge upon the National Exchequer for it. There is no charge upon the people of the country. It is simply a proposal, as far as I understand it—I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong, because it is of great importance to many of us—that the trade shall be allowed to compulsorily insure themselves so that they shall not be met with absolute ruin should the closing of a house, which many of them know to be absolutely necessary, be required. I shall therefore have very great pleasure in supporting the proposed new Clause.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir W. MENZIES: I am what my hon. Friend calls a moderate man, but I would like to tell the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) that if I were an ardent and earnest supporter of his scheme for compensation I am afraid the tone and temper of the speech which we have heard from him would make me, as a Liberal Member, vote against him. The bearing of the hon. Member is usually very suave but to-day his style, I suppose because of certain recent elections in Scotland, has been one of hectoring and bullying the Government. He gains nothing whatever by adopting that style of speech. We are endeavouring to be as fair as possible in this Bill. The hon. Baronet says that five years' notice would mean blue ruin to the trade.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: That is a statement of fact.
    Sir W. MENZIES: It is thirty years since I first entered into politics, and at that time a Local Veto Bill was one of the measures before the constituencies. I stood for Parliament in the year 1892 and

    197
    reduced the Conservative majority very greatly indeed at that time. I then advocated local option and local veto, and, therefore, it is utterly absurd and indeed untrue to suggest that we are only giving the publicans five years' notice. The licensing interest in Scotland has, in fact, had from twenty to thirty years' notice. The Scottish Licensing trade recently issued a circular to the trade and in about 10,000 circulars issued there were only 4,300 replies; less than one-half of the licensing trade condescended to reply to the circular. Yet it is suggested that 95 per cent. of the trade are in favour of this scheme.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I did not send out the circular; I had nothing to do with it.
    Sir W. MENZIES: At any rate, the licensed trade sent out 10,000 of these postcards and only got replies from 4,300. It cannot, therefore, fairly be said that 95 per cent. of the trade are in favour of compulsory insurance. I suggest that 6,000 out of the 10,000 are totally against it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: No, no.
    Sir W. MENZIES: I shall be glad to hear how I am wrong in making that statement. At any rate it shows that 6,000 members of the trade are indifferent upon the subject. We have no right to impose a tax upon the licence holders or to superadd another burden to those they already have to bear. For these and many other reasons, and because of the hectoring and bullying style adopted by the hon. Baronet opposite, I shall vote against the scheme.
    Mr. BARNES: I supported a scheme upstairs very similar to the one now under discussion, and on that occasion I was induced to believe that the trade in Scotland, to the extent of 80 per cent. or 85 per cent., were in favour of it. It was on that ground that I became responsible for the scheme. But I am not altogether satisfied that so large a percentage are in favour, neither am I disposed to accept the statement of the hon. Member who has just spoken that because 4,000 odd only have replied to the circular sent out, therefore the remainder of the members of the trade are not in favour of compulsory insurance. A large number of those 6,000 who failed to reply probably did so for reasons best known to themselves, and hon. Members who have had experience in these matters must be well aware that there are many reasons why replies are
    198
    not sent in even by those who may be in favour of a given proposal. But I do suggest that the fact that 90 per cent. of the replies actually received were found to be in favour of this scheme may be taken as a fair indication that a very large proportion indeed of the licence trade in Scotland are in favour of some such proposal. Notwithstanding the failure of the trade to satisfy me as to the proportion in favour, I am going to vote for this scheme. Like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I want this Bill to be operative. I do not want it to be a plaything in the hands of temperance people in Scotland. I want, when it once becomes law, that it shall really be effective in reducing the number of public-houses, and thereby reducing the temptations to drink.
    If the people of Scotland are asked to vote in favour of depriving a large number of people of their living, I am sure they will be very chary in supporting this Bill. But even supposing the people were inclined to vote in this direction, I should still be in favour of some scheme of compulsory insurance. I am not disposed to regard the publican as beyond the pale of ordinary consideration. It is perfectly true that they are only granted licences to sell drink for one year, but we know that in these matters there should be something like common sense and the exercise of a fellow feeling. I had a talk recently with a gentleman at Hamilton, who told me that he and his father and his grandfather before him, had been in the licensed trade in the town of Hamilton all their lives. It was perfectly true that they had only held yearly licenses, but, surely, regard must be had to this state of affairs from the point of view of common sense. We cannot get away from facts like that, and they should have some bearing on the consideration of a Bill of this character. That is the reason why I am in favour of it. I want the Bill to become operative and without involving any deprivation of a man of his living, or even without giving opportunities to the publican to go round pitching harrowing tales of what will happen in the event of a measure of this character passing.
    I did not hear the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs. I am sorry he adopted a hectoring tone. I do not think such a policy is likely to ensure success. I have heard it suggested that this proposal will have the effect of preventing the Bill becoming operative, because the funds will be insufficient, and

    199
    because there will not be enough money to pay out to publicans. I would like to suggest to hon. Members who hold that view, that surely it would be more likely to be the case if there were no funds at all. The operation of this Bill, as a matter of fact, is not dependent on the sufficiency or otherwise of the fund under this scheme. The publicans, so far as I understand it, know perfectly well that if this Bill operated to any great extent this scheme would not produce anything like 20s. in the £. But they say that if they are going to stand the risk of being deprived of their living, they ought to be sure of something out of the wreck. I think that that is a very fair position to take up. We are not asking the State to pay anything. We are not asking that the State should have any association with the working of the scheme beyond requiring the production of a certificate of a premium having been paid, which is a necessary condition of the granting of the license. I repeat that the operation of the Bill is not dependent on the sufficiency of the fund, and for these, among other reasons, I do not see why I should alter the opinion to which I gave expression upstairs in favour of the adoption of some scheme of this nature. Just a last word in regard to the suggestion that the publicans might do this for themselves. I suppose that in Scotland there are a large number of publicans who believe that they are perfectly safe and who, in the event of a voluntary scheme being put forward, would not pay the premium. We must face such a fact as that, and I, for one, have no objection to imposing a tax on these men. They are in the same boat as the rest of their trade. I believe the great bulk of them recognise that fact. They recognise that they have common duties and obligations to one another. I therefore hope that the scheme will be adopted.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having delivered a speech full of good, sound, and fair argument, although I fear it may not have the effect it should upon the Lord Advocate. I cannot congratulate the hon. Member for South Lanark (Sir W. Menzies) on the argument he brought forward against the proposal of my hon. Friend. May I point out that those arguments were not directed at all against the Second Beading of the Clause, but were directed against the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs, it being sug-
    200
    gested that he had moved the Clause in a hectoring and bullying manner. I differ from that view; but even had the hon. Member adopted that tone, surely it had nothing at all to do with the merits of the Clause itself, and hon. Members opposite should discuss the merits of the Clause rather than the faults and errors of those who may be supporting it. It is on the merits of the Clause that I propose to make a few remarks. The hon. Member for Orkney drew attention to the chief point when he told us that he had visited a great many public-houses in his constituency and found there was very considerable feeling against one particular public-house benefiting under the Act while two-other public-houses might practically be ruined. That is a sensible, sound, common-sense point of view to take, and any one who is going to vote against this Clause should endeavour to bring forward arguments to show that the Bill will not have that effect. If it does, it will only tend to lead people who are affected to combine together for their own defence, and that is all that the Clause of my hon. Friend does. The Secretary for Scotland has not given any indication of the action he proposes to take m regard to this-Clause. Unfortunately I was not on the Committee, and do not know what occurred there, but I sincerely trust that, in his own interest, the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Clause. It is going to done harm whatever to the cause of temperance; it cannot in any way injure that cause so far as temperance itself is concerned, but it may possibly render this Bill a little less unpopular in Scotland. From an electioneering point of view it would be rather foolish of me to support my hon. Friend, because unless a Clause of this sort is put in I believe the Bill will be so unpopular that there will be a great reaction against the people who have brought it forward.
    I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney (Mr. Cathcart Wason) upon having freed himself from the trammels and shackles of the temperance party. I am glad he made that observation, because he has shown that there are Members on that side of the House who are really actuated by the merits of the case, and not merely by a desire to advance the nostrums and fads of the temperance party. I do not know what view the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) is going to take of this matter. It would be interesting to

    201
    the House to know what his views are. I think the general fairness which actuates him would compel him to say that he must follow the views of the hon. Member for Orkney, and support this Clause. If that is so, I hope that he will get up and tell the House what he thinks. I have looked in vain at the countenances of the Lord Advocate and of the Secretary of State to see whether or not there was a glimmer of hope to be gained from those countenances. They are like sphinxes. I do not know exactly what they are going to do. Therefore, the best thing that can be done would be for two or three hon. Members behind them, who, like the hon. Member for Blackfriars, are desirous that people should not be altogether ruined, to get up and point out that the Clause is of a harmless character, and necessary if the Bill is to become law. I am quite sure that pressure from behind will induce the right hon. Gentleman to make up his mind to accept the Clause. The only difficulty I see about the Clause is that it is extremely long, and it is difficult to see whether it requires any amendment. At any rate, we might read it a second time, then we could spend time upon it afterwards to see if Amendments are required. The principle, I am quite sure, is sound; it is that, so far as possible, ruin should not be brought upon the heads of those unfortunate holders of licences, for whom, as the hon. Member for Blackfriars said, there is still hope.
    Colonel GREIG: Before we proceed further with the examination of the details of this Clause, I think we might clear our minds as to what is the state of the law in Scotland at the present time and what are the principles which this Clause introduces. I hope the Government will not admit this Clause. The reasons why I take that view are, these: According to the law of Scotland—nobody opposite will deny it—at the present time a licence is a licence for one year. The justices at the present time are a body of men in the county, appointed partly from the county authorities and partly by the justices. They have uncontrolled discretion to refuse any licence or to renew any licence they like. That is exercised at the present moment, for last year in Glasgow twelve or more licences were refused without a single penny of compensation being paid. Therefore, licence holders in Scotland know very well what is the state of the law in Scotland as regards the position of men who hold licences under that law.
    202
    What does the Bill propose to do? It affects two classes of persons, those who are licence holders at the present moment and those who will become licence holders after the Bill has become law. The interests of these two classes of persons in regard to compensation are entirely different. As regards those who are licence holders now, they may possibly have some claim to consideration. The Bill gives it them. It gives them five years to consider and adjust their position before the Bill comes into operation. If I am not wrong, the Bill cannot operate on them until 28th May, 1918. Not only does it give them a five years' time limit, but by a Clause in the Bill it prevents the justices ordering any alteration in premises or putting additional expense upon them by ordering them to alter their premises. Therefore, to my mind, and to the mind of those who take a fair point of view, these licence holders will have had ample time to put their house in order. An hon. Member has pointed out that this question of temperance legislation on these lines has been before Scotland for thirty years, therefore all the men who have come under the law since then have known perfectly well that some alteration was going to be introduced, and they still have five years in which to do it.
    Take the other class of men, who become licence holders after the Act becomes operative. How can they have any claim to compensation? They come under a system under which they know that licences can be reduced by 25 per cent, or abolished altogether in an area, or the justices' powers can be left as they are. In their case they will come into the trade with their eyes open to the conditions under which they will carry on that trade. Where is their claim to any compensation at all? What will be the effect of adopting the principle of compensation? It will introduce into the law of Scotland a principle which has never been there, which was introduced into the law of England in recent years, and which in its operation has failed in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Everyone knows that the amount of compensation put aside under the Licensing Act in England has been very small and inadequate, and that it has prevented justices from exercising the powers and the discretion they already had of putting an end to licences. What are we asked to do? To introduce, first of all, a new principle of law, the principle of compensation; secondly—and this is to my mind the insidious part of the

    203
    Clause—we are asked to adopt that principle under the ægis of the State. You will have licence holders, if anything goes wrong with the compensation fund, coming to the State and saying, "You sanctioned this scheme, and you must support it." They did not hesitate to say it at their big meeting in Glasgow, when the chairman read a letter which said:—
    "We are all agreed that if it were possible to get compensation from the public, who by their, vote deprive us of our property, we would endeavour to get such a principle of compensation established."
    That is the principle embodied in this Clause. If anyone suggests that it will not bring in the State to guarantee the compensation he has only to look at Subsection (8), which says:—
    The central board may act with a quorum of five and shall, within twelve months after the passing of this Act, make rules prescribing amongst other things—
    (a) The principles on which the declared value of certificates is to be ascertained;—
    That is the whole principle of compensation—
    and the conditions on which these may be modified or readjusted;
    (b) The manner of subsequent election of members of the board and the duration of their office;—
    there you have the whole of the machinery for putting the principle of compensation into operation—
    (c) Any matters incidental to the proper conduct of the affairs of the board and to carrying out the provisions of this Act.
    Mark the next provision!
    Provided always that the rules shall not be contrary to anything in this Act contained and shall be approved by the Secretary for Scotland.
    The Secretary of State will be responsible for the rules for the Board, and, in the long run, will have to make up the fund if it is deficient. For these reasons I hope the Government will refuse to accept the Clause.
    Mr. WHYTE: I cannot follow my hon. Friend who has just sat down in his argument. I approach the scheme put down on the Paper by the Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) in the spirit which we were invited to approach it by the Lord Advocate. I ask myself in what respect does the scheme on the Paper in any way in-
    204
    troduce the principle of State compensation? I cannot find the thinnest thread by which the scheme proposed by the hon. Baronet could be drawn into any State compensation without further definite legislation. My hon. Friend (Colonel Greig) says we have the principle. We have not got the principle established. It would be arguable that the principle had been established if this Bill did not set up an entirely new state of affairs. On that point I should like to observe that the Scottish publican has taken his licence from the beginning of one year to the end of that year, and that, therefore, the risk he undergoes of losing his licence may be theoretically great. Yet we must remember that it is practically small, and that, in consequence, that risk has been, up to recent years, at all events, and still is for the greater part, an insurable risk. Here we are overturning that insurable risk, or we are so supplementing the risk as to make it a totally different risk altogether.
    I am perfectly persuaded that the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason) is absolutely sound in this, that the average moderate man in Scotland, who in this matter will be the balance in the election, will have in his mind considerations of the position of a particular individual or particular individuals who will be affected by this legislation, and that his vote, which will probably turn the referendum on this point in any given district, will be largely dictated by the fact of the presence or absence of some form of insurance. If he knows that the majority of the trade have accepted the insurance scheme it is proposed to put into this measure, his vote will be much more willingly given to an object which, other things being equal, he very greatly favours, but he will shrink—I am not speaking in the air, but with a full knowledge of such men in Scotland—from giving his vote unless he knows that at least the edge of the danger is blunted by such a scheme as this. I am not at all influenced by what has been described as the hectoring style of the hon. Baronet. He, of course, is out for a different purpose in regard to this measure than we are, and no doubt that is his way, but, as has been pointed out on both sides, the intrinsic merit of a particular proposal is what we are here bound to examine, especially when we are dealing with one of

    205
    the later stages of the Bill, and when it will soon have passed from our hands. We are asked why then make it compulsory. That brings me back again to the point which I raised earlier in my remarks, that we must make it compulsory, because you have upset all the conditions under which licenced insurance is carried on at this moment in Scotland. You have thrust in a factor which is practically incalculable or rather is only calculable in this sense, that there are certainly certain districts in Scotland which could not for many years adopt local veto, and that therefore publicans in those districts will say, "We are free from that danger, or it is so far off that we will not need to insure against it, and we are not going to step in to help our more seriously threatened brethren." Therefore in order to make the scheme of this Bill satisfactory to public opinion generally in Scotland, some compulsion is necessary, and the only compulsion which can be applied is that of an Act of Parliament. Finally, I would repeat that this Amendment will act powerfully as a facilitating measure for local veto, and I would earnestly plead with those who are the most stalwart friends of advanced temperance reform in Scotland to consider very carefully whether there is not far more weight in the argument that has been adduced in favour of this insurance measure than they commonly suppose, and before they brush it aside altogether to try to put themselves in the position of the average elector in Scotland when he is brought face to face with a requisition for a poll, and I am perfectly persuaded that if he is able to put himself in that position he can only come to one decision upon this point, and that is that this Clause deserves a Second Reading.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I congratulate the hon. Member on the line that he has taken over this Bill, because I do not think it is really a question of temperance or non-temperance, but merely a question of equity. I cannot see why any man who is interested in temperance should not vote for this particular Clause. The hon. Member said he advocated this Clause for a different purpose from that of the hon. Baronet. I do not know what purpose lie was urging, but I know that the hon. Baronet is most anxious in the cause of temperance. I know that when he was in my Constituency the other day he was lamenting that there was too much taxation upon whisky. I do not know if that is the point of view which he is taking.
    Mr. WHYTE: Is the Noble Lord referring to me?
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I was.
    Mr. WHYTE: If the Noble Lord will take the trouble to read my speech he will see that I said no such thing.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: The hon. Member knows his speech, and we know the speech he made, and I do not think I need enter into the question of that speech at present. I think he knows to what I was referring. Certainly my Constituency does. I should also like to say a word with regard to what the hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Menzies) had to say. He made the extraordinary statement that all those who had not answered the circular that the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) stated had been sent out must in consequence be in favour of the Bill. He might just as well have said that the 200 odd Members of the Radical party who are not here now, if we had a Division, were against this Bill. Of course, that is not an argument which will hold water for a moment. It is certain on the law of averages that if forty out of 400 vote one way and the rest vote the other way, the predominance of opinion, at all events, must be in favour of the whole lot of those who voted on the side of the 400. With regard to this Clause it will obviously cause very great distress among a certain section of people in this country who are engaged in a perfectly legitimate trade if in future they are not to be allowed to get compensation in some way or another, but hold their licences absolutely according to the whim of the popular vote, and possibly an excited vote, of the moment. In Scotland, in spite of what the hon. Member (Colonel Greig) said, there is a reasonable chance of security at present if a man conducts his licence properly. But if this Bill passes there will be no security. If you have prohibition, for instance, the whole of the licences, whether well or badly conducted, will go, and therefore a man has no security at all. I think the result will be that you will make the existing public-houses very much worse places than they are at present, because a man will find that he has only got five years and no insurance at all, and there is a chance of it being taken away at any moment, and he will try to make as much money as possible in order to cut any possible loss. It will simply make the houses worse conducted and drive men to making hay while

    207
    the sun shines. But if they are insured and they know they will not lose money, at all events when the licence is taken away that gives them some incentive to take a pride in their house and to conduct it properly, and they will know that there is a chance of being able to continue possibly in the same premises, and possibly under the same landlord, and will gradually put up a fund which will enable them to make their houses more consonant with the ideas of public temperance than they are at present.
    Then I think it is obvious that if this insurance is not made compulsory you will probably have bankruptcies ail over the place, the premiums will be very much higher than is proposed now, and you will not find the strong supporting the weak. Certainly, I should think the Labour party would support us in this, because I should think they would be the last people in the world who wished to support what they are pleased to call blacklegs. So far as the Clause itself is concerned, the control is surely extremely democratic. It is left in the hands of the trade itself, and the way it has been drafted is that the licence holders themselves have the predominant control, and I should say that financially it is as sound as a scheme of that sort can possibly be, and the trade itself—I mean the brewers' interests and the distillers' interests—are certainly not predominant, but rather less than those of the retail holders. So it has everything to make it popular in Scotland, and I am certain, if we do not put some scheme of this sort in, you will do away with exactly what you want. I do not say the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes it, but some hon. Members profess that they wish to do away with public-houses in Scotland. The difficulty might be removed in that way, but once the people see that the publicans have some grievance they will never vote for your prohibition, because they will say, "It is very hard luck on the man; he has no insurance and he has only five years. We have known him all these years and he will be hit by it." Take away that excuse and you will be far more likely to have prohibition or what I might at all events call an honest vote at the election. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not really want to have prohibition, to a certain extent I am with him. But, as it is, I am quite certain that this Clause is a fair one, and I cannot see why any hon. Member here should not
    208
    vote for it, whether he is interested in temperance or not. It is a mere question of equity. Why is a man not to insure himself? Because hon. Members opposite, or the Secretary for Scotland certainly is in shackles, from which he cannot get away.
    Sir FREDERICK LOW: I trust an English Member may be permitted to say a word or two on this subject. Before the Government state what their views may be, I, speaking for myself, should like to say I think it is one which requires a very great deal of consideration before it is rejected. I do not agree with the suggestions which have been put forward by some speakers upon this side of the House that this is a compensation scheme. It appears to me to have nothing to do with compensation at all. It is an insurance scheme, and the only question that really seems to me to be relevant to the inquiry upon which we have entered is whether or not the trade desires this scheme. If the Committee is satisfied that this is a scheme which meets the views of the trade in Scotland I, for one, am entirely unable to see why the trade should not be allowed to adopt it. It is perfectly clear that under an enactment of this kind, if it is to be carried out, an enormous amount of loss and consequent distress must fall upon individuals, and I do not see why, however keen one may be for principles which are ordinarily called principles of temperance, one should oppose a combination for that purpose, and therefore I do not wish to pledge myself in any way to the details of the scheme. At the moment I am only referring to the principle of it. I would suggest that before this scheme is met by an absolute negative the Government should consider whether it is not possible to introduce into this Bill a scheme which may have, and which I think will have, if its details are somewhat amended and adjusted, the effect of doing away with a great deal of the loss and distress which must arise from the vigorous application of a measure of this sort. Therefore I hope that on this side of the House this scheme, which appears to be perfectly fairly put forward in the interests of the trade, may receive a fair consideration.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must recall to the House what the practical proposition which is put before the Government really is, because the hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Low) safeguarded himself by saying that he would express no opinion about the scheme, and speaker after speaker on both

    209
    sides of the House has been very careful to utter no words of strong commendation of the scheme. So eminent a financial expert as the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) made a speech on the subject in which he was very careful to say not a single word about the scheme. The hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment said of the scheme that he had not had time to consider it, and he quoted figures which he said had been supplied to him for which he could not vouch. The hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. Mackinder) said that the scheme had been so well explained by his predecessor that he would not talk about it at all. It is no use putting a general proposition before us, as you have done, before the licence holders. You are asking the Government to assume a grave responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars Division (Mr. Barnes) said he did not think the Government should assume any responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason) took the same line. I want to put this to the House, how is it possible for the Government to insert a provision in an Act of Parliament that every member of the trade shall compulsorily pay substantial contributions to an insurance fund unless that Government is to take some responsibility for the adequacy, security, management, and the general stability and probity of the fund? Is anyone on the other side of the House prepared to deny that the proposition is that we are asked to compel people to contribute to the fund, some of whom are admittedly unwilling, and then say, "We have nothing to do with this fund, for we have no responsibility for it." What is the position in regard to this fund? There have been a series of stages of this scheme. They vary enormously, and the last scheme to which we are asked to pledge ourselves as a Government and House of Commons is one which even the Gentleman who proposes it tells us that he has not had time to consider it. It is a scheme which we have only seen on the Paper this morning, and yet we are asked to compel the publicans of Scotland to adopt the scheme.
    Nobody has defended the scheme proposed to-day. We had a scheme in Committee which was quite different. In fact, we have had several schemes, but the one put down to-day differs from them in essential principles. This proposes that new people should contribute. It may be quite proper, but supposing we put this scheme in the Bill this afternoon, what may these
    210
    people say to us? They may say, "You have put us in as compulsory contributors to the scheme. We have never been asked about it. We have not considered it, and it is a monstrous thing that a burden should be put upon mortgagees"—that is how they describe themselves—"without our ever having had an opportunity of making representations to Parliament on the subject." That is the proposition put to the Government by the party opposite, and it is one to which on behalf of the Government I could not agree. Let us look at the evidence as regards the position of the trade as to approval or disapproval of the scheme. We are told sometimes that the whole trade approve of the scheme. It is a fair thing to say that if the whole trade, or nearly the whole trade, approve of the scheme, there is no obstacle under the sun in the way of their having a scheme of insurance. I wish them to have a scheme of insurance. I agree that it would facilitate the operation and working of this measure. What I object to is having a scheme of insurance put in this Bill as a condition of the reduction of licences. That is a principle I cannot concede. If they are right in saying, as the hon. Baronet and many people have said, that they are assured of the assent of the trade to the scheme, what are 1,000 licence holders in Glasgow doing at the present day? Insuring themselves.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It cannot be done.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Why cannot it be done if they are agreed? What is the other alternative? If there is a great deal of difference of opinion in the trade—it is my opinion that there is—and the Government says to those people who do not want to be compulsorily insured that they shall be insured, what will they turn round and say to us? They will say, "You compel me to be insured; you have accepted the scheme which was put before you the very day it was discussed, and which you confess there was no chance of considering. That is not fair. Make the scheme adequate and ample." That is what is behind the whole agitation, This is not an attempt to get this scheme into the Bill. Nobody believes in the scheme in my opinion. It is an attempt to get the Government committed to the principle of compensation before a licence can be taken away. I have always felt that, and every deputation I have received has confirmed me in that opinion. I was present at a deputation to-day, and the first thing they said was, "Why should

