Sitting of 9 October 1912

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

STANDING ORDERS.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I beg to move, in Standing Order 204 (as amended), after the word "Certificate" ["any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate"], to insert the words "except in the case of Private Bills which have been brought from the Lords and have been referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, in which case such Bill shall not be read a second time later than Seven clear days after the Report of the Examiner, or of the Select Committee on Standing Orders, as the case may be."
The House will remember that just before we parted for the Recess we made an Amendment to the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills, the object of which was to expedite the earlier stages of those Bills when they originate in this House, so that the Private Bill work may be got through earlier in the year than has hitherto been the case. Since that Amendment was made a doubt has been expressed whether it did not also affect the Bills which originate in the other House. I do not think that is the result but I have thought it desirable that there should not be any doubt whatsoever about it and for that reason I put down these explanatory words on the Paper.
Question put, and agreed to.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Sir JOHN M'CALLUM: I have the honour to present a public petition from the British Women's Temperance Association in support of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill now before Parliament, signed by 23,452 Scottish women. I have also the privilege of presenting a petition on behalf of the same Bill in the name of the United Free Church Presbytery.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Closing Order made under the Act by the Urban District Council of Larne [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND), 1875.
Copy presented of Regulations with regard to the Pharmaceutical Preliminary. Examination and Candidates for the Pharmaceutical Licence [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
RAG FLOCK ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of General Regulations made by the Local Government Board for Ireland under Section 1 (1) of the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    PROMOTION TO COMMISSIONED RANK.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the only branches actually eligible for promotion to commissioned rank are those which culminate in gunner, torpedo-gunner, and boatswain; and whether he will inform the House why the warrant officers of the signal branch have been left out of the new scheme?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): This is one of the further points of the scheme that are at present under consideration.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the question of the non-executives be taken into consideration later on—carpenters and so on?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must ask for notice of anything beyond the question on the Paper.

    INCREASED PAY AND FREE KIT.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now inform the House when he will be able to state the amount of increased pay for the officers and men of the Fleet I foreshadowed in his remarks on the 20th March, 1912; whether he intends to take

    325
    into consideration the fact that soldiers and marines are granted a free kit and free annual issue of clothing, whereas the petty officers and men of the Navy, so far as new entries only are concerned, are granted a free kit on joining but no annual free issue of clothing afterwards; and whether he can now see his way to grant a free kit and free annual issue of clothing to petty officers and men of the Navy as is the case with all ranks in the Army and Marines?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am unable to make any statement at the present time. The matter is now under consideration.

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked how many skilled labourers are employed in His Majesty's dockyard, Devonport, and what is the number receiving the special rate of 31s. per week?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The number of skilled labourers employed In His Majesty's dockyard, Devonport, is, approximately, 3,120, and the number now receiving the special rate of 31s. a week is sixty-eight. It should be understood that the special rates are not intended to be applied to all the men who are rated as skilled labourers, but to a limited number only of such as may be engaged as manual workers on the more important operations requiring skill or special qualifications, or who are employed as responsible workmen actually using hand or machine tools.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after his statement on the Naval Estimates the rumour got about that this higher rate was to extend to all skilled labourers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly, and so it does whenever the condtions just stated are satisfied.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what is the number of men on the intermediate rates employed in His Majesty's dockyard, Devonport, who have received an increase of pay since the date when the increases came into force?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Assuming that the question refers to skilled labourers only, the number of men on the intermediate rates who have received an increase is 824 approximately. As the hon. Member
    326
    is aware, in addition to these increases, the rate for ordinary labourers has been raised from 21s. to 22s. a week, and in Devonport yard 902 men have received this increase. Further, about 700 skilled labourers on the minimum rate of 22s. have now been advanced to the new minimum of 23s. a week.