    211
    Scottish licence holders be worse off than English licence holders? They have the same vested rights as the English trade." They have not. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that they have not the same rights. The English right was largely created by the Act of 1904. It does not exist in Scotland, and, in my opinion, I would be betraying my trust if I accepted that principle, and admitted a vested interest in licences in Scotland. I am reminded that they could not carry a proposition like that for Scotland. By whom was it opposed? It was opposed by the then Conservative Secretary for Scotland (Lord Balfour of Burleigh).
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It never was proposed for Scotland.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I quoted the speech of Lord Balfour of Burleigh in my speech on the Second Heading of this Bill.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: There never was any proposal of any sort or kind to apply that to Scotland.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Precisely; that is what I am saying. The Secretary for Scotland would not hear of it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: He never was asked.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Then how does the hon. Member explain Lord Balfour's speech which is on record. He said:—
    "I am apprehensive that an attempt may be made to extend the general principle of this Bill to Scotland, and I wish to take this opportunity of saying there is such a difference in the circumstances of the two countries that it would be an act of gross injustice to apply the principle of this Bill to the country north of the Tweed."
    When a deputation comes to me and says "We have got the same vested interests as the English trade," I quote Lord Balfour of Burleigh in denying it. What did Lord Balfour say further? Hon. Members opposite do not appear to be acquainted with the Noble Lord's language. He said:—
    "My objection to the Bill is that it closes, and does not pave the way to a final and permanent solution of this question. I go further and say that I believe it will be an obstacle, an absolute obstacle, in the way of that complete reform."
    I am not going to set up that obstacle. I agree with Lord Balfour in thinking that the position of Scotland should be maintained. I say that what we have before us is not a practical proposition. We are asked to commit the Government to a
    212
    compulsory scheme of insurance. I say it would be wrong for the Government to adopt such responsibility. We should be told, "You have accepted the scheme, and therefore you must in honour take the responsibility of it." I do not see how the Government could divest themselves of that.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted some observations made by Lord Balfour of Burleigh which were no doubt quite relevant and pertinent to the Bill he was discussing, but it was totally different from that which is now before the House. The basis of the right hon. Gentleman's whole speech was an argumentum ad homincm. Lord Balfour was dealing with a measure which was different from this toto cœlo. We on this side of the House, and indeed all the Gentlemen on the other side who have spoken on the question, except one, are agreed in thinking that this Amendment should be put in the Bill. I would ask the House to remember that during the whole of the discussion this afternoon, there have only been found two Members on the other side of the House who had a word to say against the principle of the Amendment apart from the Secretary for Scotland who, if I may respectfully say so, has not said a word against the principle of it. We are not discussing the details of the proposal. Everyone is agreed that there may be room for amendment. As I understood, the hon. Baronet the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), has not had time to consider the details, of the Amendment, but he has made himself responsible for the details by putting the Amendment on the Paper in his name. He has not had time to consider it, because those who order the arrangement of Government business, only stated on the last day before the adjournment what business was to be taken when the House reassembled. I cannot see how anyone could more thoroughly identify himself with a scheme than by putting it down on the Paper in his name. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire spoke against the proposal, but his argument was not in the least relevant. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire discovered some hectoring and bullying qualities in the speech of the hon. Baronet. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House would be surprised to hear that there was anything of that sort in my hon. Friend's speech. It is not the tone in which he usually addresses the House.

    213
    6.0 P.M.
    I confess I am surprised to find, after the majority of those who have spoken tonight on the Government side have said that they are entirely in favour of this Clause, that the Secretary of Scotland should brush all aside and say it is going to introduce a principle which no one can support. As I understood his argument, it was that it would introduce the principle of compensation. If there could be a more gross misunderstanding of the Amendment I do not know what it is. It simply says that the trade shall insure themselves. I hold that is a matter in which the Government will not be held responsible. Here is a proposal which the trade say, through their representatives in the House of Commons, they are willing to take. I do not say that the trade are unanimous, but by a large majority they are willing to accept the proposal. And if the scheme, subject to any reasonable amendment, is one which the hon. Member for Orkney, the hon. Member for Perth, the hon. Member for Blackfriars, and the hon. Member for Norwich say is likely to commend the general policy of the Act to the elector, and give it a better chance of being carried into effect, why in the world do not the Government accept it? They will be able to say, "Why we took that scheme because it was put before us by those who spoke for the trade as being reasonable and fair, and by moderate men who support temperance principles as being one which will enable the Bill to get bettor and fairer play in the country."
    To my mind this scheme differs toto cœlo from what was brought in under the English Bill. The English Bill, as I understand, says that you cannot take away licences beyond what the fund provided for enables you to do. There is nothing of that kind in this Bill. That I agree was compensation, and that was the kind of Bill that Lord Balfour of Burleigh was referring to. But this Bill is completely different, and it is a perversion of the fact to represent that this is the same as the English scheme of compensation. I am quite certain that many hon. Members on both sides who are thoroughly identified with temperance reform quite appreciate that, while they might have opposed the principle of the English Act of 1904, just because it limited the amount of restriction to the amount of money contributed—there is nothing like that under this Clause. We are here asking the Government to recognise the principle that
    214
    the members of the trade, a large proportion of whom wish to be brought into that condition, shall have an insurance scheme which will enable them to mitigate any of the evils which might arise from too drastic an application of this measure. I cannot find any answer in what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland said to the arguments advanced by his own supporters, all of them except one professing to be supporters of temperance, as indeed we all profess to be, though we have different ways of getting at it. I have not heard any reply by the right hon. Gentleman to these arguments advanced by his own supporters. I cannot understand how the principle of this Clause can be objected to. Certainly it has not been objected to in any argument either by the hon. Member for Lanark, who spoke against it, or the hon. Member for Perthshire, or the right hon. Gentleman himself, and, so far as I am concerned, I shall vote for the principle of this Clause.
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Colonel Greig) said the compensation in England had broken down—and he used this as an argument against this Amendment—because it would be impossible to obtain the money for it. A more ludicrous misstatement of the fact it is impossible to imagine. Between the years 1905 and 1911 an average of over a million pounds per year has been paid in compensation to licence holders. To say, therefore, that compensation has broken down in England because it was impossible to obtain the amount of money is absolutely untrue, and so far as any argument upon that statement can be pressed in reference to the present Clause proposed by my hon. Friend the facts are all in favour of the Clause. It is all on a par with the statement made by opponents of this Clause opposite in Debate and the statement made by the Secretary for Scotland, in which he described as a proposal to put Scotland into the Licensing Bill a passing reference by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his speech.
    Mr. McKINNON WOODindicated dissent.
    Earl WINTERTON: It shows the difficulty with which we have to deal.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Docs the Noble Lord deny that the speech was made in the House of Lords?
    Earl WINTERTON: No. What the right hon. Gentleman said was there was a proposal to put Scotland in the Bill. No such proposal was ever made, and it is obvious from the right hon. Gentleman's attitude that he was quite aware of that when he got up.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): In differing from some of my hon. Friends behind me, I take no exception whatever to the tone and temper in which this proposed Clause was spoken to by hon. Members opposite or to the argument advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend and by the hon. Baronet. I cannot say that I have changed my mind since this Bill was in Committee two years ago or during the present Session. If I had changed my mind I should certainly not feel ashamed to say I had. It is no disgrace at all for a man to change his mind and honestly to explain his reasons. When I laid down some conditions which I thought ought to be complied with if a scheme such as this were to be accepted by the promoters of a Temperance Bill such as the House is now considering, I quite agree with the hon. Baronet opposite that the first condition which I laid down is complied with by this Clause: that is to say, it is not made conditional upon their being a sufficient fund in the insurance scheme that any of the Resolutions suggested or allowed by this Bill should come into operation. I agree that this Clause, if it were embodied in the Bill, would not in any way affect the discretionary powers now confided to the magistrates, nor would it affect the carrying into operation of any of the Resolutions proposed in the Bill. In that respect certainly it differs from the provisions of the English Bill, because, as we all know, the reduction and extinction of licences was made conditional upon their being an aggregate sum to indemnify the licence holder for the loss which he might suffer. The first condition, I agree, is complied with, but I think that the hon. Baronet will bear with me when I say that if a scheme such as this is put forward and is pressed upon the Government to embody it in the Bill, it ought to be, and necessarily must be, to a great extent a scheme which will offer, I do not say complete, but substantial indemnity to the licence holder, and a scheme also which in all its conditions is put forward as a sound and temperance scheme, because there cannot be the smallest doubt that if the Government were to accept such
    216
    a scheme they would be bound to guarantee its soundness, its solvency, and its fitness to afford substantial compensation to the licensed holder.
    I would quite understand the hon. Baronet coming down to the House and saying: "Here is a scheme which I assure you has been carefully examined by actuarial experts and others, who say that it is perfectly sound. I myself have examined it and find it so. I put it before you as a sound, healthy scheme, which will give substantial indemnity to all those licence holders who may conceivably be injured in their practice by the carrying of some of these Resolutions, and I have to ask the Government to embody this scheme in their Bill." That is not the position which the hon. Baronet has taken or which any of those supporting him take. Not one Member of this House has said one single word in support of the soundness and solvency, and the substantial financial character of this scheme to which we are asked to assent. Is not the argument of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary for Scotland, absolutely unanswerable when he says that if we were to accept this scheme we should be bound to make it thoroughly fit to afford substantial indemnity to every license holder who conceives himself to be injured? Any scheme which we did accept we should have to guarantee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I cannot conceive any Government compelling licence holders to insure themselves, and at the same time divesting themselves of all responsibility for the solvency and soundness of the scheme. That is a position which no Government could accept, and certainly, I think, that the hon. Baronet will find in the observations which I have ventured to make in Committee and outside, and which are quite familiar to the House, that I was speaking all through of a scheme which would provide a substantial indemnity to the licence holders and be a sound and healthy scheme. I think that the hon. Baronet will also agree when I say that I was thinkng of a scheme which I would not say was accepted unanimously by the trade, because it would be impossible to have absolute unanimity, but a scheme which really was accepted by the overwhelming majority of the trade. I am not complaining of the method which the trade have taken in order to ascertain the views of its members on this scheme. I know quite well the difficulty of ascertaining the views of a large trade, scattered

    217
    about the country. But I ask the House seriously, have we had any figures put before us to show that there is really any substantial majority of the trade who have considered this question and have decided that this scheme ought to be accepted?
    I may have my own impression, but I could not honestly say to any man that it is quite clearly shown that there was that substantial majority in this trade quite ready to accept the scheme. But you have to go a little further than that. I think that the trade might have done a little more than they have done to satisfy the House that it was impossible for them to frame and agree to a voluntary scheme. There again we do not ask them to show that every man would not agree. But surely the trade should satisfy the House that they have not among their numbers such an overwhelming majority who are quite ready to enter into a voluntary scheme. If they had satisfied us that it was impossible to secure any substantial number of members who would enter into a voluntary scheme, that, again, would be a matter for consideration. I can quite easily see that the very object which I have in view most as a temperance reformer would be defeated if this scheme were accepted. It appears to me that people who were eager to carry a resolution to have no licence in any district would be met by very strenuous opposition on the part of the members of the trade and their friends, who would say, "We have been forced against out will to enter into a scheme which affords us no sort of substantial indemnity against the wrong which you are going to do us. If we had been left to ourselves, with no scheme at all, we would have done ourselves justice and have prevented this resolution being carried. But here we are hampered by the Government, which compels substantial contribution from us under a scheme which affords nothing like an indemnity as will meet our loss." These are considerations which press upon my mind. I entirely assent to what my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire said, that if the Government accepted this Amendment they would have to guarantee the soundness and solvency of the fund. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Perth, however, that further legislative enactment would be required. It would need to be done in this Bill. If we are not in a position to say that it is a sound and solvent scheme which would give
    218
    such an indemnity as would be required, then there is no alternative but the course proposed by the Secretary for Scotland.
    Mr. CLYDE: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the unflinching attitude which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ure) has just taken up—an unflinching attitude which means that this proposal, for which there is support not from one side of the House only, is to be flung aside, and the working of this Bill will be to make out of the area of its operations a battlefield, and out of the operations on that battlefield there will, if I am not mistaken, be little benefit to the cause of temperance, to the promotion of which this measure is directed. I cannot pretend, and I do not stand here to pretend, to be enamoured of the principles of this Bill. So far as I am concerned, I vastly prefer the rule of liberty to the modern Radical attitude of constant restriction and interference, but I acknowledge that the Bill has passed the Second Reading and gone to a Committee upstairs, and if we are to get any good out of it at all I am convinced that we can only do it on the footing that there are some means or other whereby the public opinion of a locality, where there is an appeal to its judgment, can be saved from the distraction and perplexities of the appeals which will inevitably be made by members of the trade who are about to be ruined either by prohibition or by a resolution restricting the granting of licences. That is an appeal which would certainly be listened to by moderate men. whether temperance reformers or not, and it is an appeal which will certainly prevent this measure, which is provided to obtain the true index of local opinion, from allowing that local opinion to have its way. There is only one way in which the local public control of the traffic can succeed, and that is by making that control consistent with a fair measure of justice to those whose business is destroyed. If you do not do that, then public opinion in Scotland and anywhere else will refuse to have anything to do with a measure that is going to destroy the business of people and give them nothing in its place.
    Observe what the reasons are which the right hon. Gentleman has advanced! He went so far as to say, in the concluding part of his speech, that he thought the provision of an insurance scheme would prove an obstacle to the free working of local option. It is exactly the other way, unless I am completely mistaken. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that

    219
    appeals of the publicans threatened with wrong will be less or will be greater according as there is at least some partial insurance fund, or none at all? The charge against the scheme is that it does not provide complete and substantial indemnity to the publican whose business is taken away. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the appeal of the publican whose business is on the verge of destruction, or who thinks it is on the verge of destruction, to the moderate man will have less effect if there is no remedy for him at all, or when, on the other hand, there is a remedy, though only a partial one? The right hon. Gentleman says the indemnity must be substantial and complete. I do not know what he means. If you are going to lay down the provision that the indemnity must be substantially complete on the one hand, and, on the other hand, you are going to establish a double risk for every publican every three years after the first five years, when he may have his licence taken away under a no-licence resolution, or under a restricting resolution—if you say, on the one hand, the indemnity must be complete, and, on the other hand, you establish risks as wide and comprehensive as those, then you cannot have any indemnity at all, because you are applying the rule of all or none to a situation in which it is not business to establish an insurance fund against all risks when you make those risks so large and wide.
    If the right hon. Gentleman says the indemnity should be complete, I am very willing to yield to him if he tells us from what source he knows that that is actuarily possible, or is anywhere within range of being actuarily possible. If he says it is possible, I dispute it, and my foundation for that is those very voluntary insurance corporations to which he has referred. He says, "I am not satisfied that publicans could not be voluntarily insured." Does he not think that those large insurance corporations which deal with this kind of risk ought to know something about that? What they say is, "We cannot on a voluntarily established basis—in fact within the limits of our actuarial experience—provide a fund to give substantial and complete indemnity against risks as wide as these." If the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to say that he would have nothing to do with any insurance scheme which did not provide complete indemnity, a little re-
    220
    flection might have put him on the right way, namely, that he was against all insurance schemes whatsoever. What I understood from my reading this morning to have been the real argument on the Second Reading was not this at all. The line taken on the Second Reading Debate was this: That an insurance scheme would be objectionable because it was going to make the operation of local option introduced by the Bill dependent on the presence of money enough to enable complete indemnity to be given. That was a very strong argument, but the right hon. Gentleman himself admits that that argument is powerless against this Clause, which professes to put by compulsion on the trade as large a contribution for insurance as the trade themselves like to stand. We acknowledge that the insurance fund which will be formed by means of this levy will not be a fund adequate to provide against all risks. What we say is this: That so far as that levy does go, proportionately as the risks are actually felt, there will be indemnity given. It is an exact carrying out of the spirit of what the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) himself expressed as being something which, if not complete, at any rate was in accordance with common sense and with the ordinary sense of justice of mankind.
    The other objection, the last, I think, which the right hon. Gentleman advanced against this proposal, is that the Government must guarantee this indemnity. I wonder what in all the world that means? I do not want to raise a highly controversial point, but we have a great national insurance scheme, and will the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government is to guarantee the solvency of that scheme. I do not make a party point, but I ask where is the necessity, if you establish under State sanction and State regulations an insurance scheme, that therefore the State must guarantee that scheme? What is the meaning of that principle, to which certainly effect was not given in the National Insurance Act? What in the world is there in the nature of the thing to make it necessary? If you will go so far as compulsion, we shall be able to provide a fund which at least will partially enable us to meet the difficulty. What is there in the nature of the thing which requires the State to say, "Oh, no, we cannot give those powers, because if we did then the State would be called upon to guarantee the fund against all risks"? I

    221
    do think that this really is as complete a non sequitur for the right hon. Gentleman or myself as we ever found ourselves committed to. When we look to the objections to the scheme, with great respect I do not think they hold water, and I revert to the point of view which I have already stated. But if you are to get anything out of the Bill in Scotland, it is the height of folly to convert the area of its operations into a battlefield, which would be the inevitable result of a refusal of this measure of compensation.
    Mr. SHERWELL: As one who has consistently opposed the principle of the English Act of 1904, and who proposes without a shadow of hesitation to vote for the present Clause, I do not wish to give a vote without explanation, and without frankly stating the reasons which lead me to give that vote. I confess I have listened with considerable disappointment to the speeches both of the Secretary for Scotland and of the Lord Advocate. The real grievance which English licensing reformers have against the Act of 1904 is that it does limit the measure of progress by the amount of the Compensation Fund. We have the perfectly frank avowal of the Lord Advocate that there is nothing in this proposed scheme of compulsory insurance which will in any way militate against the operation of the options under this Bill. When we are assured that a Bill of a particularly drastic character—and I say nothing as to whether the extreme drasticity of the proposals is legitimate or not—but when a Bill with proposals of a severely drastic character admittedly comes into operation without the least hindrance from this proposed scheme of compensation, then it does seem to me that the fundamental ground is cut away from all those who oppose a reasonable scheme of this kind. I listened with considerable disappointment to the Lord Advocate's speech. I tried to follow his reasoning, which I understood was that unless you can have an admittedly impossible scheme of insurance therefore you can have no scheme, and because you cannot protect the unfortunate licensee from the whole of his loss therefore you are not to protect him against a part or any proportionate measure. That does not seem to me to be a line which any reasonable reformer should take up in this House. I increasingly abhor all attempts at social reform which inflict unnecessary hardship or suffering on the individual, and I do not be-
    222
    lieve, further, that in licensing reforms or in any other branch of social reform it ultimately pays to inflict unnecessary hardship for the good of the community on the particular individual. I listened with some surprise to the Lord Advocate's speech, because it seems to me to run entirely counter to the frank statement he made on the occasion of the Second Reading. The Lord Advocate then said, referring to his previous statements:—
    "I stand by it here to-night, as I have stood by it in the country. The question of compulsory insurance has always presented itself to me in two aspects: firstly, as an indispensable act of justice to a dispossessed publican, and secondly as a method of smoothing the path to proposing a no-licence resolution."
    The House will observe that in his Second Heading speech, the Lord Advcoate supported a compulsory insurance scheme on the ground that it was an indispensable part of a Licensing Bill such as this, while the Lord Advocate is to-night giving his support to a Bill which admittedly includes no proposal for a compulsory insurance scheme. Because I believe strongly, as one who has worked for some long time in connection with licensing reform, that the reforms aimed at in this particular Bill will be facilitated and greatly strengthened in their progress by the inclusion in the Bill of a proposal such as that of the hon. Baronet, I shall to-night unhesitatingly give my vote in favour of the Motion.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I understand by the Rules of the House, and with your permission, I am entitled as Mover of this Motion to reply on the Debate. I regret very much that I was summoned out of the House at the opening of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Scotland and that I did not therefore hear what he said. I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman told the House that I had put this scheme on the Paper, and that I had told him that I had not read it and did not understand it and knew nothing about it.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I did not say so. I repeated what the hon. Member himself said in the House, that he had not had time to go into the scheme.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am in the recollection of the House, and I said nothing of the kind.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: You did this afternoon.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I did not. I understood that it was a kind of obligation that what was said in the Lobby was sacred.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have not quoted words said in the Lobby, I am referring to what the hon. Member said in a speech in the House.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I said nothing of the kind, but I did say in the Lobby last night, when I had come from a Committee meeting at half-past seven o'clock, or, rather, after eight o'clock, with the scheme in my hand, that I had not had time fully to consider it. That was true then—[An HON. MEMBER: "You said it to-day."]—it is not true now. I have been considering it ever since. I was considering it at three o'clock this morning. The right hon. Gentleman has got no right whatever to make that statement which is not correct. I shall take very good care that all my conversations with the right hon. Gentleman in the Lobby in future are carefully guarded. May I say, as far as I am concerned, I am extremely satisfied and pleased with the manner in which this proposal has been received on both sides of the House. Only two hon. Members opposite found fault with the scheme or criticised it severely. I think one of the hon. Members founded his criticism rather on a misunderstanding as to the position of licence holders, and there was then the criticism by the hon. Member for Lanark. I am frankly disappointed with the attitude of the Lord Advocate on this question. I do not need to say anything more about that after the criticisms passed by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, and by my learned Friend below me. I had certainly hoped he would have taken a different view of the situation, and would have helped us to smooth the passage of this Bill by embodying in its proposals some reasonable scheme of compulsory insurance. I am bound to say that I despair, myself, of any very great concession being made in this Bill now after the speech of the Lord Advocate and the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman
    the Secretary for Scotland addressed the House on this particular proposal.
    As to the point about Lord Balfour of Burleigh's speech in the House of Lords, I should only like to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman might have taken the trouble to inform himself what the position was before he made the statement. There never was any proposal, as far as I know, to apply the Act of 1904 to Scotland, not that I do not think it would not have been fair and reasonable to do so. The House must know, and ought to know, that there is no difference whatever, and was no difference then, between the position of English and Scottish licence-holders. They are both in exactly the same position under the law. If hon. Members will look into the matter they will find they are in the same position, and even the words which are often referred to no longer appear in one of those Acts. If the 1904 Act was a legitimate Act to apply to England and I do not say it was—it was equally legitimate to apply it to Scotland. I never heard of any proposal being made, and I know that no official Amendment and no Amendment of any kind was moved in the course of the discussion to apply that Act to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly misled the House in making the statement in the manner in which he did, because he led us to assume that Lord Balfour of Burleigh was dealing with a specific proposal, whereas he was only safeguarding himself against any proposal to apply the Bill to Scotland afterwards, which is a very different thing altogether. I have no more to say, except that I think in other quarters notice will be taken of the fact that this Debate has been entirely favourable to this proposal except in the case of the two Members of the Government and two hon. Members opposite.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 249.

    Division No. 215.]

    AYES.

    [6.40 p.m.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Clyde, James Avon

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bull, Sir William James

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Butcher, John George

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Campion, W. R.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Barnston, Harry

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Barrie, H. T.

    Cassel, Felix

    Croft, Henry Page

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cator, John

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Cave, George E.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Boyton, James

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Fell, Arthur

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Forster, Henry William

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Stanier, Beville

    Gardner, Ernest

    Kerry, Earl of

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stewart, Gershom

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

    Sykes, Alan John (Chess., Knutsford)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Gretton, John

    Newman, John R. P.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Nield, Herbert

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Winterton, Earl

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Hills, J. W.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir G. Younger and Mr. Mackinder.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rcyds, Edmund

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Adamson, William

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Keating, Matthew

    Armitage, Robert

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Arnold, Sydney

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Kelly, Edward

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Falconer, James

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    King, Joseph

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lansbury, George

    Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Field, William

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Bentham, G. J.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Furness, Stephen

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockermth)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Leach, Charles

    Black, Arthur W.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Boland, John Pius

    Gill, A. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Logan, John William

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lundon, Thomas

    Brace, William

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Greig, Col. James William

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hackett, John

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Hancock, John George

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Byles, Sir Wiliam Pollard

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Manfield, Harry

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Havelock-Allen, Sir Henry

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Cough, William

    Hayward, Evan

    Meagher, Michael

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Hazieton, Richard

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Molloy, Michael

    Cotton, William Francis

    Higham, John Sharp

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hinds, John

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hodge, John

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Cullinan, John

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Mooney, John J.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Morison, Hector

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Delany, William

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Muldoon, John

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

    Munro, R.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Doris, William

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Needham, Christopher

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Nolan, Joseph

    226

    227

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Sutton, John E.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Richards, Thomas

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Tennant, Harold John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    O'Dowd, John

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    O'shee, James John

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wadsworth, J.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Robinson, Sidney

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Webb, H.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Rowlands, James

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Sheehy, David

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Reddy, Michael

    Sutherland, John E.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Date of Act coming into Operation.)
    This Act shall, except as otherwise in this Act provided, come into operation on the expiration of five years from the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twelve.
    Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen."
    The principle of the Bill having been adopted on Second Reading, we claim that it can only be made equitable by altering the period allowed before it comes into operation, so that licence holders may prepare themselves for the new condition of affairs. In these Debates on Temperance Bills there generally seems to be an idea that the House is divided into two schools of opinion, the extreme temperance reformers and those who are supposed to be tied hand and foot to the licensed trade. We have seen this afternoon, however, that there is a considerable body of opinion on the other side of the House prepared to consider these proposals on their merits, and not merely from the point of view of the extreme temperance advocates. I appeal therefore with some hope to that body of opinion to consider the present Amendment. We claim that a period of five years is entirely insufficient to enable licence holders and owners to meet the new situation. The time has gone by for anyone, however extreme his opinions, any longer to support the monstrous view that the licensee of a public-house is not entitled to be looked upon as carrying on a legitimate trade. There was at one time the idea that the
    228
    licensee of a public-house was to be-regarded in the same light as the keeper of a disorderly house or a gambling house. By the growth of a more reasonable public opinion that school of thought has practically disappeared, and it is generally agreed to-day that a man carrying on as the holder of licensed premises is as much entitled to fair protection from the State as any other man carrying on a legitimate trade. The only way in which the two sides differ considerably is in the application of this view. We maintain that those who are responsible for this Bill have inserted a perfectly unreasonable time limit. There can be no neutral position in this matter. Either yon must give a man a proper chance to recoup himself, or you must admit that your desire is to kill the licensed trade. In the interesting discussion on the previous Amendment the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Colonel Greig) suggested there had been nothing at all in the shape of a property in the goodwill of a licence in Scotland. He stated that licences had been taken away simply at the caprice of the licensing authority, without the licensees having done anything to merit the loss of their licences.
    Colonel GREIG: I said that justices in Scotland have a perfect right and full discretion, which they have exercised; but I did not suggest that they had exercised it without reason.
    Earl WINTERTON: I understood that the hon. Member's point was that they had taken away licences without reason and without reason given.
    Colonel GREIG: No; but without a penny of compensation, which is another matter.
    Earl WINTERTON: And without the licensee having been guilty of any misdemeanour, without his having had insanitary premises, and without his having misused the premises. I maintain that that is absolutely incorrect as applied to Scotland as a whole. The only place where it has possibly been done is Glasgow. But outside Glasgow, with one or two exceptions, a man's licence has not been taken away except on two main grounds—either the insanitary or unsuitable state of the house or some form of misdemeanour, including drunkenness on the premises. I gather, however, that, broadly speaking, hon. Members opposite agree that in Scotland, by custom, by judicial decisions, and by the action of the Legislature generally, the goodwill of a licence has come to be looked upon as a property. I may say in passing that the value of the goodwill has been taken into consideration in assessing the value for Government Duties and Death Duties. There is a celebrated judicial decision given by Lord Adam in the Court of Session some four years ago, in the ease of the Muirhead's Trustees, in which the judge said:—
    "If there were free trade in the sale of liquors, if a person could open a shop anywhere for their sale, the goodwill of an existing business in the centre of a populous city like Glasgow would be of little or no value. It is the known fact of the objections which the licensing authorities entertain to increasing the number of public-houses which gives to existing public-houses their enhanced value. It is the person who has a right to the possession of the licensed premises, whether as landlord or tenant at the date of the sale, who has a valuable asset to sell."
    7.0 P.M.
    I am assured that the average value of public-house licences in Scotland is from £1,500 to £2,000, and that nothing under fifteen years will enable the licensee to recoup himself for the possible loss of his licence. That is a conservative estimate. From twenty to twenty-five years would be a more equitable period. Let me give a concrete example of what would happen if the Bill passes as it stands. A owns a property leased as a public-house. He leases it for ten years to B, who has previously purchased a licence and the goodwill of the business from C; and eventually money is borrowed from D for the purchase of the house and the goodwill of the business. Under the Bill in its present form all the persons concerned in that transaction, except C, may have their property taken away without a penny of compensation. There is no tem-
    230
    perance measure anywhere else in which some provision has not been made to recoup the people so affected. In the case of Tasmania, New South Wales, and, I think, other States of the Australian Commonwealth in which very drastic temperance legislation has been brought forward, there has always been a proposal by which the persons affected can make some provision against the encroachments of the State. I believe under the Act that even if a man laid aside one-quarter of his profits yearly—and everyone who is acquainted with the licensing trade knows that the profits are getting less and less, for two reasons—firstly, because the consumption of alcoholic liquor is going down everywhere; and, secondly, because the taxation of the liquor trade tends to increase all over the United Kingdom—it will be making a very heavy call upon him. Even if he is able to do so under such a system it will take him no less than twenty-eight years before he can recoup himself for the goodwill which he may lose under this Bill.
    One further thing I would say on this point. It has been suggested in some quarters, including certainly one temperance newspaper which I read, that a man can recoup himself against the possible loss of his licence by insurance. I know something of insurance, as I happen to be a director of an insurance company, and I assure the House that no insurance company or man in his senses would insure a licence holder against his licence being taken away under the Bill as it stands. If the Clause passes as it is the position simply will be this: that every man who is the licensee of a public-house will be in a position of having the goodwill of his business taken away in five years without a penny of compensation, and without having had any reasonable time in which to lay by and provide for eventualities. I do hope that hon. Members opposite, some of whom showed a tendency to discuss this Bill with a view of treating licence holders reasonably—there is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars, who mixes his temperance principles with justice towards licensees—I do hope that they will consider what effect the Bill will have if it is passed as it stands. We have not in the course of Committee discussions had any facts or statistics on the subject from hon. Members opposite, and we should like to have from the promoters of the Bill some reasons given and some statistics brought

    231
    forward to show that this time limit of five years is equitable from the point of view of enabling a man to lay by a sufficient sum to recoup himself against possible loss. We have had no such facts or statistics in the course of the Committee discussions. Even if you believe in the maxim that it is well to do evil that good may follow, there is no need in the state of the liquor trade at the present time for this Bill to be passed in a hurry. The whole tendency of recent years has been the reduced consumption of liquor, while the statistics of drunkenness show a de crease too. The tendency is clearly proved year by year that the cause of drunken ness and the reason for it is to be found not in the number of open public-houses but in such things as bad food, insanitary surroundings, and bad conditions of living generally.
    I maintain, and I believe with justice and right on my side, that if you were to close in a given insanitary area every public-house to-morrow the people of that area would still in some way or other obtain drink, and there would be still drunkenness in that area. The whole tendency of public opinion, outside extreme temperance circles, is in favour of dealing with justice and more lenity with the licensing trade, and to look to other causes rather than to the public-house for the drunkenness which exists. I think recently in the Congress of Hygiene at Washington, United States, a Bill was put forward and widely supported to the effect that so far from its being the fact, as has been supposed for many years, that alcoholism was one of the great causes of insanity, that alcoholism was one of the effects of insanity. I mention this because I think that in the present state of affairs and opinions upon the subject the House should hesitate before it passes a drastic proposal of this kind which is going to do a great injustice to individual licence holders, and cause an immense amount of unnecessary disturbance to the trade. It comes, too, at a time when public opinion is increasingly in favour of temperance legislation, though public opinion should look round and see that the causes of excessive drunkenness and alcoholism generally are to be found in other causes than in open public-houses.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE:I beg to second the Amendment. I do so really rather unwillingly, because I do not care
    232
    for Bills which come into operation fifteen years hence. In some cases it may be absolutely necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite had treated the licence holders of Scotland with the slightest thought of fairness or equity at all in the last Clause, I am perfectly certain a great many would have been perfectly willing to consider a shorter period of compensation. He treated the licence holders harshly in the last Clause. This time the licence holder has been treated with absolute dishonesty. To take away his business is sheer robbery. It is what we used to call in the old South African days "jumping." My reason for supporting the Amendment is, as I have said, simply on the score of equity. Surely there ought to be a general idea of equity underlying all legislation, whether it is Liberal or not. Here we have many hon. Members opposite who will probably go into the Lobby and vote for taking away a man's livelihood and making him bankrupt in a business which has hitherto been perfectly legitimate, without giving him a single chance of trying to put himself straight. Surely one would have thought that it would have been very much better for those who wish to see this Bill law to get anomalies out of the way; but you should treat the man fairly. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars, that if you treat the man fairly you take away all the various excuses, and you have some chance of the question being fairly dealt with by what I may call the electorate when the time comes.
    If you are going to take away the whole livelihood of a man in five years you are going to prevent him having a single chance to insure himself. In this case I think that anybody who has to vote on the question of temperance is bound to be biassed by that fact. Such an elector might say, "While I am in favour of temperance, and would like to see public-houses lessened or done away with, at the same time I do not see my way to turning the publican out into the street and making him bankrupt, for it is not fair nor British." Apparently, however, that is a Liberal idea of fairness. You will find in consequence of putting this five years in that you have a sort of pivot around which, so far as this Bill is concerned, every single election will be fought. You will find when it comes to the poll that many who have never heard a word about temperance at all will consider the question is one of equity, and ask, "Is it fair

    233
    to take away a man's livelihood?" and you will never get to the real kernel of the matter. That is what will happen, if I know my country. Many hon. Members opposite are not Scottish and they have no idea of what the feeling may be, but in Scotland we have some idea of fairness, if there is none on this side of the border. You might as well have nothing as five years; it is neither one thing nor the other. It is playing with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKinnon Wood) laughs. He thinks it rather a good joke to ruin a man's business. I cannot see any joke in it.
    If you had fifteen years then at least you have some margin of excuse for doing away with the man's livelihood. I do not think fifteen years from an actuarial point of view sufficient, but I think it is something in the right direction. It will show that we recognise that the trade is not wanted, that from a certain point of view it is undesirable, and also that we do realise it is a hardship upon the present individual, to whom we are willing at all events to give something, or, at all events, a chance of getting it under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows well enough that five years will never do it. But he wants to say, when he is confronted by his critics, to those against compensation, "Why are you angry with me; we did the best we could"; and to those in favour of it, "We did as much as we could for you." So far as I can make out with a certain kind of Radical legislation it is not a question of equity. The party opposite have realised that drink is bad. Being superior persons, they know at once what is the proper way of dealing with the matter. They have their nostrum. Nobody else has the slightest idea. But the people of Scotland are not asked whether they want it or not; they have to accept the Bill. It is to be pushed down their throats without their having a single chance of saying at an election whether they want it or not. Of course, the excuse will be made—I see the right hon. Gentleman making a note, and I think I can anticipate what he is going to reply—that the matter was discussed at the last election. A good many other things were discussed too at the last election. Exactly the same' excuse that the right hon. Gentleman may make concerning this Bill may be made at the next election. We will be told that there has been misrepresentation, as we have been about the Insurance Act, although no other question has really had any chance. Equally so on our side we will suggest that
    234
    nothing has been said on the subject. I was never asked one question about temperance at the last election, or very little. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Edinburgh, whose election came a little later, said a good deal about temperance—but we need not go into that question now.
    Apparently we have one remedy, which is to be the knife. Whether you kill the patient or not does not matter. You are in such a hurry that you cannot give time for natural and gradual evolution and allow people to get out of their business, and very likely re-invest their money in similar businesses—in perhaps some up-to-date kind of temperance house. Instead of that you will make them bankrupt, and they you will make them bankrupt, and they will have no capital to go on with, either on licensed premises or not. The men in licensed premises are those who know best how to run catering businesses, restaurants, etc., and doubtless they will try and get into them. They are the very people we want to carry on those trades. Instead of making them bankrupt, it would be far better to give them a chance to transfer their money from one trade to the other. Let me put it this way: There are several hon. Members opposite who no doubt are good, keen, business men. I would like to ask any of them if they think it would be fair if they were told, on behalf of the State, by, say, some Socialist Member who came here: "Your business is bad; we are going to do away with it in five years." It does not matter what the business is. Do hon. Members think it would be fair to do away with an old inherited business because somebody possibly suggested that it should be nationalised, without giving proper compensation. Obviously you ought to give compensation and the next best thing to do is to give warning in time to those in the business to get out.
    Hon. Members opposite are always talking about monopoly. What would happen, for instance, in the case of the hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond), who has a trust business—I am not saying that it is wrong, it is a very fine business—what would he say if we came to him and said "Trusts are bad, and therefore your business has got to be done away with in five years?" What would happen supposing any business was so treated I There might be hon. Members or even right hon. Members interested in cocoa. That is another monopoly to some extent. Supposing some doctor took it into his head that cocoa was unhealthy and that it was pro-

    235
    posed to the House of Commons that cocoa should be done away with. Would there not be great alarm in the cocoa Press if the whole of this business was to be taken away in five years. Of course there would be. I do not understand why you should treat publicans differently from anyone else. I do not like a long time limit in one sense, but if you give a short time limit there must be some scheme of insurance, but as I have said you treat the publican harshly and you refuse to allow him to safeguard himself in many ways, and you treat him differently because the Government is in the hands, of a certain number of fanatics, far more anxious to go against the publican than to act in the interests of temperance. It would be very much better if hon. Members would try to look at the equity of the question and give fair legislation rather than try to hit a trade which rightly or wrongly does not side with their political views.
    Mr. CROFT: I think everybody will recognise that this is in no w-ay a mild Bill, and I think this should also be remembered: that it was introduced originally by two Members who, without in any way meaning offence, may be regarded as the two arch-fanatics of the temperance party, and was then adopted by the Government. I think every moderate man must realise there are some extreme points in the Bill which require reconsideration. The argument in regard to this Amendment which naturally occurs to me is the one used by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. It is perfectly obvious there is not a business man in the country in any kind of business who could properly make provision in the time laid down in this Bill against confiscation by the State or any other disaster. The very least that any man could in reason demand in any industry would be fifteen years. I believe this Amendment is not put forward because the Noble Lord who made it considers it is adequate, but because he believes it is the very least that could be made the limit without doing real grievous harm to those engaged in this industry.
    The Bill is a very strong and very violent Bill, and is the natural consequence of the "scorpions" promised by the Lord Advocate. Do hon. Members opposite fancy that they are doing more than punishing political opponents or that they are doing more than punishing the licence holders under this Bill? They know they are going to ruin
    236
    those who come under its operations the first time this no-licensing Clause and limiting licensing Clause are put into operation. I hope every body who has the interest of the people at heart will really consider what will be the effect of this Bill as the position is at the present time. It seems to me, now that the Second Beading is passed and that a compensation Amendment has just been refused altogether—and it is well known that many hon. Members who voted against the Compensation Clause would have favoured such a scheme—when you have taken that protection from the licence holder I hope reason will prevail and that there will be some compromise. It will be remembered that in the Bill proposed for England some time ago they had a very different idea of what was just. A far longer period was given to those engaged in what is admitted to be a lawful industry. Here it seems to be the object of the framers of the Bill to find sudden death for the licence holders. I hope everyone who believes the Bill to be good and believes in its operations will not persist in this extreme endeavour to ruin those who, after all, have the law behind them, or otherwise they would not hold their licences at the present moment.
    Mr. MUNRO: I listened with great attention to the three speeches delivered in favour of this Amendment, in order to form a conclusion as to whether or no its supporters made out a case for the proposal that there should be a time limit of fifteen years. I humbly believe they failed, and I will tell the House why. But first I wish the House to realise what is involved in the Amendment. It involves the delay of temperance reform for fifteen years and the stereotyping for that time of the present system with all its imperfections; because nothing can be more certain than that anybody who brought in a measure of temperance reform in these intervening years would be at once told that a great scheme is gradually maturing, and that it would be quite wrong to legislate until that scheme had matured and was given a fair chance. Consequently I think I am right in saying that the Amendment involves the stereotyping of the present system for fifteen years. If there was property in a licence, if this were an entirely novel proposal, if there was no time limit proposed in the Bill itself, if there was no such thing as insurance, if it was certain that a violent and sudden change in Scotland would immediately occur if this Bill passed into

    237
    law, something might be said for the proposal now made. But the facts on all these points are the other way. To begin with, there is, of course, no property in licences—everyone who studies the subject knows that; it is common ground—and I associate myself with what was said by my hon. Friend beside me upon that subject, and I do not know where the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment got his information as to the procedure in the Scottish Licensing Courts. I confess that, having had some little experience of the practice in these Courts, my view is quite different from his. He rather suggested, if I understood his argument aright, that licences were not taken away in Scotland unless the premises were insanitary or the licence holder had grossly misconducted himself. That is not so, because anyone familiar with the procedure in the Licensing Courts in Scotland knows that the primary consideration the Court sets before itself is whether or not the licence is required.
    There are three points always considered. First, the fitness of the applicant; second, the suitability of the premises; and, third, whether or not the licence is wanted. The last point is constantly given effect to year after year in the Licensing Courts, not only in Glasgow, but all over Scotland. Accordingly you start with this: that a licence is an annual grant, renewable from time to time according as the requirements continue the same. The person applying must be suitable, and the premises also must be suitable. Therefore you start with this: that, it is a precarious grant, subject, I admit, to renewal, if circumstances require its renewal, and subject to withdrawal, if circumstances warrant its withdrawal. Accordingly the first condition I put before the House is not satisfied. There is no right of property in the licence. The second thing I said was that if it was a novel proposal, that fact could be prayed in aid by those who support this Amendment. Everyone knows that the facts are the other way, that this Bill is not a bolt from the blue, and that it required no exceptional prevision on the part of the licence trade to foresee it many years ago. An hon. Member near me referred to his association with the local veto movement thirty years ago. Everyone who knows Scottish Parliamentary history knows that this Bill, or something resembling it, has not only frequently been before the country, but before this House, and that
    238
    it would in due time come before it again. Fortunately, now this party has the power as well as the will to secure that the Bill shall become law, and we are thus in a more fortunate position than in former years. But to suggest that this proposal came before the House as if it was never heard of before, and came as a great shock to the licensed trade, is obviously to lose sight of plain facts and to be blind to the history of the last twenty or thirty years. Thirdly, I said if there was no proposed time limit in the Bill it would be important to seek for a time limit. The Bill however makes provision for a five years' time limit, and when you consider the procedure and the machinery to be brought into operation, it can hardly be put into effect until the expiry of six years, which appears to be a generous and sufficient time, and that is how it occurs to many of us on this side. I further said, one would think from the arguments used that there is no such thing as insurance. With great respect to the Noble Lord opposite, I beg leave to doubt gravely whether or no any risk to a licence under this new measure cannot be insured even for five years.
    Earl WINTERTON: I made inquiry, and could not find any company willing to take the risk. If the hon. Member would be good enough to tell me one I will be surprised.
    Mr. MUNRO: Lloyd's is one, I should say. I thought it was well known that insurance companies insured against practically every risk nowadays. The argument that the Noble Lord and many other Members opposite used that there is going to be absolute destruction of licences in Scotland forthwith I very much doubt. As I said, if you could be certain, or if it were a fair assumption that there would be a sudden and violent change in the licensing system in Scotland in consequence of this Bill, something might be said for the Amendment. I do not think so, knowing something about Scotland. I do not think the risk is so excessive as the Noble Lord and the insurance companies may be inclined to think. All the conditions which would make this a reasonable Amendment are conspicuously absent, and being satisfied that the case for the Amendment has not been made out, I propose to register my vote for the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I wish to support the Amendment of my Noble Friend. The last

    239
    speaker has not put a true ease before the House. I am not aware that there is any law on licensing questions which applies to Scotland other than the law of the United Kingdom. As far as property in a licence goes there have recently been a good many cases which disprove the contentions of hon. Members opposite. The Government by proposing this Bill admit that there is property in a licence by giving five years' notice. Even if there are differences in the licensing laws in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom they are not so different that we can afford to ignore equity and justice. I will give a case which came before the Charity Commissioners showing that there is actual property in a licence. In the town of St. Helens there is a charitable body which handles the interest on some property which has accumulated for 200 years. Part of that property has certain public-houses belonging to it on long leases. I was one of the standing committee when some of these long leases fell in, and it was the decision of those who had to deal with this property that they would close the public-houses. The matter was referred to the Charity Commissioners and they decided that the trustees had no right to close those public-houses, and no right to reduce the capital value of the trust which they administered, showing that there was a property in the licences. The Charity Commissioners ordered certain valuers to go to St. Helens in order to ascertain the difference in the value of those houses with a licence and without a licence and the values were fixed at £2,000 and £6,000, and the Charity Commissioners ordered that sum to be paid into the trust. The Society of Friends subscribed that money and paid it into the trust and those public-houses were closed. That proves that there is distinct property in a licence. I want to know if that same law applies to Scotland. Every Englishman and every man with any sense of justice must have this feeling that he would like to see justice done. I was a strong advocate of temperance principles as far back as 1875, and I have told my temperance friends that they will never succeed unless they are willing either to give this long term of years or find the equivalent in money. If you are so anxious on the temperance question why are you not willing to pay what is reasonable and right? If you desire to have these houses closed, you should be willing to pay the reasonable
    240
    price which all reasonable men believe is only just for property in those licences. I most heartily support the Amendment that fifteen years be substituted for five years.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I wish briefly to support this Amendment. With regard to the argument used by the hon. Member for Wick Burghs that there is no property in a licence, and that the magistrates have an absolute discretion either to renew or withdraw it, I entirely disagree. The magistrate has not an absolnte discretion, but a judicial discretion. If magistrates do not act in that way they are liable to a mandamus against them to compel them to exercise a judicial discretion. Without going into the almost threadbare arguments for and against there being a property in a licence, I can only say that the Government in the year 1906 introduced a Licensing Bill based on the argument that there was no property in a licence. I am not going to repeat the arguments because I know I shall never convince hon. Members opposite any more than they are likely to convince me, but I can pledge myself that when this drastic Bill, based entirely on the theory that there was no property in a licence, was placed before the constituency at any by-election, the result was the downfall of Government majorities and the loss of Government seats. The people of this country by an overwhelming majority, not guided by legal motives but by the elementary ideas of equity and justice, will never agree to the view so often put forward from the benches opposite that there is no property in a licence in which a man has invested his money and in the carrying on of which he has spent so much of his time.
    The hon. Member who has just spoken said he did not think many licences would be affected, but that is not what is said by Scotch temperance reformers on Scottish political platforms, because there they draw a picture so lurid that one would almost believe that the whole of Scotland was panting to have these houses closed and the House of Lords stood in the way. Does Scotland by an overwhelming majority desire to close public-houses or not? The last speaker admits that there would not be many public-houses closed as a consequence of this Bill, but that is not the view expressed by temperance reformers on which they base the drastic proposals of this Bill. Hon. Members opposite come here and ask this House to take away a man's living at the expiration of five years' notice. There is, I know, a large body of opinion in the country con-