    SUBMARINE SALVAGE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would give the House particulars of the salvage equipment in the possession of the Admiralty for raising submarines; whether that equipment is sufficient to meet all the requirements of the Navy; whether the new salvage lighter, No. 96, capable of lifting a dead load of about 450 tons and expected to be completed in May last, has yet been delivered; what is now the number of salvage lighters, capable of lifting a submarine full of water, in the possession of the Admiralty; and where are these lighters stationed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There are six salvage vessels belonging to the Admiralty and stationed at the three Home Ports. They are considered adequate to meet present requirements. The latest of these, No. 96, has been delivered and only some stores are needed to complete her equipment. In addition to these vessels the whole salvage resources of the country are at the disposal of the Admiralty should they be required.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIs the information which has gained currency in the Press to the effect that submarine B2 is not to be raised, correct or not; and, if it is not, has the lighter No. 96 been engaged in the task of lifting the submarine?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I submit Sir, that I have asked the right hon. Gentleman a question which does arise out of the question which I have put, namely: Whether the lighter No. 96 was the lighter used in endeavouring to raise submarine B2?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not the duty of Ministers to supplement their answers. If every hon. Member did that, he will see the difficulty I should be in at Question Time. We should never get through questions at all.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD (STRIKE).
    Mr. BOOTHasked if there is a strike of navvies at the Government works at Rosyth; whether the contractor refuses to pay wages at 6d. per hour; and, if the Government support him in this action, what steps have been taken to secure decent dwelling-houses and hospital accommodation for the workmen employed?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: With regard to the earlier parts of the question, I think the replies I gave yesterday cover the points raised. I would only add that, from information I have received to-day, I am not without some hope of an early resumption of work. As regards the question of housing, we have, under the contract, placed a plot of land at the disposal of the contractor for the purpose of erecting housing accommodation if, in his opinion, the same appears to be necessary. So far he has not availed himself of this facility, being of the view that the existing accommodation in and about the locality is sufficient to meet the needs of the men. Although there is practically no contractual obligation upon us in this matter, yet the question is one concerning which we have not felt altogether absolved from some measure of concern, and we have therefore watched the matter from the commencement. In February, 1911, the medical officer of health for the County Council of Fife reported upon the housing in the locality, and, generally speaking, expressed the opinion that it was adequate to meet existing needs. In July, 1911, two officials of the Scotch Local Government Board reported again upon the matter, and it cannot be said that their report disclosed the view that housing accommodation was everywhere satisfactory. That report is now before the local authorities concerned at the instance of the Scotch Local Government Board, and certain action is being taken on it. In the meantime, in order to render existing accommodation more accessible, the contractors started workmen's trains to and from Dunfermline, Inverkeithing, and the works. As I have said, though we are under no contract obligation in the matter of housing, yet, now that the number of men employed has become considerable, I should not feel myself debarred—although the matter is one primarily for the Scotch Local Government Board and the local authorities—from making friendly representations as occasion seems to demand to
    328
    the contractor in the interest of the men. As regards hospital accommodation, there is ample provision for rendering first aid. Two doctors are retained, one of whom is always at his surgery, about two and a half miles from the works, or within call; the other can reach the works in a few minutes by motor car. Hand stretchers and two fully equipped railway hospital wagons capable of holding twenty-six injured men on stretchers are kept on the works. For serious accident cases the Dunfermline and Western Fife Hospital, distant three and a half miles from the works, is available. Fifty-eight cases of injury have been admitted since the commencement of the contract. The hospital contains over sixty beds, and has never had to refuse a case from Rosyth Works. Contractors make a contribution to the funds of this institution. There is also the local Poor Law infirmary, an admirably equipped hospital, and also suitable infectious accommodation, provided by the local authorities. I have endeavoured to summarise this provision, but if my hon. Friend desires it, I will have a more detailed statement prepared and hand it to him.

  Persia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the situation in Persia?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): As regards the situation in Persia itself, there is little to add to previous answers to questions on the subject. In the North and at the capital the situation remains much the same. The main Southern road is still the scene of lawlessness, and His Majesty's Government have been compelled to retain the regiment at Shiraz. A new Governor-General of Fars is, however, proceeding to his post, and His Majesty's Government, desirous of showing their good will to the Persian Government and of not embarrassing His Excellency, have withdrawn the detachment hitherto stationed at Ispahan. They have also advanced £25,000 to the central Government, stipulating that the sum shall be used for the Southern road. If the hon. Member desired by his question to refer to the recent conversations with the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, the general purpose and scope of them as affecting Persia was as described in the statement communicated to the Press at the time.
  Mr. D. M. MASON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he can hold out any prospect of His Majesty's Government helping to bring about a restoration of constitutional government in Persia?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think I should ask notice of that question, because it does hot directly arise out of the answer.