    241
    sisting of people who are always enthusiastic for doing good, but it is invariably at somebody else's expense. If these provisions are necessary, and if you can wait five years, surely you can wait a little longer to give the people deprived of their property something approaching a reasonable opportunity of making other arrangements. The hon. Member for Renfrew said, in a speech upon the Amendment we have just discussed, that this measure would do no injury to the licence holder, because he would have five years to make his arrangements. I have had some experience of the injury and loss which has occurred to persons who have lost their licences, and speaking with greater experience than the hon. Member for Renfrew, I say that a more cruelly callous speech than that which he made I have never heard.
    Under the present compensation arrangements of our licensing laws in England I have seen cases of widows who have been deprived of their livelihood, and who are receiving, in nine cases out of ten, cruelly inadequate compensation for the living which has been taken away from them. I speak from my own experience, and I say under the present system of compensation there are many cases of gross hardship which I am sure would appeal to hon. Members opposite if they could only come in touch with them as I have done. Therefore, I think we may dismiss the whole case of taking away a licence at the end of five years as a proposition which ought not to be entertained by any fair-minded man who is guided by principles of equity and justice, and who is not blinded by political prejudice. In these drastic proposals you are hitting the small licencee, who is less able to bear the blow you are inflicting upon him, because as a rule the magistrates do not take away the licences from the large houses. They generally take away the licences from houses which are badly situated in small streets and doing a small trade. Therefore it is the small man you are hitting, and the man who owns the large house is the man who, as a rule, will escape these penalties. I agree that our appeal will probably fall upon deaf ears, because we have long since ceased to look for sympathy for the licensed trade from hon. Members opposite. At any rate, if our appeal does fall on deaf ears, we have the satisfaction of knowing that we have made this appeal not only in the cause of temperance, but in the cause of justice and equity.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I agree with what has been said by the last speaker that almost everything that can be said for and against this principle has been said many times over. I agree with what has been stated in the weighty speech which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs (Mr. Munro), and I should like to accentuate and emphasise the argument he used against a longer period of time being allowed. He pointed out that a long period would only have the effect of stereotyping the existing system for a large number of years. Everybody agrees that in every part of the country there is an urgent necessity for the reduction in the number of licences, and we are all agreed that there ought to be such a reduction. If we stereotype the existing state of affairs for fifteen years, then we are standing in the way of a reduction. On the other hand, if you have a reasonable period like five years, the magistrates will probably take the view that they will leave things as they are for those five years. After all, is this proposal such an unreasonable thing I As my hon. Friend has said, it has not been sprung upon licence holders, because some thirteen years ago the Minority of the Peel Commission recommended a limit of five years. The real reason for opposing this proposal is that hon. Members insist, as they really insisted on the last Amendment, upon the principle of compensation. They think there is a moral obligation to compensate the holder of a licence. It is true that the State has granted the licence practically for nothing. They agree that it is a valuable property, but they say if, for the purposes of the State, that licence is taken away the State ought to pay compensation. That principle we do not admit. There is not the slightest doubt the licence holders in Scotland have had this matter before them for many years. This principle of local option has been before the House, whether by Resolution or by Bills, for a good many years. There has been an overwhelming majority of Scotch Members in favour of local option, and those Members have been, in turn, supported by an overwhelming majority of the electors. So really there is no excuse for saying a great injustice will be done. The real reason for a time limit is in order that the licence holder may have an opportunity of turning round and preparing himself for other means of livelihood in case his licence is taken away. Under these circumstances I do not think the provisions of the Bill are ungenerous or confiscatory.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Apparently, there is to be no concession from the Government. Originally, the Bill was adopted from the temperance party, and the Government expect that the limit suggested by the temperance party should be accepted by both sides. That is not a very reasonable attitude to take up. When the right hon. Gentleman says that notice was given so long ago as the Royal Commission he ought to remember there have been a great many additional burdens put upon the trade since then, which makes a time limit of a good many more years than five necessary. We are met, however, by an absolute refusal to make any concession, and so far as I am concerned I shall vote for the Amendment.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILE: I rise to draw attention to the argument used by the Secretary for Scotland. Apparently his only excuse for refusing to modify this term is that the licensee ought to have foreseen this, and that the trade should have understood such legislation was likely to be passed. I venture to suggest a more empty, foolish argument was never submitted by any responsible Minister. Are we to look forward and make provision for all sorts of wild-cat legislation any Radical Government may introduce I These people are to be refused legitimate treatment on the ground that they ought to have foreseen what a Radical Government would do in 1912. A more preposterous, empty, and shallow argument has never been submitted by a responsible Minister to this House. I think it ought to be placed on record that was the argument used that the licence holders in Scotland, or others having vested interests to which they attach importance ought to foresee any sort of wild legislation and make provision against it. We have had plenty of lessons from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that sort, and I have no doubt many in this country will take steps to put some of their property safely out of all possible reach of such a man. To turn round upon the poor licence holders in Scotland, who have invested all their savings in these licences, and say they ought to have foreseen what this Radical Government would do, is a dastardly and cowardly thing.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I must express my very great regret that the Secretary for Scotland has not seen it his duty to offer any sort of compromise on this matter. There is no doubt a good deal of truth in
    244
    the statement that we have had for many years Local Option Bills of this character before the House, but it is a new doctrine that because a Bill has been introduced by somebody or other when the Government takes it up you must add the whole of the intervening period to the notice to hand over your property—
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Handing over your "property"!
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Did I say "property"? Perhaps I ought to say "possession." We often quarrel about words, but let us get rid of cant. It may not be "property" in the legal sense, but, at all events, it has been a "possession" which a man might reasonably expect to hold so long as he behaved himself. Under these circumstances, five years is not only insufficient, but it is so negligible as almost to be derisive. The circumstances under which licence holders carry on their business have wholly changed since the Bill was first introduced, and it will be perfectly impossible for them in that short time and from the balance of funds at their disposal to make anything like even partial insurance against the risk of losing their licences if each licence is to be insured by the licensee himself. The Government has so heavily increased the Licence Duties that it has left these people very little margin of profit, often not enough for them to live upon. Bankruptcies have been frequent during the last two or three years, and many licences have panned out simply because the licence holders could not carry them on, their profits not being sufficient. If in 1907 five years was considered a reasonable notice by the promoters of the Bill, I should say it certainly ought to be something more like twelve years now. He would now, with the sum at his disposal, require twelve years, where then he would only require five years to insure himself by an annual charge. I venture to say with some confidence that neither will the public in Scotland nor the Chamber at the other end of the passage regard this as fair and reasonable treatment.
    Some hon. Members have disregarded altogether the fact that the other Chamber have a say in the matter, and they depend no doubt on the Parliament Bill to carry through this Bill, as they hope to carry through their other measures. That may or may not be. I am not a betting man myself, but, if anybody thinks the Government will live long enough to carry

    245
    their measures, I think I might make an exception in my very strict conduct in that matter and "take on." No one dispassionately regarding this Bill can feel it is meting out fair and reasonable treatment to the licence holders of Scotland. If you are going to have a revolution in the system of licensing in Scotland, you surely ought to effect it with a little less hardship to the interests concerned. It may be true the licence lasts only for a year, but, after all, at present it has to be taken
    away in a judicial spirit. The law demands that shall be so. In future you are going to place that power in the hands of a body of people who may vote wholly irresponsibly, and with whom no judicial spirit is likely to prevail. Under these circumstances, it is more than necessary that reasonable and equitable treatment should be meted out to these people.
    Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
    The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 77.

    Division No. 216.]

    AYES.

    [7.58 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Lynch, A. A.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Adamson, William

    Furness, Stephen

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles p. (Stroud)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    McGhee, Richard

    Armitage, Robert

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Balfour, sir Robert (Lanark)

    Glanville, Harold James

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Barnes, G. N.

    Goldstone, Frank

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Meagher, Michael

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Boland, John Pius

    Hackett, J.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Molloy, M.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hancock, John George

    Moiteno, Percy Alport

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Mooney J. J.

    Brace, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Morison, Hector

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Bryce, John Annan

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Munro, Robert

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Hayward, Evan

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Connor, J. (Klldare, N.)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Chappie, Dr. William Allen

    Hinds, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hodge, John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Dowd, John

    Clough, William

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    O'Shee, James John

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Cowan, William Henry

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cullinan, John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Delany, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Piric, Duncan V.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Keating, Matthew

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Doris, W.

    Kelly, Edward

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Duffy, William J.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    King, J.

    Radford, G. H.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Reddy, M.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Leach, Charles

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Falconer, J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richards, Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Logan, John William

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoin)

    Flrench, Peter

    Lundon, T.

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Field, William

    Lyell, C. H.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Sutherland, John E.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Sutton, John E.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Rowlands, James

    Tennanf, Harold John

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wadsworth, John

    Winfrey, Richard

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Wason, Rt Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Sheehy, David

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

    Watt, Henry A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Webb, H.

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Malcolm, Ian

    Ashley, W. W.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Baird, J. L.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barnston, H.

    Forster, Henry William

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gastreil, Major W. Houghton

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Goulding, E. A.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Gretton, John

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Boyton, James

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hills, John Waller

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cassel, Felix

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Cator, John

    Hohler, G. F.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cave, George

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Younger, Sir George

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Winterton and Mr. Fell.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I beg to move to leave out the words "first day of June, nineteen hundred and twelve" and to insert instead thereof the words "passing thereof."
    Of course, it is very obvious why this is done. The meanest understanding can quite well see through it. As a general rule we have a date which synchronises, at all events, with the passing of the Act of Parliament. But in this particular case you have a retrospective Act, because the 1st June, 1912, has already passed. The intention is quite clear. These words have been introduced into this Clause since the passing of the Parliament Act in order that, should this Bill be hung up for a couple of years, the time limit may not be increased. If the Parliament Act can do that, and if it be right that the Second Chamber should be entitled to hold up an Act of Parliament for two years, if it be right that it should have that privilege and power, then I do not think we ought to go behind it. I move
    248
    my Amendment in order to call the attention of the House to the fact that this is the state of affairs, and I ask the House to accept the Amendment in order to defeat the object which the right hon. Gentleman has had in changing the measure simply to suit the exigencies of the case.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I beg to second this Amendment. This is another example of the chicanery and subterfuge which have characterised the dealings of the party opposite with temperance measures. They go upon public platforms and claim that it is a measure of justice, and that they are going to allow a period of five years from the passing of the Act. But that is all a fraud, because, under this Bill, the date given is June, 1912, which we have already passed. I second the Amendment with some enthusiasm, because I consider it is only fair and just it should be made quite clear that a period of five years will be allowed from the passing of the Act.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Baronet has put the case most clearly. It is a difference of opinion. We think it is not fair that the period of five years should be extended to seven years if the House approves of this Bill and passes it. The hon. Member who has just spoken was not quite justified in what he said, because he should remember that, speaking only a few moments ago, I said the period would be
    nearly six years from the present time. I do not think this is a matter which need! take up the time of the House. We are all agreed upon the merits of the proposal.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 72.

    Division No. 217.]

    AYES.

    [8.10 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Glanville, Harold James

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Adamson, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meagher, Michael

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

    Armitage, Robert

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Arnold, Sydney

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Millar, James Duncan

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Molloy, Michael

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Moiteno, Percy Alport

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mooney, John J.

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Hackett, John

    Morgan, George Hay

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Morison, Hector

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Hancock, John George

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Black, Arthur W.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Muldoon, John

    Boland, John Pius

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Munro, Robert

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Needham, Christopher

    Brace, William

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nolan, Joseph

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Connor, John (Kildare)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hinds, John

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hodge, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Shee, James John

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cough, William

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cullinan, John

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pringie, William M. R.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Joyce, Michael

    Radford, G. H.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Keating, Matthew

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Delany, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Reddy, M.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    King, J.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Doris, W.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Duffy, William J.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Richards, Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Logan, John William

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Falconer, J.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Rowlands, James

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Ffrench, Peter

    McGhee, Richard

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Field, William

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon, H. L. (Cleveland)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Furness, Stephen

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Sheehy, David

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sutton, John E.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Taylor, John w. (Durham)

    Webb, H.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Tennant, Harold John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wiles, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Wadsworth, John

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    NOES.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    O'Grady, James

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fell, Arthur

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barnes, George N.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, Sir Harry

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Barrie, H. T.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

    Gretton, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Boyton, James

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Sanders, Robert

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hills, John Waller

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stanier, Beville

    Cave, George

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Jardine, Ernest, (Somerset, East)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Winterton, Earl

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Malcolm, Ian

    G. Younger and Col. Walker.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Poll of Electors on Resolutions submitted.)
    (1) If, in the manner hereinafter provided, a requisition demanding a poll under this Act in any area is lodged with the local authority, 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 limiting resolution, or (c) a no-licence resolution.
    (3) On a poll in any area—

    (a) if three-fifths 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

    (b) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a limiting 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

    252

    (c) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a no-change resolution, such 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 followng 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, but if a no-licence resolution be not carried, the votes recorded in favour of such resolution shall be added to those recorded in favour of the limiting resolution, and shall be deemed to have been recorded in favour thereof.
    (5) Any such resolution if carried shall remain in force until the resolution is repealed or superseded as hereinafter provided.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (2) after the word "area" ["adoption in and for such area"], to insert the words "of municipalisation under conditions drawn up by the Scottish Local Government Board or, alternatively, if the votes cast in favour of municipalisation are less than a two-third majority of those voting."

    253
    The effect of these words, if adopted, would be to give the people in the various areas under this Bill an additional option—that is, additional to the options already conferred upon them under the terms of the Bill. There will be no additional poll; the same poll will do, but each man will have two votes. The first vote will be cast in favour of or against municipalisation, and, in the event of that not being carried by the majority stated, the other courses would follow in the terms of the Bill. I will explain why I put it down so early in the Bill. I am told that according to the framework it would not have been competent for me to put it down later, although it is usual to add an Amendment of this sort at a later stage of a Bill. Let mo also explain the two-thirds majority. It will be noted that it is a larger majority than is required for either of the options in the Bill. Even the most drastic one only requires three-fifths, whereas I require here two-thirds. The reason of that is that municipalisation is a drastic proposal, and I do not want it to be taken up lightheartedly, or by way of experiment. I only want it to be taken up when there is a sufficiently large majority to show that the people have made up their minds thereupon, and that they are more or less irrevocably bound up with it. That is the proposal for which I ask the favourable consideration of the House. It will be noted that the distinctive feature about the Amendment is that it separates the element of personal private profit from the traffic in drink. We have been told during the Debates on this Bill that to-day there are in Scotland 10,000 or 12,000 licence holders. If that is the case, every one of these men is trying to sell as much drink as he possibly can. I am not saying that in any disparaging way of them. They are in no way different from the sellers of every other commodity. The man who sells bread sells as many loaves as he can, and for men who are in business it is their endeavour to sell as much of the commodity in which they deal as they can.
    The publican is in no way different from other people. He sells as much as he can, and, of course, makes his house as attractive as he can to his customers. I am afraid it is attractive in marked contrast to the squalor and misery around his house, which is frequently caused by his trade. Probably it is a custom to wink at a good many things that go on. I am
    254
    told that in the poorer districts he sells drink such as encourages a thirst for more. Even if all these things are true, the publican is in exactly the same position as other people; he has to push his business, and he does so. I am afraid that sometimes he is pushing something against the public interest, and against the interest of his customers. The Government have recognised that it is necessary to have inspectors even in the building of battleships. They recognise that the trader is liable to do things which strict honesty would not permit. The only difference beween the ordinary trader and the publican is that whereas around the one there is the clement of keen competition, around the publican there is not that competition; therefore he is more likely to do the things that others are not. Under my proposal the seller of liquor, as the agent of a municipal authority, would not have the same interest in pushing the sale of drink. An hon. Member suggests that there would be profit, but there would not be profit for him. He would be the agent of a public authority. It is probable that his pay would be a fixed pay, and it is possible that the pay might even vary inversely with the sale of liquor, or might be increased with the sale of food, or the income from innocent recreation, or things of that sort. At all events it is conceivable that the public authority, in the public good, might so surround the agent—that is, the publican—with moral circumstances as to make his interest altogether different from the sale of drink or the excessive sale of drink.
    I should like to point out that in so far as we have experience to enable us to form a judgment, that has taken place. We find in Gothenberg, for instance, where the element of private profit has been removed from the sale of drink, that the places are altogether different in character from the places with which we are accustomed. There the houses are such as to lead to sobriety and order and sociability without excessive drinking, and we find that excessive drinking has very much decreased. I might mention a case also in Scotland, where there are many such, under the public trust where the excessive drinking has been lessened, and these other conditions have arisen. I was down in the constituency of the Lord Advocate a year or two ago, and I found in Armadale, under a public trust, a house where the element of private profit had been removed, and the place was such

    255
    as anyone could go into and take his family when he liked, and where a certain amount of the profits was devoted to public purposes, such as paying a nurse for the nursing of the poor of the whole district, and not only the members of the particular association; and I think it is conceivable, if this traffic were in the hands of the public authorities, that the profits might go to some extent in that direction if there were profits, but I should say it would not be to the interest of the community, and therefore not the aim of the municipal authority to make a profit at all. There is another thing. I propose this Amendment because I believe is is the most direct and effective method of lessening the number of public-houses. Why is it that we have an excess of public-houses? It seems to me it is because we have a large number of men whose interests lie in that direction and who are tied up to them, whose noses have to be kept to the grindstone to make a living, and you find them at every street corner, whereas if the traffic was under one control, and that a municipal control, there would at once arise a set of circumstances leading directly to the number of public-houses being lessened, not from social or moral considerations at all, but merely from commercial and economic reasons. For instance, if a municipal authority owns the public-houses in any area, surely as business men they would see that there was not a public-house at every street corner, but they would have them only in such numbers as were absolutely necessary to supply the demand.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask how it is proposed that they are going to take over the public-houses? Would they pay for them?
    Mr. BARNES: I am not going to commit myself to anything of the sort. I have already stated that is a matter for the Local Government Board. The people can have the conditions in front of them. If they like to buy them, well and good; if the Local Government Board think they should not be bought, also well and good. The people, at all events, would have the final voice. Then I propose this Amendment as an extension, and I submit a legitimate extension, of municipal activity. We already have municipal authorities owning tramcars, gas and water, and electricity, and many of them have even gone beyond that, and are providing washhouses, places of amusement, and
    256
    even gas stoves, and everyone of those steps has been proved to be for the benefit of the community. I am old enough to remember the opposition to municipal tramcars. All the interests were up against them, but I think it is now generally admitted that tramcars municipally owned have been an immense success. The service has been improved, the conditions of labour have been improved, and the rates, as a result, have been lowered. If municipal activity has been a success so far as these things are concerned, I want to know why it should not be a success in regard to the liquor traffic. Of course, it is said sometimes that all these things are in their nature monopolies and that a municipal authority has only so far interfered with monopoly. That is not altogether true, because, as a matter of fact, there is no monopoly in gas stoves or the supply of milk, which is now undertaken by municipal authorities with great advantage to everyone concerned. But, after all, the drink traffic is a monopoly, and in private hands we have allowed its monopolistic nature to remain, and, I think, to be used very often against measures of progress in which I and many of my Friends have been interested. Then it has been also scheduled as a dangerous trade, and therefore one which, I think, ought to come under direct municipal or public control.
    I find that the Secretary for Scotland the other day, in speaking on the principle of monopolisation, said that he was in favour of municipal authorities doing things on behalf of the community, and I think he went on to say doing great things or great service for the community, but he was not in favour of their doing this. I do not know why he should distinguish between this and other services, except that it conveys some sort of a slight upon municipal authorities. The trade may be surrounded by dangers, but, after all, the municipal authorities, in so far as they have extended their activities into these spheres that I have mentioned, have been perfectly honest and have been perfectly efficient. Xo charge has been brought against a municipal authority as such, that I know of, of having done anything underhand or dishonest or against the public interest, and therefore I see no reason to believe that in the event of municipal activity being extended to this traffic anything different would arise from what has arisen in the case of other traffic. I know it is

    257
    said by many that this traffic is evil in its character and should not be touched by a public authority; that it would be a source of demoralisation in public life if it was municipalised. But I would ask the Secretary for Scotland to remember that the trade is already a source of great evil. Everyone knows how an interest gets entrenched upon by civil authorities, public demands, and so on, and, at all events, under public control it could not be any worse, and I am inclined to think it would be a great deal better. The last reason is the one which probably concerns us more than any other, and that is the labour conditions.
    Everybody knows that the men engaged in this trade—I am glad to say in Scotland there are not many women engaged in it, though there are in many places in England—are paid wretchedly low wages and worked wretchedly long hours. I should say that probably they work twelve or fourteen hours per day, six days per week, and that their average pay is not much more, if any more, than £l per week. That does not differ much from what used to obtain in connection with the tramcars system in Scotland. I remember when the tramcars were run by private companies in Glasgow and Dundee, and the men were paid the same wages as are paid to public-house assistants now. What happens now? Under municipal control in Glasgow the men have had a recent reduction of hours to fifty-one per week. Every man on starting has a minimum wage of 25s., and they soon get considerably more than that sum. The same is true of other places which have municipalised these monopolies. In every case municipalisation has been followed by improved conditions of labour, and I see no reason to doubt that if the liquor trade were dealt with in the same way there would be the same result. The workers, I believe, would have shorter hours of labour and higher wages. In conclusion, I want to remind the House that this is no new thing. We are sometimes charged with making new and revolutionary proposals. This is not a new and revolutionary proposal. I find that there was a similar proposal introduced into this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain)—probably some hon. Members on the other side of the House may say in his unregene-rate days—as far back as 1877. On. that occasion it had fifty or fifty-two votes recorded in its favour. It is worthy of note that those who voted included many famous
    258
    men, amongst the number being John Bright, Joseph Cowen, of Newcastle, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). I believe the right hon. Gentleman last named is the only one now left. He voted in favour of this proposal at that time. I am glad to say that he is still with us, though I cannot hope to get his vote on this occasion. I commend the Amendment to the House for the reasons I have given, and I hope it will have favourable consideration.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars Division has rather raised an idea than a scheme. He wants to lay the responsibility of the scheme upon the Local Government Board for Scotland, and as President of that Board I rather wish to refuse the responsibility. A question was put to him by the Noble Lord opposite (Marquess of Tullibardine) as to how he was going to pay the dispossessed licensees, and he did not see fit to reply to that, so that the scheme is somewhat nebulous. I would not suggest that there is anything underhand, dishonest, or unjust about municipalities. I suppose I should be one of the last in the House to suggest that, or to deny that great services have been rendered by municipalities undertaking work for the general benefit. But it is because I have some doubt whether this work would be classed in that category that I object to municipalities undertaking it. I am bound to say that his proposal was brought before me more than a dozen years ago, when I became connected with the city of Glasgow. I have never found any hesitation in taking the view that, much as I approve of great municipalities undertaking public services, I should be sorry to see them undertake the management of the liquor traffic. I find that is the view generally supported by my hon. Friends. The hon. Member referred to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham brought forward this proposal in 1877. He did, but despite his powerful advocacy it got very small support in the House, and I am afraid the support it will now receive in the country is smaller than in those days. I regret I cannot accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move to leave out the words "or (c) a no-licence resolution."
    This Amendment is the first of a series intended to remove from the Bill the no-licence option. It is to remove the vindictive bite of the Bill. I believe the adoption of this Amendment would make for the cause of temperance in Scotland. I believe that persistence in the no-licence option will have the effect of rendering this Bill, if it becomes an Act, to a very large extent nugatory, more especially in view of the fact that the Government refuse to find or sanction any form of compensation. The whole aspect of the Bill will, of course, with the public, be governed by the extreme positions in it. On the one hand you provide no scheme of compensation, and on the other hand you provide a no-licence option. I believe that in moving this Amendment we are taking action in the interest of temperance. I do not believe that in Britain, and in Scotland especially, when this Bill becomes law, if it does become law, you will find it would be popular, in view of the tyranny which is possible under this option once it is indicated by examples. I use the expression "tyranny" because the areas are small. You are dealing with parishes. It is quite possible that you may deal with many parishes in which there is only a single public-house. Possibly there may be one in other parishes no great distance away. It may happen that you will have a movement of a truly vindictive character in the attempt to suppress a single public-house—in other words, taking away the living of a man known to a district. It may be argued that such a person, who is condemned by the district, should have his licence taken away, but the district is in a very awkward position. Either you will have to deal with the man because of his own character, in which case, of course, many will be his friends whatever his character, or, on the other hand, you are estopped from dealing with him because he is a popular man. The proper authorities for dealing with individuals are the magistrates. The popular vote is not a proper way for dealing with individuals. A vote for the purpose of the option of a decreased number of licences is defensible, and if the Bill only contained that I would support it. But in that case you are giving merely instructions to the magistrates to apply the-Bill to individual cases.
    260
    I submit that it is anew practice in the administration of our law that we should give to the mass of people the quasi-judicial function of applying an Act of Parliament to an individual case, and that is what would happen under this Bill in many parts of Scotland, where you are dealing with small areas and with one or two public-houses in those areas. You are preparing for an agitation, which will be of a very effective character, opposed to the cause of temperance, because nothing would appeal to the sense of justice of the people more than the fact that in particular districts and affecting particular individual cases, individual men, and individual houses, an agitation has been got up, possibly with unscrupulous methods, certainly with underhand methods, and applied to individual cases. You can imagine how correspondence will take place in the local newspapers and how unpopularity will gradually accumulate against the law in those districts. I know well that the Government will not accept this Amendment. I know that a portion of their supporters will not allow them to accept it. I know that the vote of the extreme temperance party may be of importance where you have a narrow majority. But, just as in the case of the Insurance Bill, you are accumulating opposition to the law. You aim at electoral gains. You aim at winning a small number of extreme teetotalers who are important because they vote on this issue and on this issue only, but you will accumulate against yourselves and. what is far more important, against the law, a mass of moderate men's opposition which is the last thing that those who are friends of the law in the land ought to allow to happen.
    I say that this question should be argued afresh on this Amendment. It is perfectly true that we had much discussion of it on the Second Beading, but we are now faced with new facts. We are faced with the fact that there is to be no compensation, and that you are to divide the country, you are to divide a great city, into two areas, in which it is quite possible that you may have a no-reduction option exercised in one area, and in the adjoining area you may have a no-licence option. The effect would be enormously to enrich certain individuals in this trade at the same time that you ruin other individuals. And not only that, but you will be corrupting the community. Take the case where you have an area in which you have a prosperous public-house or public-houses living on the trade of sur-

    261
    rounding no-licence areas, and concentrating within themselves, as years go by, not merely the drinking, but the drunken residents of the area. There you will have an obvious motive for powerful and rich publicans to corrupt the electorate in their area in order that they may secure their own position. To them that have will be given. You will remove competition from certain districts. You will enrich those who remain. You will enrich those who remain with their own clients, and you will give every motive to those who remain to entrench themselves in those positions by the use of corrupt methods over the small electorate which they can reach. In those circumstances I make no apology for presenting this Amendment to the House, and for pressing it to a Division, not that I have any hope that the Government will accept it, but because I believe it is our duty not in any way to share the responsibility of this which I regard as the worst blot on this measure, and the blot most calculated to thwart the very object which those who support the measure have in view.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: In the absence of my hon. Friend I had the very pleasing duty of proposing this Amendment in the Committee stage of this Bill. I now rise to second my hon. Friend, and to add, if I may, with the permission of the House, a word or two to what has fallen from him. I made so bold as to say that the no-licence option contained in this Clause is not only philosophically and morally wrong, but is also condemned by experience. This measure is claimed as a temperance measure. There is a true temperance, and a false temperance. True temperance can only be obtained by working on the moral sense of the people. You are not going to alter the moral character of the people and introduce temperance by legislation of a compulsory character. The principle of "no licences" is based upon prohibition. Prohibition to many of the older peoples and many of the freer peoples is in itself a defect. You provoke, by the mere imposition of prohibition, the disposition of people to rebel against it, and you are doing a very ridiculous thing if you attack sale and leave consumption at large. Temperance is not effected by a reduction of public sale, but by a limitation of consumption in public places. Temperance can only be effected, as I said in part, by affecting the moral sense of the people, and in part
    262
    by attacking the possibilities of consumption as well as the possibilities of public sale. The vice which is aimed at is an obvious vice, and a vice against which the Bill offers no provision, but this: that you are going to withdraw from the public field, from public inspection, from the possibility of public observation and public control and regulation, a thing which the Bill condemns, though the sense of the community as a whole permits it as lawful, and does not brand it as vicious in itself, but merely brands the abuse of it as vicious.
    What are you doing? You are not saying, "You are not to drink"; you are not saying, "You are not to drink to excess; you are not to drink secretly"; all you are saying is, "You may get drunk, but you must not get drunk in a particular area. You may go across the line and get drunk if you will elsewhere; you may congregate with other drunkards in a place where three out of five vote are sober people, but where three out of five in a particular area vote to a sufficient extent upon a" particular resolution you must not get, drunk there; you must not drink there unless you are sufficiently well to do to drink in your own house. That you may do." The well-to-do man may drink at home in a no-licensed area, and the man who can afford to give an order overnight for liquor can have it delivered during prohibited hours; but if you are a poor man and depend, as many Scotch workers do, on public-houses, and not merely public-houses but restaurants where they take their meals, then, where there is no licence attached, you will get rid of control. What will then be the result? The drunkard is going to get drunk all the same. The man who can afford to drink at home will drink at home. If this option remains in this Clause you may get three wards in one town—in one a no-licence resolution, in another a limiting resolution, and in the third a no-change resolution.
    9.0 P.M.
    You get these three conditions existing side by side, and looked at from that point of view you are not bettering the man who is going to drink just the same; you are not benefiting the community; you are driving the drink into dangerous and hidden channels. You will drive the people who are vicious, or potentially vicious, into another area, and you are not doing one single thing for true temperance in all that you are attempting. I have looked at this from the point of view of the individual and of the community;

    263
    and what are the points of view from the commercial side. Look at the monstrous injustice that you are making possible. People under the ægis of the law have invested money in this trade; it is a trade which is reckoned lawful. And why is the trade lawful? It is lawful because public opinion is not definitely against it. The effect of the no-licence option will be that the majority, it is true, of those voting, but possibly not even a majority of those registered, may not only impose their will as regards temperance questions in their own immediate locality, but may be the means of destroying the livelihood, the homes, and the future of a large number of people who, though they may not be extreme temperance enthusiasts, are just as respectable and just as worthy citizens. The rights of minorities are entirely overlooked in this measure. The provisions of this Bill do not even ensure that on a no-licence question you shall have a majority in favour of the veto. Taking an area containing, say, about 10,000 voters, 3,000 may enforce their views upon 2,000, and three men out of five may impose their will upon the other two. You get this sort of possibility, that you may on a snatch vote get your proper proportion or percentage as the Bill provides, and yet you may not represent public opinion, while able to shut the best regulated hotel. I would ask the House to turn to the experience of this sort of legislation in New Zealand and America before it departs on such a project in this country. In 1893 New Zealand passed an Act which gave the necessary power to reduce be 25 per cent., and not more than that, the licences in any particular area. That was followed in 1903 by a Local Veto Act. That has been applied in six districts, and it has not worked well, but badly. What has been the result in that country of imposing the will of the majority on the minority? The result has been that since 1903 the consumption of beer in New Zealand has increased, and the number of prosecutions for drunkenness in that country has also increased. The character of hotels has deteriorated; drinking has not been abolished, it has been driven underground; and there have been introduced into New Zealand drinking dens, where drink is supplied under the worst conditions, and the drink, being of the vilest character, tends to deteriorate
    264
    the constitution of the people. Instead of well-conducted, open premises, open to inspection, you have drink driven out of sight, but it is there all the same; it is there under far worse conditions, incapable of control or of regulation, as would be the case were the trade lawfully conducted in the eyes of the State by the best people procurable for the work, instead of by the mere dregs of society. That is what you are getting by trying to cure vice by driving vice underground.
    Nor do you get the sympathy of the people in enforcing the law. In New Zealand the police have found the utmost difficulty in enforcing the local veto law. The reason is that the law does not commend itself to the people as just. The people will not help the police to obtain convictions because the law does not commend itself to them as being founded on justice and experience. In the local veto States of America they have tried it, and it has proved a dismal failure. Nearly everywhere it has been already abandoned. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] Nearly everywhere the tendency is to abandon it, and where you have got prohibition you have virtually got open rebellion against the law, and instead of having your drinking in the front rooms of your saloons you have your drinking, which is not stopped, in the back rooms. It is not drinking you are stopping, but the regulation of the drink, and you are making the character of the vice worse, and carried on under worse conditions, and by worse people and with worse stuff. I would quote, in conclusion, words which I quoted when this Bill was in Committee, as I believe the words are not only perfect in expression, but perfect in wisdom upon this subject of local veto. They are words used by one whose sincerity cannot be questioned. They are words used, in 1907, I think, by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), who speaks, as every Member of the House knows, on whichever side he sits, with great knowledge this question, and who speaks, as every Member of this House knows, with perfect sincerity in every word which he speaks upon this question. He says in these words in a few sentences enough to condemn this no-licence doctrine, and enough to convince any Member of this House that the Amendment of my hon. Friend should carry the House with it:—
    "I would suggest that licensing proposals must not be directed to the outlawing of the traffic. The traffic in alcoholic liquors may be evil in the estimation of

    265
    some, but it is a legal traffic, and its legality is based upon the fact that public opinion as a whole refuses to brand the consumption of alcoholic liquors as wrong. If the consumption of alcoholic liquors be not wrong, then the sale of those liquors must he justifiable. To attempt an arbitrary distinction between sale and consumption is as foolish as it is misleading. The point of view which would outlaw the traffic, and therefore drive it into the least worthy hands, is a point of view which, in my judgment, would imperil and not advance the moral progress of the community. It is true that I am here opposing a view widely current in the advanced temperance party, and a view, moreover, that has determined to a large extent the licensing legislation of the United States of America, but a close study of the laws and experience of that great country has convinced me that the attempt to degrade and outlaw the liquor traffic there has aggravated the evils that are associated with the trade, and has not secured the end sincerely aimed at by the promoters of that legislation. So long as drink is sold it should be sold under decent conditions, and the sale should be in the hands of the most worthy rather than the least worthy members of the community."
    Every word spoken there by the hon. Member for Huddersfield I commend to the House, and with that quotation I beg to second it.
    Mr. URE: As the hon. Member who moved this Amendment anticipated, the Government cannot accept it. To accept it would mean, as he knows very well, to strike at the very root of this measure. We have heard once more advanced very familiar arguments, which ought not to be addressed to this' House, upon a Bill such as this, the object of which I remind the House is not to extinguish licences but to transfer to the voters in certain areas discretionary power which is now confined to the magistrates. That is the sole object of this measure. If the hon. Members who have moved this Amendment would be good enough to address the arguments which were offered to-night to the House to those localities in Scotland where a requisition is presented, and the voters are about to choose which of the resolutions they will support, I am sure those arguments will receive respectful consideration. Meanwhile they have no sort of relation to the question before the House. The only question the House has to consider is whether or not the voters should have the same discretionary power given to them as the magistrates at the present moment enjoy. I desire with all the emphasis at my command to repudiate the idea that there will be any tyranny in any of the local districts in my country when the resolutions are submitted to them. I repudiate with equal emphasis the idea that there will be any unscrupulous or underhand methods adopted either on one side or the other. My fellow countrymen are not only a very sane people, but they are a very just people. Otherwise we should never seek
    266
    to entrust them with the discretionary powers, which I admit are very wide and very important, and the conferring of which lies at the very root of this measure.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I desire to support this Amendment, although from what the Lord Advocate has said we know that there is not very much use trying to propose any Clause or Amendment here to-night, for the very good reason that hon. Members opposite have got to get their Bill, and the public have got to get it whether they want it or not, and nobody is to be allowed to discuss it. We are simply killing time for the sake of effect. Hon. Members interested in temperance are perfectly safe, because they can count upon the votes of those who are not interested entirely in temperance. You will see prohibition carried for Scotland and passed by the great Liberal party, but where are the Gentlemen on the Liberal side who take such an enormous interest in this question I You will find one-half of them in the Smoke Room and the other half in the Dining Room, and I am quite certain they are not all drinking water. They will all come in and vote prohibition in order to vote Home Rule for the Nationalists. That is what hon. Members call a unanimous vote in favour of prohibition. It is simply a deal by one side of the House with the other. So far as this particular Amendment is concerned the Lord Advocate, I think, said that he could not accept it as it would strike at the very root of the principle. The Lord Advocate has, of course, great faith in his fellow countrymen, though he did not have so much faith in Midlothian. In any case, he believes in his fellow-countrymen. He says he wishes them to choose for themselves. I suppose when we come to the disinterested management Clause he will say they ought to have the choice in that case. If he says that he stultifies himself in every word he said in Committee, and if he does not he stultifies himself in every word he said now. The position is rather a contradiction.
    One reason why I do not support this particular prohibitionist Clause is, not that I do not trust the people, but that I think it will militate a great deal against our getting rid of some public-houses under the limitation Clause. There are many people who are a little afraid of the extreme prohibitionists, and they would not support the limitation Clause for fear that they might be playing into the hands of

    267
    the prohibitionists. Therefore, I think they will probably vote for the status quo. Moreover, I think the proposal is on wrong lines. If hon. Members want prohibition, why do they not boldly suggest a big area? What is the good of simply starting smuggling dens I What is the good of putting people into the position of having to break the law I Hon. Members know perfectly well that the law will be infringed at every corner. If prohibition is a right thing, have it properly in a large area. But hon. Members have not the pluck to do that. They know that the country does not want it, and they hope to get it in by a side wind in small prohibition corners. If it is to do away with an evil, it is absolutely necessary to have a big area. Take, for example, the town of Perth, which is divided into six wards, and has a population of over 10,000 people. Do hon. Members really think that, if this Bill passes, and one ward in Perth, say George Street, is made prohibitionist, the people in George Street who want drink will not walk across the road into John Street and get it] Of course, they will. The whole thing is really humbug. Every prohibitionist knows that this proposal is perfectly useless so far as doing any real good is concerned. I tried to get larger areas, but was defeated. Another result will very likely be that you may have a residential suburban area where the people do not want a public-house. The hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs said that prohibition would be passed, not by the teetotalers, but by the drunkards in order to save themselves. That may happen in Dumfries Burghs, but it is not likely to be general all over Scotland. It is in the poor slum districts, where men have not the conditions in which they ought to live, where the housing is bad and the food poor, and there is general misery, that you have the most drinking. If you want to get prohibition, improve the conditions of the people. You will never get it in small slum areas by this measure. The only result will be to take profits away from a man who is conducting his business properly and doing no harm, while you will double the profits of the man in the place where drink ought not to be sold at all. The Bill will doubtless lead to secret drinking. The prohibitionist thinks that if the drinking is not seen it does not exist. But that is not the case. I know my own countrymen. I do not think the Lord Advocate will guarantee that if there
    268
    is prohibition in some of the areas that he represents, there will never be any drinking in those areas. If my countrymen want drink, they will get it, in spite of the Lord Advocate and all the teetotalers of Scotland. You will simply drive it into the houses. Who were responsible for the grocers' licences? I think it was the Liberal party. Their next licensing reform is to drive the drink from properly licensed places.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is wandering rather far from the Amendment.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I was trying to point out that if you have prohibition under this Bill you will simply increase drinking in places where it cannot be controlled by driving it away from places where it would be under control. Therefore it is for a temperance reason that I support the Amendment. It will not be by prohibition that you will stop drinking. You will do it by educating the people as to the folly of drinking, and by improving their conditions of life, and not by any faddist legislation of this sort.
    Mr. MUNRO: This Amendment was fully discussed in Committee and it has been discussed with considerable fulness this evening. After listening to the speeches both in Committee and in the House, I am confirmed in my opinion that the provision in the Bill is a proper provision. There are one or two considerations in connection with this provision that I will venture to put before the House. The first question is: Why should the people of Scotland not have the same right in this matter as the Licensing Courts possess at the present time, and as the landlords of Scotland possess? There can be no doubt at all about it that the Licensing Courts up and down Scotland have a perfect right, if they think fit, to prohibit drinking in any particular area by withholding the licences from that area. Not only have they the power, but they have exercised that power on more than one occasion. Hon. Members will recollect the case of the Island of Lewis; the Licensing Court refused every licence in that island. It is nothing to the point to say that on certain occasions that decision was entirely reversed by the Court of Appeal. My point is that the Licensing Court has the power, and accordingly the people should have the same power as the Licensing Court exercised as their agents on their behalf.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: May I ask the hon. Member whether it is not a fact that the particular case to which he refers, the Lewis and Stornaway licences, never came before the Court of Appeal at all?
    Mr. MUNRO: I quite agree that this question was never decided in the Court of Session. But in many cases the decision was reversed in the Licensing Court of Appeal. That, however, is not my point. My point is that the power resides, so far as the law at the present goes, in the Licensing Courts in the land to withhold licences if they think fit. I do not see why the people should not also exercise this power. Not only so, but admittedly landlords throughout Scotland have exercised this very power. Why, then, should the people who have to live in or near the affected area not have the same right and power as the landlords have and have exercised time and again in Scotland? The next question I should like to put is this: Why should Scotland not have her own desire given effect to in this matter? This provision has been in every measure of this type which has been before this House for years. This particular provision of the Bill has been approved by the people of Scotland, by their representatives in this House, by an overwhelming majority, and by many of the best agencies of a social and ecclesiastical kind in the country. For those who believe in the principles of democracy it does seem to me to be sufficient answer to say that this particular principle, this particular provision, has been approved by the public of Scotland on every occasion that they have had the opportunity of giving effect to their views. The next question I should like to put is: Why should Scotland in these matters be compelled to keep step with England? The suggestion has been made that this is a very novel proceeding. Well, in Scotland we have had for the last sixty years prohibition on one day of the week. I refer to the Forbes-Mackenzie Act, now about sixty years of age, which prevents the sale of any liquor throughout the length and breadth of Scotland on Sunday. That is prohibition on one day in the week, and that Act by universal admission has been a complete success in Scotland. No sane Scotsman would ever think of proposing at this time of the day that that Act should be repealed.
    Again, in Scotland, we have the sale of liquor prohibited after ten o'clock at night. Some hon. Members think we are behind England. Most of us think that
    270
    we are in the van in these matters in Scotland. I do not quite see why English Members should seek to impose their views of what is right and proper on this side of the border on Scotland, where the view is entirely different. The last question I would like to put is this: Why should the electors of Scotland not have liberty of choice in this matter? Members on the other side of the House are very fond of paying lip-service to the principle of liberty. By giving effect to this Amendment you concede to Scotland the right to vote upon two particular options and entirely deny her the right to vote upon a third. It seems to me that that is entirely inconsistent with the plea that has been put forward that the electors of Scotland should have a perfect right to exercise their discretion in this matter. Why should they not have the logical complement to the options they have at the present time, to which no objection is made—namely, to reduce licences or to pass a "no-change" resolution? One would think, in view of the speeches made, that this was a Bill imposing prohibition upon Scotland. It is nothing of the sort. It merely gives the electors of the country, with the landlords and the Licensing Courts, the right freely, fairly, and with discrimination to exercise their discretion in this particular matter. It would be a lop-sided discretion if you allowed them to reduce the number of licences and withheld from them the necessary corollary that if they think fit, and having regard to the circumstances of the case, they should also be entitled to say that they are in favour of the principle of "no licences" in any particular area. For these reasons I have pleasure in supporting the Bill as it stands, and I shall also have pleasure in voting against this Amendment if pressed to a Division.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I appreciate the fairness with which my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken has put his points, but he does not appreciate this fact, that what this proposes to do is to say that if a certain portion—I will concede to those on the other side that it may be a majority—of the inhabitants of a particular district do not want to drink and the minority do want to drink, and want to drink reasonably, that that concession should be allowed by the other side. It is quite a different thing to say that the majority shall be entitled to say, "I do not want to drink, and therefore you

    271
    shall not." I have never been able to see why it should be put in the power of those concerned to say that. If it were a question of the drunkard I would agree. Both sides of the House, I think, agree that no man should be allowed to drink too much. But the position of the extreme teetotaler is that any man who wants to drink moderately shall not be allowed to drink at all because there are a certain number—who may be in a majority—who think that as they do not want to drink that therefore nobody shall. It is put in Scotland in this way: "To permit me to prevent you from having anything to drink." I have never heard an answer to that way of putting it. I do not think the answer is given by the arguments which have been put by the other side.
    It is all very well to refer to the Stornoway and Lewis case, and to say that it will not be applied, but you are applying the thing in a way that I think will only result, in my opinion, if it is carried out, in aggravating the evils of drink. The arguments advanced upstairs by the Government in support of the Bill were that you need not trouble about the "no-licence" resolution, as it will never come into operation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh said, I think, that it would be ten or twenty years before it came into operation, but they would not give us more than five when we were discussing the Amendment a little while ago. It is really the extreme temperance party who are riding their fads to death. They will kill their Bill so far as the practical operation is concerned. If you get the Bill through this House—and you may get it through the other—but if you get it through both, you will never get it into practical operation. The result of it is that the keenest friends of temperance are doing the worst they can to prevent, temperance reform coming into operation. We on this side are told we are not temperance reformers. I have challenged in this House and on the platform outside even the keenest temperance advocates in this House to find any greater measure of temperance reform than our 1903 Act. That was a measure which our party passed and carried through, they being able to show some moderation and common sense in temperance matters. That Temperance Act of ours was the biggest thing of the kind Scotland saw for forty years, yet now
    272
    we find your extreme temperance men doing a great deal more to prevent temperance reform, in this measure than any, if there be any who are actually opposed to real temperance legislation. That is what these extremists are doing in this case. They are proposing to pass this Resolution, which supporters of this Bill have said over and over again upstairs, when the Bill was in Grand Committee, would have no effect. They said: "Do-not trouble about the no-licensing resolution, because it will never come into operation." But if it does come into operation it will lead to very serious evils. We have proved our devotion to temperance by our legislation, while the extreme temperance reformers to-day are going to prevent real reform, and it is because of that I will support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. HOGGE: As the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made reference to me in regard to this question of "No licence," I should like to make my position clear. It may be that I have said on occasions that the question of veto all over Scotland would not be successful inside a long period of time.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I think the hon. Gentleman said that, speaking for the constituency he represented, it would be a long time before it came into operation in that constituency.
    Mr. HOGGE: Quite true, but I think this position ought to be made clear, and it is the position of most of us willing to accept this no-licensing resolution as part of the programme of temperance. We hold very strongly that in some parts of the country, especially in the sparsely populated parts, the veto would be operative and would be useful as one of the instruments in securing valuable temperance reform, but we have also held, and hold strongly, that in many districts where veto is most required—that is, in these districts over a very large number of areas—there is no hope of veto being operative, and therefore this scheme of the Government in this Bill is too narrow and too restricted. In that sense I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. What the Government want is to widen this Bill and make it a thorough Liberal measure, instead of the Conservative measure it is at this moment. They ought to make it wide enough to appeal to all classes of the community in Scotland, so

    273
    that we should not always require on the floor of the House of Commons to be asking for some measure to deal with this great problem of intemperance, and if the Government could do something like that and unite the people who are strong advocates of temperance as they are themselves, this measure might go through this House and the other House. If something like that was done, I do not think the opposition on the other side would be quite so strong as it is. It is because no concession is made here to opinion in Scotland, which might be made if the Government were genuinely out for temperance reform, that these difficulties arise.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We have heard three speeches from the other side in opposition to the Amendment of my bon. Friend, and I will deal with the last speech first. The last speaker, as I understood him, says that in a sparsely populated district this proposal may have some effect. I gather he does not sit for a sparsely populated district, and the logical sequence is that in his district it will have no effect at all, and therefore he is going to support it.
    Mr. HOGGE: I may assure the hon. Baronet that if it were possible to veto every licence in my Constituency tomorrow I should be in favour of it if it were a practical proposal.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that advances the matter very much. The hon. Gentleman would be in favour of it if it were practical. It is not practical, and therefore he is going to vote for something which he knows is not practical. I do not think that is really a serious argument. Now I come to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wick Burghs. Their arguments seem to me to be almost identical. The argument of the Lord Advocate was that all you do is to transfer the power now in the hands of the justices into the hands of the voters, and he seems to think that it is sufficient argument to say that that would be the result, and that no further argument was necessary. The merits of the question did not seem to enter into his mind at all. He is a distinguished lawyer, and I would ask him whether he considers that the decision of the justices sitting in a room on a particular case, acting in a judicial manner after hearing the evidence, is the same kind of decision as is given by voters, however excellent
    274
    they may be, and I am casting no shadow of doubt upon their motives. Does he consider the decision given by 5,000 voters, who do not hear the evidence, or give it,, in a particular case brought before them, but on a large number of cases, not upon the merits of the cases, but upon the particular view they may hold as to whether or not temperance is a good thing or a bad, is the same as the decision of the justices? I venture to say, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as a lawyer, that he would not attempt to substantiate that view in a Law Court for a moment. Does he propose to substitute the voters for the judges?
    Mr. URE: No.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It is exactly the same thing. If the justices are the same as the voters, the voters are the same as the judges. In the course of time the right hon. Gentleman himself will fill a distinguished position on the judicial bench in Scotland. Is he going to maintain that his decision would be of no more value than that of 10,000 electors who have got a voting paper before them? The proposition does not hold water for a moment. It was the same proposition and the same argument that was put forward by the hon. Member for Wick Burghs. The hon. Member went a little further and he said there was a certain case in Stornaway where the justices took away certain licences, but when my right hon. Friend interrupted him he had to admit that these licences were restored by a Court of Appeal. Is there a Court of Appeal from the decision of the voters, and, if not, where is the analogy? If there is a Court of Appeal there might be something in the argument of the hon. Gentleman and of the Lord Advocate. It is useless to get up and say that when the justices give a decision from which there is an appeal that it is exactly the same thing iii the case of the voters from whose decision there is no appeal. Those are the only arguments which we have heard from the opposite side of the House against the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It is true that the hon. Member for Wick Burghs said something about English Members desiring to impose their will upon Scotch constituencies. I do not desire to impose my will on Scotch constituencies any more than upon English, Welsh, or Irish constituencies, but as long as I have the honour of sitting in this House as a Member of the House of Commons which represents the whole of

    275
    the United Kingdom, I claim the right to give my opinion whether the subject is a Scotch, English, or Irish question. I do not remember when the English Licensing Bill was discussed that there was any great abstention on the part of Scottish Members from enforcing their will in the Lobby. It may be that they did not get up and speak, but that was because they had not heard the arguments. They went into the Lobby and voted us down. No one in this House entertains a greater horror of intemperance than I do, or a greater detestation of the evils which I know drink brings about, but I say that by this sort of legislation you are not going to stop these evils. What will happen? Everyone knows that if a man chooses to drink he can get the opportunity whether a public-house is closed or not. He can buy a bottle of whisky and take it home, and in that case drinking is more likely to have an evil effect upon him than if he goes into a public-house and has two or three glasses of whisky, or whatever it is they drink in Scotland, and afterwards he is turned out of the public-house. In a private house there is no one to tell a man if he has had enough, and when he has drawn the cork, who is there to tell him when he has had enough. The result will be far worse than if he goes to a public-house and gets what he thinks is necessary for him.
    In what I am going to say, I shall be, I suppose, for the moment, a democrat. I really do not see why, if I choose to buy a dozen bottles of wine and put them in my cellar and drink them, anybody should interfere to stop me. No one would do so, not even the hon. Member for Rushcliffe {Mr. Leif Jones). If I am allowed to do that, why should a poor man who cannot afford to buy a dozen bottles of wine, when he feels he would like beer or whisky, be allowed to go and have it? I may be wrong, but I really do not see any answer to that. I am not stating this in a political sense but from a common-sense point of view, and there is no answer. If hon. Members say we will for the future prohibit drinking of any kind amongst all classes of men in England, Scotland, and Wales, there would be something to be said for it, and I should vote for it, but they do not do that. What they say is that the poorer classes are to be put into a different position to the richer classes, and that is a doctrine which I have never supported and never will. I challenge any hon. Member opposite to tell me why, because I can
    276
    afford to buy a dozen bottles of wine, I am to be allowed to do so, whilst a man who can only afford to buy six pennyworth of gin is not to be allowed to do so. It seems to me that I have put this question into a nutshell. If my point can be met by a sound argument I am not at all sure that I would vote against this Amendment, but if it cannot be met, I shall support the Amendment, and I ask every hon. Member opposite, unless he is convinced by some one who will follow me, to do what is just and right, and vote for the same law for the rich as for the poor.
    Mr. RAFFAN: In the case of the public-house in the village which has been alluded to, when the lease expired the landlord refused to renew it. I may say that the result of that licence being withdrawn was that within two years the police-station in that parish was removed, and the only policeman in the village ceased to be employed there. That was the result of withdrawing the licence from that particular parish. If it was right that the landlord in that parish should have the right to withdraw a licence and thus deprive people of the opportunity of being able to obtain drink, why should the people themselves be deprived of the right to carry out the same object?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I did not know that any landlord had a right to withdraw a licence. I gather that in the case mentioned by the hon. Member, when the lease expired the landlord let the house for some other purposes, which he is perfectly entitled to do.
    Mr. RAFFAN: But all the land in the parish belonged to one owner. There was one licensed house there, and when the lease expired the landowner refused to renew it. They were all tenants of the same owners. The point I wish to make is why the people should not have the same right in regard to licences as that which was exercised by this landlord. I shall support this Clause because it would extend to all the people in all the rural parishes of Scotland the right which was exercised in this particular parish by this particular owner. I shall support this Bill because it gives the same right to the poor as to the rich.
    Mr. CROFT: The hon. Member who has just spoken seems to think that in this case, because the landowner decided not to allow the property on his land to continue to bear a licence after the lease had expired, that

    277
    therefore the electors in those areas should be put on exactly the same terms. It is obvious that the electors do not own the land, and therefore the comparison is a very foolish one indeed. Even if that were so, two wrongs do not make a right; and if the landlord behaved wrongly, according apparently to the cheers we have just heard, it is no argument why the power of doing wrong should be put in the hands of others.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I think he behaved rightly.
    Mr. CROFT: That may be so, but did he act in accordance with the view of the people? I think he acted rather like some Eastern potentate in depriving the people of the possibility of obtaining something they desired and which this country has always declared to be lawful in the past. The hon. Member told us that when this licence was done away with he never saw any drunkenness and never saw a policeman. That rather bears out what my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet (Mr. Norman Craig) told us earlier in the evening, that the drinking, which we know continues, goes on secretly and is carried on in the home. That is a fact which is well known throughout the length and breadth of New Zealand, and it is exactly the same on the American Continent wherever you have this stringent veto which the people do not desire. I only heard ten days ago in the United States of an instance. A man was telling me there how he had just got round legislation of this description. He arrived at an hotel and wished to celebrate his birthday. He was told it was absolutely impossible to serve him1 with alcoholic liquor at that time, at six o'clock on a Saturday afternoon. You are unable on Saturday afternoon and on Sunday in certain States to procure alcoholic liquors. That was the case in this particular instance, and he was refused. When he made a fuss he was told there was one way of getting round the law and that was by taking a bedroom. Consequently, he took a bedroom, took all his friends to it, and they sat down and had a big supper and were able to celebrate his birthday.
    10.0 P.M.
    Something in the same way happened to me quite recently. I was leaving a railway station by a train which started at eight o'clock. There happened to be somebody on the train who was taken ill, and required a little brandy. I went out of the station to see if I could get a
    278
    small glass of brandy, and was told to go down to the hotel 300 yards from the station. I went there, and they said they could not serve me, but I could get it if I went to the doctor who lived one and a-half miles up the street and got an order. I had not time to do that, so I said, "Is that the only way, when somebody is ill, that I can procure brandy in this country on a Sunday evening?" The reply was, "Well, if she is really very ill, you can go down to such and such a street, where I think you will be able to get it if you knock at the door." It is perfectly obvious, and everybody knows, that when you are passing through a prohibition State of the United States, if you want to have something to drink and cannot get it—[Laughter.]—Hon. Gentlemen are referring to a most distressing incident, which I am not prepared to discuss further. Everybody is well aware of the fact that, although when travelling through a prohibition State in the United States, you will not be served on the train with anything which looks like the usual thing, there is no real difficulty providing you are prepared to take your alcoholic liquor through a teapot, in getting all you require. I believe, in bringing in this absurd legislation, you are only encouraging the same underhand smuggling of liquor in these various districts.
    The hon. Member for the Wick Burghs (Mr. K. Munro) seemed to be much distressed that an English Member should seek to impose his will upon Scotland. Really, we have heard that argument a little too often. The Liberal party thrive on imposing their views on other people and on various nations. We have only to think of the interference in foreign policy by Liberal Members. We need not blame them. At this very moment the great Powers are trying to impose their view on the Balkan States. Will anybody say that is necessarily wrong? It is not altogether impossible that the minority in Scotland are forcing their country to do something which is not desired by the majority, and which may be very bad for the country as a whole. We are told by the same hon. Gentleman that our resistance to this Clause means we do not believe in democracy, and two or three times he used the words, "Why should we not have the logical complement." I think the logical complement of this particular veto would be found in the next Amendment on the Paper. If this really is a democratic measure, if you really believe it is right to entrust to the electors of Scotland the

    279
    power of deciding there shall be no licensed house, are you prepared, and is the Secretary for Scotland prepared, to accept the next Amendment, trusting them as I know he does, and to give them the power to increase the number of licences in a district? If he is not prepared to do that, I think, with the greatest respect, there really cannot be much sincerity behind this oft-repeated boast that you are merely serving the democracy of Scotland and carrying out the will of the people.
    No one will deny that throughout the length and breadth of the British Isles alcoholic consumption to excess is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Most of the big clubs in London are in an embarrassed condition for the simple reason that nobody is drinking alcoholic liquor, and consequently they are raising their subscriptions and entrance fees. [An Hon. MEMBER: Except the National Liberal Club."] Well, not being a member of the National Liberal Club, I cannot speak of it. It is exactly the same in every class of the community. We find public opinion is killing excessive drinking. Therefore I say, unless Scotchmen are very much worse than Englishmen, it is absolutely unnecessary to have a tyrannical Clause such as this in the Bill. If there is a real desire to act without doing injustice to licence holders, then you have your limiting Clause, and if it is discovered that that is not sufficient for your purpose, if you should find Scotland, contrary to the rest of the world, is becoming more addicted to drink, then you can bring in an amending Bill with this extreme Clause. I honestly believe that the only people who will vote on this no-licensing Clause are going to be extreme temperance fanatics, on the one hand, and licensed victuallers and publicans and their friends, on the other. Moderate men will not go to the poll; you will not get the opinion of the community, and that is contrary to the true principles of Liberalism, as I have been led to understand them, and certainly opposed to the principles of democracy.
    Earl WINTERTON: The last speaker but one, the hon. Member for Leigh, gave us a very interesting reminiscence of his boyhood. According to "Who's Who" and "Dod," the hon. Member was born in Aberdeen, and if anyone born in Aberdeen never saw either a policeman or a drunken man, then he must have gone about that town with blinkers on.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Aberdeen is a county as well as a town. I was born in the county.
    Earl WINTERON: Then the statement in "Who's Who" and "Dod" is extremely misleading, for anyone born in Aberdeen can realise that the state of things could not have been as described by the hon. Member.
    Mr. RAFFAN: If there is any doubt cast on the question as to where I was born, I will give the Noble Lord the name of the parish. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you sure you have not been misinformed?"] It may be due to the fact that I am a Scotchman that I am unable to appreciate that particular kind of humour. The statement which I made can be investigated, and I will therefore at once state the name of the parish is Fintray, in Aberdeenshire.
    Earl WINTERTON: Of course I entirely accept the statement of the hon. Member. My only object in rising to call attention to this matter is to ask the House to realise that there is no single State in America that is known as a "dry State," in which total prohibition is enforced, where it is not perfectly easy for any single man in that State or in any town in that State to obtain liquor if he wishes to do so. I would venture to suggest to any extreme temperance advocate—for instance, the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire (Mr. Leif Jones), who will, I am sure, not object to being called an extreme temperance advocate—that he should go to any State known as a dry State, and take with him some one to be the corpus vile for the purposes of the experiment, and he will be able to obtain from that man as much drink as he wants or even more. Is it not preposterous to suggest that by giving power to localities to close, public-houses you are going to stop drinking? There is a certain trait in human nature not altogether unknown in this House, by which, if a man is stopped doing certain things, he is strongly tempted to break the law in order to do them. The fact is prohibition in every country has been followed by an increase in secret drinking. If you look at the history of prohibitionist countries, you will see a distinct movement forward in a more reasonable, more up-to-date, and more civilised direction. It is better, if a man wishes to obtain alcoholic liquor, to allow him to obtain it under proper restrictions, rather than to prohibit it altogether.
    Question put, "That those words stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 79.

    Division No. 218.]

    AYES.

    [10.10 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Adamson, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Munro, Robert

    Alien, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Hackett, J.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Armitage, Robert

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hancock, John George

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Barnes, George N.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Beck Arthur Ceci

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Dowd, John

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Boland, John Pius

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shee, James John

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Brace, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hinds, John

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hodge, John

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hogge, James Myles

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pringle, Wm. M. R.

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Radford, G. H.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Clancy, John J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Reddy, Michael

    Clough, William

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Joyce, Michael

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Keating, Matthew

    Richards, Thomas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cowan, W. H.

    King, J.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Cullinan, John

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Delany, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Logan, John William

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Doris, William

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rowlands, James

    Duffy, William J.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    McGhee, Richard

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Maclean, Donald

    Sheehy, David

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Essex, Richard Walter

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Falconer, James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutton, John E.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Field, William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Tennant, Harold John

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Furness, Stephen

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Millar, James Duncan

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Molloy, Michael

    Wadsworth, John

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Moiteno, Percy Alport

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mooney, John J.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morgan, George Hay

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Winfrey, Richard

    Webb, H.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    NOES.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Fell, Arthur

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Goulding, E. A.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Grant, J. A.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Barnston, Harry

    Gretton, John

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts Wilton)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Boyton, James

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Stanier, Beville

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Butcher, John George

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Campion, W. R.

    Hills, John Waller

    Stewart, Gershom

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cave, George

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Clyde, James Avon

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Winterton, Earl

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Hon. S.)

    Younger, Sir George

    Croft, H. P.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Malcolm, Ian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mackinder and Mr. Norman Craig.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment on the Paper (standing in the name of Mr. Fell) is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. FELL: I was allowed to move this in Committee, and there was an important discussion upon it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Committee took a more generous view.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Might I point out that this is a question of dealing with the future, when licences may have been unduly decreased? It is surely quite within the scope of a Local Option Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is too subtle.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words "or (d) a disinterested management resolution."
    I could not find a better text or a better argument for this Amendment than that supplied by the last speech of the Lord Advocate. He varied the monotonous formula by which every Amendment to this Act is declined by a slight and somewhat striking peculiarity. He gave us for once the principle of the Act. That principle he told us was to give absolute discretion to each locality. This was not, he said, a Bill for advocating or for setting up a peculiar method of promoting tem-
    284
    perance. The principle of the Bill, he said, and repeated with some emphasis, was that the Bill left the decision of the means to be applied for the promotion of temperance to the people, and that was the principle of the proposal which His Majesty's Government was laying before the House. If he adheres to that argument I demand with some emphasis that he ought to support the Amendment. It is one which finds support with very many leading authorities in Scotland. I have here a petition which shows the large amount of support that is given to it in Scotland, and the readiness which a large number of people of the highest authority, who command the greatest respect and confidence, have in putting the scheme into operation. I regret that it should find only myself as a proposer. In the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) it had an advocate whose skill and whose thorough familiarity with the whole question in dispute are unrivalled. It was he who put forward this proposal before the Committee, argued it, and obtained for it considerable support amongst those who generally follow the Government. On the occasion when this Clause was debated in Committee, it was defeated by 28 votes to 23, and among the minority were many of those who are among the most constant

    285
    supporters of the Government. Why is it that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) has not this time come forward as the champion of the proposal which he advocated before? Is it that the lash of the Whip has been brought more severely to bear upon those recalcitrant supporters, and that the liberty they exercised in Committee is not permitted in this House? I boldly assert that, as appearances now stand, there is sufficient to convince me that has been the case, and that hon. Members are ready to sacrifice their own convictions in obedience to the party Whip. Even though they supported this proposal in Committee, they have not the courage to bring it forward here, because it is not acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland. Argument has been absolutely useless in Committee, and on the Report stage in this House. This is the course which the right hon. Gentleman chooses to take in this House. He can admit no change, and because he has laid down that principle, which is dictated to him by some of the extremists in his own party, he has issued his Whip to the recalcitrant Members of his own party, and the result is that we have no supporters on the Government side of this proposal which found eminent champions on previous occasions.
    This scheme of disinterested management is one which is supported by well-known and respected men. It has the advantage of being advocated by a large body of substantial opinion, not only in this country, but elsewhere. It has the advantage of having been actually put into operation, and the good results have been seen. I am perfectly well aware that these results have been attacked with the usual Ananias-like inaccuracy which is peculiar to the advocates of the extreme temperance party. It has been attacked, but the rottenness and the absolute baselessness of the argument had been sufficiently exposed in a pamphlet written by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, which has been sent to myself, and I suppose to other Members of the House. He has shown the baselessness of Mr. Charles Smith's attack. Mr. Charles Smith is satisfactorily shown to have perverted statistics, to have misrepresented facts, and to have attributed motives to men more honourable than himself in accusing the public authority of Sweden with corruption in regard to the operation of this scheme. I think we may safely lay
    286
    such arguments aside. I think that the scheme may stand on its own merits as a sufficient foundation. It is not necessary that I should put forward arguments to bolster up this particular method of advancing temperance. What we ask is, Are you going to deny to these electors the power of saying, "We think that the experience of other countries and the able advocacy of this scheme justifies us in giving this scheme a trial and seeing whether it would produce here the same satisfactory results with regard to temperance that it has produced in other countries"? We ask, Are you prepared on any of the democratic principles of which you; are so fond of talking to set aside that same option in Scotland?
    The burden of showing whether this scheme is right or wrong rests with those who refuse the people of localities in Scotland the right to try this experiment if they believe conscientiously that it will lead to good results. I myself have read enough and seen enough of such schemes as are in operation to be convinced that it will do far more for temperance than any propagandist schemes put forward by extreme teetotalers. But my own position is perfectly clear. I am not speaking as one concerned with any particular scheme of disinterested management. I have nothing to do with it. Many of my friends are interested in proposals of the kind, but I have never sat on any committee of the sort. In promoting temperance my remedy is not the fads of the teetotaler or the effect of any legislative restriction whatever. It is an appeal to the better nature and the dignity of my fellow countrymen and the throwing of responsibility upon them. It is with great difficulty that only in the earlier hours this afternoon we got some assent to the proposal to bring the responsibility of drunkenness upon actually the man who disgraced himself by getting drunk. If you wish to forward temperance you should act more drastically upon the man who makes himself contemptible by that vice, and not treat him, as you are too apt to treat him, as if he were a poor petted plaything against whom the vile machinations of the publican had been exercised. That is not the way to give him dignity to raise his self-respect or to infuse in him that responsibility which is the only thing that makes his temperance worth anything. I value nothing that temperance which comes to a man only because he is refused any access to drink,

    287
    because by the operation of circumstances utterly beyond his control he is unable to have access to drink of any kind. On these grounds I put forward this Amendment, which would give this option to the voters in each locality.
    I am quite prepared to admit, though I do not think for a moment you will promote temperance by any amount of restrictive and parental legislation, that there is a certain impediment or stumbling block in the fact that we entrust this traffic, which we consider dangerous, to a class of persons whose interest is in stimulating the traffic in and consumption of liquor. That, I admit, is a flaw in our system. That flaw we seek to amend if you will allow us to adopt this new kind of disinterested management. You will then have the distribution of drink in the hands of responsible persons, with no interest in the profits accruing from its sale, who are under the strictest supervision of various inspecting authorities, the legality of whose accounts will be open to audit and examination, and who will be bound to hand over the profits from the drink to some object of public advantage. Are you so certain that a proposal of this kind, which has been received elsewhere so well, will so certainly be condemned to failure in Scotland, and will so certainly be put into the hands of persons unworthy to be trusted with such a responsibility, that you are going to deny the people of Scotland the possibility of their being given a chance of making an experiment of this kind? I would ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has considered the petition which was laid before his predecessor in January last?
    Has he considered the names appended to that petition? The first name, Sir, is that of one of your predecessors, always respected in this House, Viscount Peel. Following are the respected names of many of the most worthy Members of every party in Scotland. Among the universities I select two at least of the Principals who happen to be pronounced political opponents of my own and who have signed this petition. Among other signatories I see the name of the late Sir Robert Fuller; and the late Member for West Lincolnshire. Sir Thomas Graham Hope was a most ardent supporter of this scheme. But because a certain extreme section are determined that nothing will satisfy them but the
    288
    most extreme and intemperate proposal, the right hon. Gentleman refuses to listen to the arguments of some of his own most respected and most powerful supporters, and turns a deaf ear to any suggestion that this Bill should be modified. In the name of the principle which the Lord Advocate says is the central principle of this Bill, and in the name of the democracy that you are so apt to represent as the only proper authority, I claim that you should extend the option and give the people of Scotland the opportunity to adopt this scheme which is advocated by so many of their leading citizens, and which has succeeded notably in other countries, though condemned by the extreme fanatics of the temperance party.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: The hon. Gentleman opposite is always lecturing this House on what other countries do, and he asks that because other countries have adopted this proposal why should we not follow them. This is a proposal for disinterested management, but, for my part, I do not believe there is any such thing as disinterested management. I would just as soon believe in painless dentistry as in disinterested management. The hon. Gentleman has told us to-night of names connected with the Liberal party who are in favour of this proposal, which is a novel proposal, and I know that there are some friends of mine in Scotland, and there is my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, who will always be honourably associated with reference to reforms in the liquor trade. After all, and this is why I have risen, there is not a single temperance body in Scotland, not one single body of temperance reformers prepared to go in for this scheme of disinterested management. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] No, there is not one. I have resolutions from the different temperance associations and from the different presbyteries saying that their wish and desire is that this House should pass the Scottish Temperance Bill in the way in which it left the Scottish Grand Committee. That is the reason I have got up here to-night. I hope sincerely we are not going to be led astray by other countries. I heard a disquisition about the failure of temperance in America earlier, and I heard that it is possible to get drink in the Prohibition States but, having been to America, all I have got to say is that I never was able to get any in the Prohibition States. We are alluded to as robbers and

    289
    spoliators and everything else, although the hon. Member for Glasgow University (Sir H. Craik), was very moderate to-night—very moderate for him. What I want to say here to-night on behalf of my colleagues in Scotland, the great majority of them, on behalf of the Scottish Temperance Associations, and on behalf of the churches in Scotland, is that they want to see this Bill pass as it left the Scottish Grand Committee, and that you are not going to add this other option of disinterested management, which I believe would be an absolute and utter failure. I believe wherever it has been tried it has been anything but a success. We ask that this Bill should be passed without this option, because if it were passed with it would give the greatest dissatisfaction to every temperance reformer throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I desire to combat one or two of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. E. Wason). He stated that there is no temperance body in Scotland in favour of disinterested management. Does the right hon. Gentleman forget a deputation headed by the Lord Provost of Glasgow, which was very scurvily treated by hon. Members opposite? [Several HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] They were not listened to.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: They were received perfectly courteously, and we listened to every argument they put forward.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Then the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that there was a deputation in favour of the proposal. I do not wish to discuss the right hon. Gentleman's experiences in America. Mine were different. I was more fortunate, or perhaps I knew better where to look. I should like the Lord Advocate to tell us what view he takes upon this question. A few minutes ago he told us that he wanted to put everything into the hands of the people, and to give them absolute freedom to legislate for themselves. I said at the time that if he meant that he absolutely stultified what he said in Committee, while if he adheres to what he said in Committee he will be going back on what he gave as his only reason for giving the people the prohibition option. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Wason) is described as being in favour of placing the control of the liquor traffic in the hands of the people.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: Quite right.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Why not give them the system they want instead of forcing upon them something which they do not want? Why not trust them altogether, instead of pretending to trust them, and really not trusting them at all?
    Mr. HOGGE: Some of us have been twitted with having abandoned the position we took up in Grand Committee on the question of disinterested management, and the hon. Member for Glasgow University has expressed his surprise that he is the only Member seeking to introduce this option at this stage. All I can say is that there is a limit to attempting to extract concessions from the Government on this Bill. If I had thought for a moment that the Government would concede anything, I should have put down an Amendment on those lines, but with the Government, persisting in forcing the Bill through in the form in which it appears, practically to the very punctuation, it is obvious that we should be beating a dead horse—[Opposition cheers]—in attempting to get any further concessions from them. I do not know that we should have got any valuable concessions from hon. Members opposite, so that I do not quite understand their glee. But I do want to point out that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan has made the extraordinary plea that the reason the Bill should remain as it is is because all the temperance bodies in Scotland insist that it should remain so. But surely this is not a Bill for temperance people! Obviously such require no Bill or legislation; they provide for themselves. What we are legislating for are altogether different classes of persons. We are legislating for the general mass of people, and I have yet to learn as a Scotsman that the proportion of people attached to temperance societies in Scotland is of such a nature that they can intimidate this House of Commons, or any Member of the House.
    I do think that the great body of opinion in Scotland is being treated in a very cavalier fashion by the Government. The hon. Member for Clackmannan has said that there is no such thing as "disinterested management." I can quite believe that he believes that, because the example he gave us was that of the Cowdenbeath, which does not comply with the conditions of "disinterested management" but is alien to it. Anyone

    291
    who says that these Fifeshire examples are examples of disinterested management is not doing justice to the arguments that underlie that temperance reform which certainly has achieved marvellous success in other countries. We are told that this is a novel principle. If so, it must be because one's eyes have been deliberately shut. I believe in allowing the people of any country to have full liberty in these matters, and not being tied by legislation at all. Take the example of Cowdenbeath. In the Fifeshire district the standard of temperance is very different from that in other parts of Scotland. There are many parts of Scotland that tomorrow would put into operation advanced principles but do not because of the trouble of getting an Act of Parliament. For instance, in this particular measure we have had to put a Clause in stating that on this Bill becoming law public-houses cannot be opened before ten o clock in the morning. It is perfectly ridiculous that any local authority or community should have to come to Parliament to secure that kind of privilege. If you are able, as you ought to be under any sound scheme of reform, to liberate temperance sentiment in any community, you would get in different parts of Scotland experiments in temperance similar to those that you have obtained in those countries which are so much reviled. These would, if nothing else, give examples to the rest of the country in legislating for temperance reform. I do not want to make a long speech on this point, and I should not have risen at all, because, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow University, I think it is hopeless to press these things at this time, but for the repetition of the misrepresentations of management so frequent not only in this House, but outside it. I take the worst example most frequently recited—Gothenberg in Sweden. Gothenberg is supposed to be one of the most drunken towns in Europe, and the statistics of drunkenness are frequently quoted against those of us who advocate management. If you take the one fact that in 1868 the houses which were operated by disinterested management companies were in the ratio of one to every 1,200 of the population, and that today they are in the ratio of one to every 4,400 of the population, I say deliberately that that management, with all the evils attributed to it by its critics, which has provided one public-house to every 4,400 of the population, instead of, as in Scot-
    292
    land, one to every 440 of the population, must have something in it, and in a scheme which can bring about that reduction, which is larger than the 25 per cent, reduction you secure under your limiting resolution. Therefore, even at the last hour, if the Government would make any concession on this point, there would be some force in continuing the Debate and elaborating the argument. But I believe that time is gone, and it is no use to elaborate the argument, but certainly misrepresentation ought not to be allowed to pass, and I hope, in the few remarks I have made, I have helped to remove such misrepresentation.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not wish to discuss the principle of disinterested management or to make any attack on the principle of disinterested management, or on those who believe very strongly in it. I give them every credit for their desire for it. What we have to do with is not the principle of disinterested management, because this Bill puts no difficulty in the way of experiments being made in the direction of disinterested management. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent magistrates granting licences to public-house companies. The proposal was before the Committee, and it was discussed at great length and I think, in view of the length, it was discussed in the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh is perfectly justified in not taking up the time of the House in discussing it now. The matter was discussed for more than two days without any Closure, and the proposal was not for disinterested management pure and simple, but was a proposal to provide for a monopoly of disinterested management in particular districts. There is not the slightest reason to believe, in my judgment, that the people of Scotland are desirous of having that option. On the contrary, I had hundreds of representations from all parts of England and Scotland that to insert that option in the Bill would interfere with the exercise of the other options in the Bill, and that in particular it could be proved to demonstration that it would interfere with the option of reduction which I regard as most valuable, and likely to be most frequently availed of. Most people agree that in many parts of the country there should be reduction, and anything that would interfere with that would be generally regarded as a misfortune. There is another reason why my hon. Friend is not very anxious to support these particular proposals, because the

    293
    proposals put forward by hon. Members opposite are very different to the proposals put forward by the Committee. There they proposed that the magistrates should take away the licences from individual owners and hand them over to a new company to be created under the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland, which company was not to be called upon to pay any money to the publicans. The proposal of the Unionist party is one more animated by a desire to swell an insurance fund than for disinterested management. It is proposed not that you should have disinterested management pure and simple, but that you should have a disinterested management the proceeds of which would go into the insurance fund for the benefit of the licence holders. In the Clause put forward by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs, half the profits of disinterested management are to go in perpetuity to the fund, and the other half to the fund for ten years, so that there is not much left for public objects. It is therefore rather a case of benefiting the licence holders rather than any public object. I hope we shall be united in opposing this proposal for disinterested management. I hope we shall carry this Bill in its present simple and practical form, under which we shall be able to obtain a reduction of the facilities for drinking in Scotland.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I must say a word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I take full responsibility for the Amendment standing in my name, although it was sent to me by a committee. I do not suppose that there is anyone who suggests that the licences in any area should be handed over to a public company without paying anything for the privileges they are to enjoy. I never heard of that.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Baronet has forgotten the Amendment in the Bill.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I think it was the hon. Member for Huddersfield who said he proposed to pay something to the people dispossessed, if they were going to carry on the same trade afterwards for the purpose of profit. The Secretary for Scotland makes an extraordinary statement. He is always breaking out in new places.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is useless for the hon. Member to make those charges when the Amendments are recorded in the proceedings of the Committee.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It is simply a question of whether any payment was to be made for the transfer, and hon. Members opposite intimated their desire to agree to a proposal by which they ought to pay. The right hon. Gentleman cannot ride off at a tangent as he always tries to do. I think the House ought to know the exact position of this matter. Owing to the pressure at which we were working yesterday this particular Amendment did not appear in my name at all, but in that of the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir Henry Craik). He had to leave the Committee, and I did not feel justified in putting the words down to his name without his consent, but he has assured me that if he had been able to remain long enough he would have consented to them.
    Sir C. HUNTER: In the natural course of events I should not have intervened in this Debate, considering this legislation affects only Scotland, and not my Constituency at all, but when I hear disinterested management mentioned, I may be allowed to detain the House a few minutes. Although disinterested management has certainly been tried in Scotland in one or two places in small areas, if you want any sure indication of whether disinterested management has been a success, then you must turn your attention to those countries where it has been tried in large areas, and those two countries are undoubtedly Norway and Sweden. Probably, I am the only Member in the House who happens to own property in Sweden, and I have watched the operations of disinterested management in that country on and off for the best part of twenty years. Those people who go there as tourists, who probably cannot speak one single word of the language, and who are shown just what the people of the country want them to see, come away with a wrong impression of how the principle works in that country. I can only say, from experience I have had in Sweden watching very carefully how the thing works in that country that there is nobody in that country in favour of temperance who does not believe that disinterested management has been a long step forward; and I believe if the Government are really in earnest and this is to be a temperance measure they are making a great mistake if they do not put in a Clause regarding disinterested management in the Bill. For that reason, I cordially support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I had not intended intervening in this Debate, and I do not propose to take part in the Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For a very good reason. After what took place in Committee, I at least was left with the conviction that it was perfectly hopeless to attempt to argue the question on its merits or to get a pronouncement in the Division Lobby on the merits of the question. Those who took part in the Committee stage of this Bill upstairs are perfectly well aware of the fact that the close Division which we had in connection with my Amendment in favour of a disinterested management option was not determined solely by the merits of the case, nor did the vote given against my Amendment represent only those who were opposed to it. Owing to the great pressure exercised by the Government—I will not say illegitimately exercised—through the Whips, and particularly through the Scottish Whip, several Members voted against my Amendment who assured me privately that on the merits they were in favour of it. The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) seemed to be under the impression that because I had not put down in the Order Paper the Amendment which I moved in Committee, I had therefore gone back on my convictions in response, as I gathered, to pressure from the Whips.
    Sir. H. CRAIK: I did not really say or suggest that was the case. I suppose the hon. Member had not put down the Amendment, because he was not assured of the support of hon. Members who sit on that side of the House.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I am in the recollection of the House. The hon. Member suggested I had not put down my Amendment because of orders given to me by the Whips. But the Whips are shrewd men, and I believe not one of them would think of issuing an order of that kind to me. As far as I know, no pressure of that sort has been exercised in regard to any Member on these benches. I am simply refraining from moving any Amendment again because I am absolutely satisfied from the attitude and tone of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland that however overwhelming may be the arguments for the inclusion of this option, he will not consent to it, and under the ordinary party pressure an overwhelming majority will vote against it. My views are well known, and I am quite content with having moved the Amendment in
    296
    Committee. I am satisfied that in the future the Government and all true temperance reformers in Scotland will regret that owing to the extreme pressure brought to bear by certain prohibitionist organisations in Scotland they were terrorised from including the logical development of their Bill in this form. I protest against the assumption which has received sanction from the Chairman of the Scottish Liberal Members that there is no single temperance organisation in Scotland behind this proposal. The Temperance Legislation Beard is one of the most influential bodies there. It includes Prohibitionists, Reductionists, and men who take most moderate views on licensing questions That body has done its best to induce the Government to include the option of disinterested management in this Bill, and the Prime Minister has to-day received a memorial bearing the signatures of most representative men in Scotland in favour of including this principle—a more numerous and more representative body than petitioned against it. It is the fact that the Established Church has for many years past by overwhelming majorities, and even unanimously in its annual assemblies, passed resolutions in favour of the inclusion of this option. The memorial presented to the Prime Minister to-day includes influential signatures of representatives of the Churches in Scotland, trades councils, and representative men in all walks of thought and life.
    I have here a copy of a Bill introduced in this House in 1898 and reintroduced in 1899—a threefold option Bill, one of the options being that of disinterested management. It was backed by representatives of all parties in this House and in each year it bears the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate. Therefore, to suggest that this is a novel proposal is simply to disguise the true facts, which are familiar to students of this question. I to-night still await an answer to the question how such an option can be refused in face of the grounds on which the proposals in this part of the Bill are based. Here you have the recognition of the right of local self-government—of the right of the people to determine this matter for themselves. If you assent to that principle, how can you withhold the further liberty of bringing all the licences in an area under disinterested management? It seems to me that that is the logical and inevitable development of your principle

    297
    of local self-government which is the basic this principle in your own Bill. The Secretary for Scotland says there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the licensing justices handing over an individual licence to a public-house trust. But we had this question threshed out upstairs on a proposal for a condition of things which would allow complete and proper demonstration of the disinterested management system. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest you can prove the merits of disinterested management if you have but one house under such management and 200 or 300 competing houses under private management? The standard of the privately conducted houses will determine the standard in that individual case, and unless you have a complete monopoly of the public-houses in a particular area you cannot expect anything like a satisfactory demonstration of all the possibilities of disinterested management. The right hon. Gentleman just now informed the House that he objected to the inclusion of this option, because, in his judgment, it would hinder reduction. Does not the right hon. Gentleman know the historical results of disinterested management? My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) stated or hinted at them just now. Disinterested management has proved itself to be the greatest power in aid of that reduction of licences which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to bring about. It has been tried in Norway and Sweden, where you have a far greater measure of reduction than the right hon. Gentleman will secure under the provisions of his Bill, and if you do secure a satisfactory scheme of disinterested management you will not require the option the right hon. Gentleman proposes, the option of reduction. I sincerely deplore that, under the pressure of certain estimable but over-zealous organisations, which are not content to get their own proposals embodied in the Bill, but are even more eager to exclude the proposals of those who are equally desirous as themselves of securing temperance reform—of organisations, which however influential and however excellent may be their work and objects, in no way represent the majority of those in Scotland who desire temperance reform, the Government have refused this Amendment. I have addressed, perhaps, more representative public meetings in Scotland during the last ten years than any Scottish representative on
    298
    this side of the House or any of hon. Friends around me. I have never met with a case where in a large meeting there were more than from three to six dissentients from the proposal to include disinterested management in a Bill like this. I only wish to say I shall not vote, as I did not move, simply because I am content to let the Government take the responsibility for the Bill as it will leave this House. I am not satisfied with the Bill. I believe that the Government have taken the line of unwisdom in hardening their hearts against every Amendment, whatever the merits of or arguments for those Amendments might be, and I believe the Government will live to regret the day when they exhibited the spirit which has been exhibited, both in Committee and on Report by the Secretary for Scotland.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Whatever may be the result of this Bill, it will have an educational result in Scotland. I think it will show that the taunt addressed to us on this side of the House that because we oppose this Bill we are not friends of temperance may be equally applied to many of the best friends of temperance on the Government side of the House. I confess for my part that I do not understand how the Government have taken up their line. The Secretary for Scotland lays down an extraordinary principle. He says that because this question had been discussed upstairs it is not to be discussed here.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I never said so.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: He said something uncommonly like it. He said it is not necessary to discuss a question in the House on Report because it was very fully discussed upstairs.
    Mr. McKINNON WOODindicated dissent.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: We had two days upstairs, and we are not to get two hours downstairs. That is the policy of the Government. Send things upstairs where they can be discussed for two days, but for Heaven's sake do not discuss them in the House of Commons. I do not wonder, because when we get speeches from his own supporters, like the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge), and the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell), the less discussion-there is downstairs the better for the Government. They are loyal to their

    299
    party. They express their opinions but then they say they will not vote. This, after all, is a Bill to promote temperance—as if temperance were confined to drinking. The intemperance of temperance societies and all those who support them is worse to my mind than intemperance for over-indulgence in alcohol. That is the position the Government are taking up, and on this question of disinterested management I desire to express my entire agreement with what the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) has said.
    All of us remember two or three years ago, when this threefold option measure was introduced, it had an amount of support from all the best friends of temperance—I do not say the most extreme but the best friends of temperance—in Scotland that no other proposal has ever had as far as my experience goes. I do not know whether my name was on it or not, but I am quite glad to hear that the Lord Advocate's name was there because I am quite sure he would not support anything which was not in favour of true temperance reform. It has been said to-day that this proposal is a novel thing that we never heard of before. It is written in the records of temperance reformers in Scotland as one of the best things they desire, and so far as I am concerned I receive more representations from a larger number of the best representative men, not party men at all, in favour of disinterested management than on any other subject. I do not know that the trade like it. That is not the point. I believe probably the trade do not like it. But we are twitted on this side of the House with being the protagonists of the trade. We are nothing of the kind. We want to get a good, workable temperance Bill, and we on our side have done more to do that than you on the other side have done in the last fifty years. You have made up your minds that you will have this Bill as passed in Committee upstairs without the change even of a comma. You are running the risk of losing your Bill altogether.
    Earl WINTERTON: And their seats.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: They do not care for seats. By-elections do not count
    with them. I think the result will be, as the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) said, that this is a dead horse, and what do you do with a dead horse? You send it to the dogs, and that is where you are going to send your Bill. That is the result of this absolute refusal to consider, not as we say but as your friends and supporters say, the merits of Amendments and the weight of the arguments submitted. The Bill and nothing but the Bill, whatever the arguments or whatever the weight of the Amendments be. If that be your policy, in my judgment you are doing the very best thing you can to wreck your Bill and to prevent real temperance reform. Not only because of my own convictions on the subject, but because of the enormous number of representations I have received from those in Scotland who really have temperance reform at heart, and do not allow their wits to be led astray by the extreme views of extreme temperance people, representations which agree with my own considered opinion. I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that the trade did not like this Amendment, but if that is so, they are supporting it. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well the great advantage in an election of introducing a vote splitting issue, and having a split contest. If you introduce a fourth and vote splitting issue, you are going to remove the possibility of carrying any other issue. You require sixty out of 100 to carry "no licence." The hon. Member for Huddersfield said you could not discuss this Amendment on its merits or vote on its merits. I admit that you cannot. The Bill will be killed if that issue is introduced. A great many Members on this side of the House, irrespective of their views on disinterested management, are supporting the Bill as it stands because, if the Amendment were introduced, it would do away with the possibility of carrying the "no licence" issue at all.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 222.

    Division No. 219.]

    AYES.

    [11.30 p.m.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Ashley, W W.

    Barnston, Harry

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Baird, J. L.

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Butcher, John George

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Campion, W. R.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Cassel, Felix

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cator, John

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Stanier, Beville

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Starkey, John R.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sutton, John E.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Croft, H. P.

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fell, Arthur

    O'Grady, James

    Winterton, Earl

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Forster, Henry William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Goldman, C. S.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Younger, Sir George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Grant, James Augustus

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Henry Craik and Mr. Mackinder.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Field, William

    Logan, John William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Adamson, William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lundon, T.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Furness, Stephen

    Lynch, A. A.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Geider, Sir W. A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    McGhee, Richard

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Gill, A. H.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon, Dr. T. J.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Glanville, H. J.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Boland, John Pius

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hackett, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Brace, William

    Hancock, J. G.

    Meagher, Michael

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Molloy, M.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Carr-Gomm. H. W.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mooney, John J.

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Hayward, Evan

    Morison, Hector

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Morton, Atpheus Cleophas

    Clough, William

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Muldoon, John

    Clynes, John R.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Munro, R.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hinds, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hodge, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Cullinan, John

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Dowd, John

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Delany, William

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    O'Shee, James John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Doris, W.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Keating, M.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Kelly, Edward

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    King, J.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Radford, G. H.

    Falconer, J.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Reddy, Michael

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    302

    303

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Richards, Thomas

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Rowlands, James

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Winfrey, Richard

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Sheehy, David

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a) to leave out the words "three-fifths" ["if three-fifths at least in number"], and to insert instead thereof the words "two-thirds."
    I submit this Amendment, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend (Captain Gilmour), who is absent, because I think it is only right that this kind of resolution should not be carried by a small percentage of the electors. Although there is a provision that thirty per cent, of the electors should vote before a resolution can be carried, that is really a very small percentage of the population who will be affected by it. In seven or eight cities of Scotland thirty per cent, of the electors only represents five per cent, of the population, and if you take a population of 20,000, it represents only nine per cent. I submit that five per cent, or nine per cent, of the population should not be able to carry the resolution. It is perfectly true that Viscount Peel thought there might possibly be local option for Scotland, but he suggested that three-fourths of the electors on the roll ought to vote for a no-licence area. That was his well-considered public proposal. I think it is not an extreme thing to ask that instead of three-fifths a two-thirds majority should be required. I have no confidence that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, but it is necessary that it should be discussed in this House for various reasons.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Bill as it stands provides that 201 people are sufficient to destroy the vote of 300; in other words you have to get a majority of fifty per cent. more. That is a very onerous obligation, and when you have the proviso that the majority must consist of thirty per cent of the electors it is perfectly clear that if there is any large proportion of the electors who are opposed to
    304
    the exercise of the veto you must have a very large majority numerically in order to carry the resolution. I submit that the interests of the trade are sufficiently safeguarded in the concessions that have been made after repeated discussions, and they are really sufficient to meet all reasonable demands.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not quite follow the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. I could not attend the whole of the Debate but I have attended a good half of it, and I am bound to say, whenever I have heard the right hon. Gentleman I have never been able to follow the argument he has presented. I do not follow his argument on this occasion either. He regards this merely as a protection to the trade. So far as I am concerned, I do not care a button about the trade except that I desire to do justice to everybody. My concern is the people who desire to resist the "no-licence" resolution. To my mind the great thing is to secure that there shall be no oppression on any considerable minority in that matter. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the precautions and safeguards are inserted for the protection of the trade that is not the point at all. The question that the House has got to consider is whether three-fifths or two-thirds is the more reasonable figure for the protection of the minority who desire to resist a "no-licence" resolution. I must say, considering that we are trying the plan for the first time and that you cannot in the least tell how it is going to work, and owing to the conditions of society in the country I should have thought a majority of two to one would not be an unreasonable one to suggest. It depends on what value you attach to liberty and to drinking. I personally have always felt that liberty is always a more valuable quality than sobriety. I still hold that view. I think it is more valuable from the point of view of the State, and far more valuable from

    305
    the point of view of the individual. I do not think compulsory sobriety is of any greater value than compulsory thrift. I believe in none of those compulsory virtues. Therefore my view is that the great thing is to secure liberty. I think two-thirds is more reasonable than three-fifths, and if my hon. Friend presses the Amendment to a division, I shall certainly support him in the Lobby.
    Mr. HARRY HOPE: I think the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland will be a great surprise to the people of Scotland. We are here asked to sanction prohibition being introduced into the licensing system of Scotland. I do not think there is any proposal which would go more against the grain of the Scottish people than prohibition. The only chance of it working smoothly and successfully is
    if moderation is exercised in the working of it. In Canada, in Saskatchewan, and in Manitoba, three-fifths of the electorate are required before prohibition can be carried. The people of Scotland will resent the proposal unless the majority in favour of prohibition is really equitable. We know that in municipal elections only some fifty per cent, of the electors vote. If, in a town or district where there are 1,000 voters, only 500 vote, by this Clause if 300 out of the 500 vote for prohibition, you will have 300 dictating to 700. Such a proposal is too drastic, and can never work smoothly. Therefore I shall support, the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the word 'three-fifths' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 63.

    Division No. 220.]

    AYES.

    [11.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Adamson, William

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Armitage, Robert

    Falconer, J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Arnold, Sydney

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Keating, M.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Kelly, Edward

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Ffrench, Peter

    King, J.

    Barnes, George N.

    Field, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Furness, Stephen

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Black, Arthur W.

    Gill, A. H.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Boland, John Pius

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Glanville, H. J.

    Lundon, T.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Goldstone, Frank

    MacGhee, Richard

    Brace, William

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Gulland, John William

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hackett, J.

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hancock, J. G.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

    Meagher, Michael

    Clancy, J. Joseph

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Clough, William

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Clynes, John R.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock).

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Mooney, J. J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morison, Hector

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hayward, Evan

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hazleton, Richard

    Muldoon, John

    Cowan, W. H.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Munro, R.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Cullinan, John

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nolan, Joseph

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Hinds, John

    O'Brien, Patrick Kilkenny

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hodge, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Delany, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Doris, W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Dowd, John

    Duffy, William J.

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    O'Shee, James John

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Rowlands, James

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.

    Webb, H.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Sheehy, David

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Radford, G. H.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Whyte, A. F.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Reddy, Michael

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Richards, Thomas

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. William Jones.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Roch, Walter F.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    NOES.

    Ashley, Wilfrid

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Baird, J. L.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Croft, H. P.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barnston, Harry

    Forster, Henry William

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Goulding, E. A.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Grant, J. A.

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Gretton, John

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Campion, W. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cassel, Felix

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cator, John

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir G. Younger and Mr. H. Hope.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Mr. HARRY HOPE: I beg to move in Sub-section (3), paragraph (a), to leave out the word "thirty" ["and not less than thirty per cent, of the electors"] and to insert instead thereof the word "forty."
    I move this Amendment in order to ensure that the vote in favour of the "no-licence" resolution should coincide with the real wishes of the community. This legislation can only be a success if we make certain that the real wishes of the people are accurately interpreted and not that any well organised minority can impose its will upon a district or a town.
    Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not think the House fully realises the very small number of persons who can inflict their will upon the people in Scotland under this Bill. Three-fifths of thirty per cent., or eighteen people out of every hundred, can declare a particular area that was wet to be dry. In no country more than Scotland would such changes as are proposed by this
    308
    Bill be felt more seriously by the people. In the polling districts of Scotland the people are subject to many difficulties. I see by Clause 4 that elections cannot be held before November. In the outlying islands bad weather would prevent many people coming in, and well organised minorities might interfere with the will of the majority. This Government always object to minority rule. They objected to it in Midlothian and in Oldham, and they do not believe in it in Ulster, but under this Bill well organised minorities could easily impose their will upon the majorities.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment is under a complete misapprehension as to the provisions of the Bill. It is impossible for eighteen per cent, of the electors to carry any resolution. It is not a question of three-fifths of thirty per cent.; it is a question of a majority of three-fifths of those voting who must be thirty per cent., not of those voting, but of

    309
    the electors upon the roll. So that eighteen per cent, of the electors could not carry anything. The hon. Member is therefore under an entire misapprehension, and a misapprehension which I have seen repeated again and again. I cannot understand how anyone could read the Bill and come to that conclusion. With regard to the hon. Member's point as to the difficulty of people coming to poll, I would remind him that under this Bill small districts
    have been decided on, and in small districts there could not be any such difficulty except in very scattered districts. The hon. Member is thinking of Parliamentary elections with big constituencies and large distances to be travelled. That would not occur under this Bill.
    Question put, "That the word 'thirty' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 62.

    Division No. 221.]

    AYES.

    [12.3 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Mooney, John J.

    Adamson, William

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morison, Hector

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Griffith, Ellis James

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Armitage, Robert

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Arnold, Sydney

    Gulland, John William

    Munro, Robert

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Hackett, J.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Barnes, George N.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hancock, John George

    Nolan, Joseph

    Beck, Arthur

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Boland, John Pius

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Shee, James John

    Brace, William

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hinds, John

    Pirie, Duncan Vernon

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hodge, John

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Clough, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Radford, George Heynes

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Heddy, Michael

    Cotton, William Francis

    John, Edward Thomas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cullinan, J.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Richards, Thomas

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Jones, W. S, Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Keating, Matthew

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Delany, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Kelly, Edward

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    King, Joseph

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Doris, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rowlands, James

    Duffy, William J.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm't)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. C. E.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Sheehy, David

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Falconer, J.

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Sutton, John E.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Ffrench, Peter

    McGhee, Richard

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Furness, Stephen W.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gill, A. H.

    Meagher, Michael

    Wadsworth, John

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Millar, James Dunstan

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Goddard, sir Daniel Ford

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Webb, H.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. William Jones.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Williamson, Sir A.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Winfrey, Richard

    NOES.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Croft, Henry Page

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Barnston, H.

    Forster, Henry William

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Grant, J. A.

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby),

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gretton, John

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Stanier, Beville

    Campion, W. R.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cassel, Felix

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Cator, John

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Younger, Sir George

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Lewisham, viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Harry Hope and Mr. Stewart.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), paragraph (c), leave out the word "such" ["such resolution shall"] and insert instead thereof the words, "or if no other resolution is carried a no-change" ["resolution shall be deemed to be carried."]—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
    Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4).
    The effect of the words which it is proposed to omit is to give double weight to the extremists. The chief, in fact the only, reason advanced against the disinterested management option was that it would complicate the issue. Here we have ingenuity exercised for the sake of the extremists—while for the sake of the moderate experimental temperance reformer we have no such ingenuity exercised. If that were an honest objection to the inclusion of the disinterested management Clause I venture to say it could be got over here, but as it is not included we object to giving double weight to the extremists.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to second the Amendment. If hon. Members will take the trouble to read the Clause, they will see that if the "no-licence" resolution be not carried the votes recorded in favour of such resolution are to be added to those recorded in favour of the limiting resolution and are to be deemed to have been recorded in favour thereof. From this it seems the extremists
    312
    want to have their cake and to eat it too. I cannot understand why the Secretary for Scotland should put in a Clause which certainly would not be accepted in any other connection. It certainly would not be allowed in the case of an ordinary club—it would not be agreed to give certain members two votes because one was not enough for their purpose. It certainly does not accord with what I consider to be the true spirit of Liberalism, and it appears to me that in dealing with this Bill hon. Members opposite are doing all they can to prevent the spread of temperance. They do not in fact appear to want the Bill to pass: they desire that the House of Lords should throw it out so that they may have something to cry about when they go to the country later on. It seems absurd that teetotal men like hon. Gentlemen opposite, to whom the word "drink" is anathema and absolutely wicked, are going to place themselves in the position of voting for drink if a "no-licence" resolution is not passed. They may declare that they are doing nothing of the kind, but the fact remains that if a "no-licence" resolution is not passed their votes are to go for drink.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: No.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: In the first place they are voting for prohibition, and if that is not carried they will not be content with being beaten: they cannot take their licking like anybody else, but they seek

    313
    to secure an unfair advantage and to get double weight for their votes. Surely that would not be correct or honest according to the ordinary canons of voting. I cannot see why a man should have two votes. We hear a great deal about one man one vote, and a good deal of cant about the fairness of that, but when it comes to one man one vote here, it has got to be loaded in favour of the extremists who control the Secretary for Scotland and this Bill.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is a curious thing that this was not discovered in Committee.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I put it down myself.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The Chairman misunderstood us, or rather we misunderstood the Chairman, and he took the next Clause without our realising what was being done.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I did put it down.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I quite accept that explanation. The point is this: Instead of having two polls, it is reasonable to assume that if a voter is in favour of all licences in a district being taken away, he is in favour of a certain number being taken away.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that a prohibitionist is in favour of drink?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not see the point of that interruption. All the descriptions of this Clause seem to me to have no relevance to the Clause at all. What the Clause says is, that if you have a certain number of people in favour of doing away with all the licences in the district, it is reasonable to suppose they are also in favour of doing away with twenty-five per cent., and if there are not enough of them to do away with all the licences in the district—which we have seen requires a very large majority—there is no reason why their desire to effect a reduction of licences should not have effect and be counted to that end. It is a simple proposition. There is no monstrosity, or enormousness, or unfairness, or double voting about it. It is merely preventing the necessity of having two polls, and that is a principle to which no one can fairly take exception.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 55.

    Division No. 222.]

    AYES.

    [12.20 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Adamson, William

    Delany, William

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Armitage, R.

    Doris, W.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Arnold, Sydney

    Duffy, William J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hayward, Evan

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Barnes, George N.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durnam)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Black, Arthur W.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Boland, John Pius

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hinds, John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Hedge, John

    Bowerman, c. W.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Hogge, James Myles

    Boyle, D. (Mayo N.)

    Falconer, J.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Brace, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Brady, P. J.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Ffrench, Peter

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    John, Edward Thomas

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Furness, Stephen

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Geider, Sir W. A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Gill, A. H.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushclifle)

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Glanville, H. J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Clough, William

    Goldstone, Frank

    Keating, Matthew

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Kelly, Edward

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gulland, John William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hackett, J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Cullinan, J.

    Hancock, J. G.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    O'Shee, James John

    Sutton, John E.

    Lundon, T.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Verney, Sir Harry

    McGhee, Richard

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wadsworth, J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Radford, G. H.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Meagher, Michael

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Reddy, Michael

    Watt, Henry A.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Webb, H.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Rendall, Atheistan

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradestonh

    Mooney, J. J.

    Richards, Thomas

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Morison, Hector

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Muldoon, John

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Munro, R.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Rowlands, James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Nolan, Joseph

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Young, W. (Perthshire, East)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. William.

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Jones

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    NOES.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Baird, J. L.

    Croft, H. P.

    Rawlinson, J. F. P.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Barnston, Harry

    Forster, Henry William

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gretton, John

    Stanier, Beville

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Campion, W. R.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Cassel, Felix

    Hohler, G. Fitzroy

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Cator, John

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Younger, Sir George

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lewisham, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mackinder and Marquess of Tullibardine.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Effect of Resolutions if Carried.)
    (1) For the period during which a no-licence resolution remains in force in any area, no certificate shall be granted therein; except that the licensing court may, on being satisfied that under the special circumstances of the case any certificate is reasonably required notwithstanding the fact that a no-licence resolution is in force in the area, grant a certificate for an inn and hotel: Provided that any such certificate shall be deemed to include the condition 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
    316
    retail only and to none but persons lodging or residing in the inn and hotel, or taking a meal on the premises, for consumption with such meal.
    (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 75 per cent, of the number of certificates granted at the date at which such resolution is carried.
    (3) If a limiting resolution is carried the licensing court shall, before the first day of February following the poll, meet,

    317
    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 withdrawal of whose certificates is proposed for consideration as hereinafter mentioned, and every scheme prepared as aforesaid shall be advertised by the clerk to the licensing court in a newspaper circulating in the area, and shall be open to the inspection of the public for three weeks before the first day of March following the poll, at a place to be stated in the advertisement.
    (4) Before the general half-yearly meeting of the licensing court held in April, the licensing court shall meet for the purpose of hearing the parties interested in the said scheme and adjusting the said scheme for consideration at the said April meeting, at which the parties interested in the scheme so adjusted shall be entitled to be heard.
    (5) The decision of the licensing court in refusing or reducing certificates in pursuance of a no-licencc resolution or of a limiting resolution shall not be subject to appeal.
    (6) It shall not be competent for a member of a licensing court to sign a requisition for a poll under this Act.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) after the word "hotel" ["grant a certificate for an inn and hotel"], to insert the words "or a restaurant as hereinafter defined." I find from the Notice Paper that the Secretary for Scotland is going to move an Amendment on this Sub-section, but I move this Amendment because it appears to meet the case better. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman has a definition by implication in the Finance Act of 1909–10, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) considers that there is a hard case to be met which will render it somewhat difficult for him to accept the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland in the form in which it is to be moved. I may indicate what the case is. You might easily have a sale of liquor which in relation to the drawings from the sale of provisions exceeded by a single pound the limit allowed without the man knowing it. In that case the restaurant ceases to be a restaurant. That is a hard case which will have to be argued.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot accept these words because they refer to a restaurant of a particular kind. I have reason to believe that this Amendment would not be nearly so acceptable as my own Amendment. I hope the hon. Member will not press it under the circumstances. My Amendment is similar to that put down by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) who has been rather happy to-day in obtaining concessions from the Government.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The difficulty to my mind is in regard to the definition later on. This week I had brought to my notice a very hard case as to a hotel licence. The man has always paid the hotel licence, and this year he finds that his drawings for the sale of liquor are £1 over the limit allowed by the definition. It would be hard if for that reason he should be prevented from getting a renewal of his licence.
    Mr. McKINNON WOODindicated dissent.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: There is no use of the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. It seems to me that it would be a difficult thing to restrict it in the way proposed, and therefore it would not be satisfactory to anybody.
    Mr. GRETTON: I desire to support what the hon. Baronet has said in reference to this matter. The definition of "restaurant" is laid down by law. Does the Secretary for Scotland propose to set up something new, or is he going to deal with the law as it stands as regards this definition? If he is going to set up a new definition, then I submit we ought to know what that definition is, so that those Members who have knowledge and experience of the matter can state their opinions and help the House to come to a right decision. It is quite useless when in these discussions the right hon. Gentleman gets up without special knowledge and denies what has been said by the right hon. Baronet, who speaks with knowledge in matters of this kind.
    Mr. MACKINDER: We have made our protest in regard to the matter, and in view of the lateness of the hour, I shall not press my Amendment to a division. I beg leave, therefore, to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "hotel" ["a certificate for an inn and hotel"], and insert

    319
    instead thereof the words "or for premises structurally adapted for use and bonâ fide used or to be used as a restaurant."
    Leave out the word "such" ["Provided that any such certificate."].
    After the word "certificate" ["certificate shall be deemed to include "J insert the words "so granted."
    Leave out the word "condition" ["include the condition that there shall be"] and insert instead thereof the word "conditions."
    After the word "premises" ["taking a meal on the premises"] insert the words "of the restaurant or (if the court so sanction) of the inn and hotel."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words "and provided further that it shall be a condition of the renewal of any such certificate that the applicant shall satisfy the court that he is entitled to a reduction of duty in terms of Section 45 of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910."
    Perhaps I ought to say a word or two on this Amendment, as it deals with a point made by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Younger) a few minutes ago. Of course, the contention that is likely to be raised is that this Clause, while closing public-houses on the one hand, permits the opening of another kind of drinking house on the other; but the proviso which I am now moving will go far, I think, to meet anything that is legitimate in that objection. Although, of course, there may be exceptional cases where the limit is nearly reached, still, I think we are entitled to provide that a restaurant should be bonâ fide a place for the provision of meals, and not a place in which the provision of meals is a small matter in the business as compared with the supplying of intoxicating drink. Therefore T think I must ask hon. Members opposite to take the Clause and to rest content with the objection they have raised against it. There may be cases on the margin; there almost must be where you have an arrangement of this sort. I do not think the provisions of the Finance Act are unreasonable in themselves. The matter has been fairly provided for, and I do not think, after giving the matter careful consideration, that you can improve the Clause by making an alteration in it. It meets the views of the restaurant
    320
    keepers and is approved, I believe, by those interested in temperance.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: On behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, may I say that we are quite willing to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he has given the matter consideration, but we do not know that he has provided a complete solution of the difficulty. Under the circumstances we shall take his proposal subject to the reservation that it must be reconsidered if necessary elsewhere, because we shall not have another opportunity of dealing with the matter in this House.
    Sir CHARLES HUNTER: I beg to move, after the Amendment last made, to insert the words,
    "Nothing in this Act shall preclude the grant in any area of a certificate for the sale of exciseable liquors under an Excise licence to the occupier of a railway refreshment room, provided that if such certificate be granted for a refreshment room situate within a 'no-licence' area there shall be contained therein a condition that exciseable liquors shall not be sold except to persons arriving or departing by train."
    I think a great many hon. Members will agree that railway station refreshment rooms come under quite a different category from the ordinary establishments where drink may be sold. Railway refreshment rooms cater for the general public rather than for the people who reside in the actual district in which they are situated. Moreover the refreshment rooms in railway stations are exceedingly well managed. It is to the interest of railway companies to see that these places are thoroughly well looked after, and it is very rarely indeed that a case of drunkenness can be traced to drink supplied at a railway refreshment room. I would also point out that if in a "no-licence" area it is imposible to obtain drink in a refreshment room on a railway station a very great hardship will be inflicted on working men.
    This will be the case particularly where men have been working on a night shift and come back by an early train in the morning. They take their meals at different times from other people. What is their dinner time is very often our breakfast time and what is their breakfast time is our dinner time. Certainly it would be a hardship if those men were not able to obtain a drink when coming off work.

    321
    Moreover, I do not think the adoption of any Amendment would in any way tend in the direction of promoting intemperance. On the contrary I think it would have the opposite tendency, because people travelling by railway and going on a long journey would be perfectly well aware that they could get refreshment before starting, and therefore would buy liquor in large quantities to take with them on the journey. It it all very well to say that nowadays we have restaurant cars on most long-distance-trains; the fact is the majority of people who travel are not able to afford to use the restaurant cars. They have to depend either on refreshments which they carry with them and on those which they can obtain at refreshment rooms. Taking all these circumstances into account, I think the House will agree that this is a very fair Amendment, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Government cannot accept this Amendment, because it would lead to evasion—in fact, I do not think it would be possible to provide against evasion taking place. Another objection to the Amendment, as far as I undestand it, is that it would take the question of licensing these refreshment bars out of the licensing court. Those are two very strong objections. It is exactly the same case as was dealt with when Sunday closing in Scotland was under consideration, and the House of Commons of the day exempted railway refreshment bars; but in the House of Lords the Secretary for Scotland said he could not see his way to accept that, and put in a provision which made Sunday closing applicable to railway bars, on the very ground I am putting forward—that it is perfectly possible to make these drinking bars.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: What Secretary for Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It was passed long before his day.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This was in the year 1903. I believe the House will see that it is perfectly impossible to let people in crowded places like Glasgow or Dundee have access to drinking bars in the manner proposed. Of course the
    322
    restaurant provisions will meet the case to some extent, though I admit they will not meet the case of drinking bars at railway stations; but I do not see how it is possible to meet that in a prohibition area without giving away the effect of the option.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the Secretary for Scotland look at Sub-section 1 of Clause 3, in which permission is given to supply alcoholic liquor to persons taking a meal on the premises of hotels in "no-licence" areas? What would happen in the case of a person taking a meal in a restaurant in a "no-licence" area? Would he be entitled to have liquor with his meal?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the refreshment really came within the definition provided by this Clause, there would be no objection to it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2) leave out the word "granted" ["the number of certificates granted"], and insert instead thereof the words "in force."
    In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "withdrawal of whose certificates is proposed for consideration as hereinafter mentioned," and insert instead thereof the words "certificates of which the court propose to withdraw."
    After the word "shall" ["every scheme prepared as aforesaid shall"] insert the word "forthwith."
    In Sub-section (4) leave out the words "at which the parties interested in the scheme so adjusted shall be entitled to be heard," and insert instead thereof the words "and the licensing court shall at that meeting or at any adjournment thereof take the scheme so adjusted into consideration, and after hearing parties interested therein, so far as not already heard, and, if they modify the scheme, after hearing parties interested in any modification, shall decide upon the certificates to be withdrawn."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow (Wednesday).
    And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Thirteen minutes before One a.m., Wednesday, 9th October, 1912.

  Indian Educational Service.
  Indian Educational Service.

Preamble
The Viscount GLADSTONE—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Order applicable to the following Bill has been complied with:

London Institution (Transfer).

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations, dated 9th September, 1912, made by the Insurance Commissioners, the Irish Insurance Commissioners and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Naval and Military Forces) (Time Limits) Regulations, 1912;
2. Provisional Regulations, dated 19th September, 1912, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Married Women's Special Benefits) Regulations, 1912;
3. Provisional Regulations, dated 1st day of October, 1912, made by the Joint Committee acting jointly with the Insurance Commissioners and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, and Regulations made by the Joint Committee acting jointly with the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health insurance (Administration of Medical Benefit) Regulations, 1912:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 148.)

THE WAR IN THE BALKANS.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have given the noble Marquess who leads the House private notice that I would ask him whether he was able to give us any information with regard to the most recent phase of the situation in South-Eastern Europe. We have, of course, all of us had an opportunity of considering the statement made last night in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a statement which, if I may be allowed to say so, seemed to me to be as satisfactory as the circumstances could possibly permit. But that statement was of necessity couched in very general terms. We gather from it that the Great Powers are intent upon doing all that is possible to avoid a breach of the peace. But it is stated this afternoon in the streets that war has actually been declared. I dare say the noble Marquess will be able to tell us how far that is the case or not. We also gathered from Sir Edward Grey's statement that the Powers intend to press for the introduction of administrative reforms in Macedonia, and also that the Turkish Government admits the necessity of such reforms.
816
That, my Lords, is very satisfactory, but of course the difficulties commence when you begin to consider what the reforms shall be and what guarantees shall be taken for their execution. Of course, we cannot expect the noble Marquess to give us details upon a point of this kind, but he may, perhaps, be able to tell us whether it is the case that the reforms under discussion are to be based on Article XXIII of the Treaty of Berlin, and more particularly whether they are to be in general accordance with the scheme of reforms proposed by the International Commission for the reorganisation of Turkey and Crete—a scheme which is generally referred to as the Statute for Eastern Roumelia. We remember the circumstances in which that Statute was produced, and in which it unfortunately became completely abortive. The House will be grateful for any words of explanation which the noble Marquess sees his way to give us upon any of these points.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I shall, of course, be glad to give the House all the information it is in my power to give, though I am not able to add much to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons yesterday, a statement which I have no doubt is within the knowledge of your Lordships. My right hon. friend stated that two questions were before the Great Powers of Europe. In the first place they desired that peace in the Balkans should, if possible, be maintained, and with a view of impressing on the Balkan States the sentiments entertained by the Powers the two Great Powers most particularly concerned—namely, Austria-Hungary and Russia—were to make, and presumably have made, representations to the Balkan States on lines agreed upon by all the Great Powers. Those representations were to the effect, in the first place, that the necessity for the introduction of reforms would be seriously impressed upon Turkey by the Powers. The second point was this, that in no circumstances would the Great Powers agree to any change in the status quo in the South-East of Europe. Now, we are told to-day that a breach of the peace has already taken place, that there has been fighting on the Montenegrin frontier, and for a time it did not seem to be certain—we had no information—

817
as to whether this was the beginning of an actual state of war or whether it arose out of one of those frontier incidents which, as your Lordships are aware, have not infrequently occurred on those disturbed frontiers. But I am sorry to say that we have this afternoon received information that the fighting on that frontier is a sequel to a Note presented by the Montenegrin Chargé d' Affaires at Constantinople involving what was tantamount to a Declaration of War. Then as regards the latter part of the noble Marquess's question, it was agreed that at Constantinople identical communications should be made by the representatives of the different Powers in respect of reforms to be instituted by Turkey in the European Provinces; and, in reply to the particular point raised by the noble Marquess, it is clearly intended that the basis of discussion, the starting point from which the discussion between Turkey and the Powers will take place, will be Article XXIII and the Law of 1880, to which the noble Marquess has alluded—that is to say, it is intended that the reforms should be carried out in the spirit of those two instruments. It is also clearly stated at the same time that the reforms shall be carried out without infraction of the territorial sovereignty of Turkey. The one feature which, I think, we can all regard as encouraging in a situation of great stress and anxiety is the accord which has been arrived at and is being maintained between the Great Powers with regard to the representations which they are unitedly prepared to make.

LONDON INSTITUTION (TRANSFER) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, this Bill is one which I think I may say has very cordial support from both sides of the House. With the Eastern Hemisphere of the world this country has very extensive relations, far more extensive than those of any other Power. We trade with some 600,000,000 of people who speak Eastern languages, and our trade with them amounts to well over £200,000,000. Besides that we have relations with them of different kinds—not trade relations—which involve on the part of our diplo-
818
matists, our soldiers, and our sailors a knowledge of various Oriental languages. While this is so the country has done very little indeed to meet the necessity of giving opportunities to those who will be engaged in these relations of acquiring these Oriental languages. In Berlin, where the relations to the Eastern Hemisphere are less than with us, the State spends £10,000 a year; in Paris about £7,000 is spent; while we spend almost nothing, and of what we do spend very little comes from the State.
In these circumstances the attention of the Government was called to what really amounted to nothing less than an evil, and it was resolved some time ago to see how it could best be dealt with. To that end a Committee was appointed by the India Office, under the presidency of Lord Reay, and, in 1909, that Committee reported on the desirability of founding a school in London which should devote itself exclusively to instruction in Oriental languages. Following upon that a very important Committee was appointed to consider the best way in which the scheme brought forward by Lord Reay's Committee could be put into practice. Lord Cromer, I think, was chairman of that Committee, and the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, was also a member. The second Committee reported in favour of what seems to the Government to be a very practical scheme, and upon that scheme steps have been taken.
The design is to found a School of Oriental Languages, which may be available not only for commercial men but for those who require the other kinds of training to which I have referred. It seemed desirable, if possible, that the school should be placed in the City of London, where those who required that training might find it more easily available. In the City of London there exists an old institution called the London Institution. It is one of those organisations which belong more to the Victorian period than to the period of to-day. It was founded for the purpose of giving lectures and providing a library, reading rooms and a place of study. The shareholders of that institution, taking a very public-spirited view of the desirability of utilising it for national purposes, were willing to take a step forward, and, subject to certain arrangements for their existing members which would give them access to the building, they expressed their willingness that the Government should

819
take their building over and remodel it for the purpose of the new School of Oriental Studies.
With this view an arrangement has been come to between the Treasury and the London Institution under which a large sum is to be spent on remodelling the building, and under which a very substantial grant of money is to be given for the purpose of maintaining the school. We have reason to believe that there will be other revenues, but there will be a grant of £4,000 a year and £25,000 capital money will be expended on adapting the building. The arrangement is that the buildings are to be taken over and vested in the Office of Works as trustees, and that there should be a governing body, on which, of course, the Government will be represented but it will be a body best adapted for promoting the functions of the new institution. The present Bill is to enable the transfer to take place. All the terms have been agreed. I have had the satisfaction of an interview with Lord Aldenham on behalf of the London Institution this afternoon, and there is now no outstanding point of any kind with regard to the difficult questions of finance between us. In these circumstances I ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Haldane.)
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has referred to me, and it is true that I have played a modest part in connection with this matter as a member of the Committee to which he alluded. Lord Cromer was chairman of the Committee, and I can assure your Lordships that all the parties concerned are very much indebted to him for the active energy and ability he devoted to the settlement of this question. It is only through indisposition that my noble friend is prevented from being present to-day. As the Lord Chancellor truly stated, this country has a greater stake than any other European nation in the East. We own larger Eastern possessions. We have greater commercial, political, and military interests. We send out to the East more of our nationals than any other European country. Yet hitherto we have been, in point of instructional advantages, behind the other great nations
820
of Europe. It is to remedy that deficiency—I might almost call it a scandal—that this effort is being made. The Committee over which Lord Cromer presided exerted itself to suggest a constitution for the new school when it should be started, but we should not have been able to carry it through had it not been for the very liberal view the Government were prepared to take of their responsibilities in the matter. Those who served on the Committee owe a debt of gratitude to His Majesty's Government and notably to the Lord Chancellor, who, being himself immensely interested in the University of London, with which it is proposed, in some form or another, to connect this school, has helped us by every means in his power. A word is also due to the shareholders of the Institution, headed by Lord Aldenham, who have met the proposals of the Committee and the views of the Government in every possible way. Among the smaller Bills that come before your Lordships none is more worthy of support than this, and I hope it may pass through your Lordships' House without opposition.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed for Monday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, as there is no urgent business of any kind immediately before the House I had intended to move that we should adjourn until Monday week, but I am informed that there are one or two other matters—including a further stage, or, if possible, the remaining stages of the Bill to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading, and upon which I am glad an agreement has been reached by all concerned—which I think make it desirable that we should not adjourn for a longer time than to Monday next. There is a further matter connected with an Address to the Crown, in which I understand my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack is interested, and which he probably desires to bring forward on Monday. Therefore with your Lordships' permission I move that the House do adjourn until Monday next.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.