  Chinese Loan.
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date he will be in a position to make a full statement concerning the Chinese Loan; whether the Foreign Office is hostile to the Crisp Loan; and, if so, on what account?
  Mr. ACLAND: I will at once inform the House of the main facts concerning the Chinese Loan. His Majesty's Government have acted with the Governments of France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United States in supporting an international financial group in its negotiations for a loan with China. We have done so because it seemed very desirable that all the Powers most largely and directly interested in China should be in concert and should not compete against each other, each trying separately to get political advantages for itself out of the situation; and because, without such agreement, the result would probably be a series of indiscriminate loans that would impair the Chinese credit and not be to the interest of China itself or of its foreign trade, in which we are so largely concerned. At the present moment no large loan has yet been concluded with the six-Power group, as the Chinese Government objected to some of the conditions. The principle of conditions that have been considered essential to make any loan sound and really advantageous to China must be maintained, but this is not incompatible with fair consideration of any proposals that China may put forward for an amendment in some particulars of the conditions originally laid down. For the reasons given above it is most undesirable to break up the agreement between the six Powers, but, on the other hand, there is no desire or intention of maintaining it for the purpose of attempting to enforce harsh or unreasonable conditions in China. The Crisp Loan was opposed because, while negotiations were proceeding with the six-Power group, we did not consider that China was free to borrow elsewhere, and we were under an honourable obligation to oppose any outside loan. But apart from this, the loan
  330
  did not, so far as we are aware, offer adequate guarantees for the proper and useful expenditure of the proceeds.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the conditions laid down by the six Powers have been made public?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think not.
  Mr. KING: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can state what are the guarantees for the repayment of the Crisp Loan?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think that will be a matter for the holders of the stock.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what advantages are expected to accrue to this country from forcing China to submit to a monopoly in Chinese finance in favour of what is called the six-Power group under German management for the advancement of Russian and Japanese designs upon Chinese territory; what return that group makes or promises for the British pressure to which it owes that monopoly; on what grounds China is thwarted in obtaining instead an independent British loan on terms agreeable to both parties to the transaction; whether a similar veto will be extended to the independent loan China has thus been forced to seek from a Belgian group; and how the imposition of those restrictions upon China can be reconciled with the impartiality of Great Britain and with the integrity and independence of China?
  Mr. ACLAND: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have given to-day to the hon. and gallant Member for Hampshire, from which he will understand that his question is founded on a misapprehension of the policy of His Majesty's Government and of the objects of the six-Power group in negotiating a loan to the Chinese Government.
  Mr. GINNELL: May I ask why whatever restrictions are deemed to be necessary are not made generally to apply to all who care to conform to the conditions instead of being made in favour of an international group under German management?
  Mr. ACLAND: The supplementary question of the hon. Member contains a suggestion which is not correct. It would be much easier to answer the hon. Member's questions if they did not contain so many suggestions which are incorrect. Perhaps he will give notice of the question.
  Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is willing to state the conditions?
  Mr. ACLAND: I see no reason why we should not if a question is put down.
  Mr. GINNELL: The hon. Gentleman is surely able to answer the question—Why is not a general rule laid down for all who care to comply with it?
  Mr. ACLAND: The general principle was laid down that it was most advantageous for the representatives of the Powers to act in concert to prevent loans from individual groups which would be used to obtain political advantages for particular countries as against the general advantage of China herself.
  Mr. GINNELL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Chinese are not the best judges of their interests?

  British East Africa (Assault upon Native Clergyman).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to an assault made at Jilore, in British East Africa, by an assistant district Commissioner upon a native clergyman who had declined, on being called out of his church while service was proceeding, to sell him food for his porters; whether the assistant district Commissioner struck him and kicked him before his congregation; and whether the Government is satisfied that an apology by the official concerned is an adequate termination to such an incident?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): My attention had not previously been called to the occurrence. I have called for a report from the Governor, which has not yet reached me. On the receipt of it I will communicate further with my hon. Friend.

  West Indian Colonies (Trade with Canada).
  Mr. HEWINSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state which West Indian Colonies have accepted the preferential trade agreement with Canada; whether His Majesty's Government has approved; when the agreement is to be submitted to the Canadian Parliament; whether, since the conclusion of the agreement, proposals have been made for the federation of the
  332
  Colonies of the West Indies; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government to such a proposal?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The agreement has been accepted by the Legislatures of Trinidad, Barbados, British Guiana, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Antigua, St. Kitts-Nevis, Dominica, and Montserrat, and has been approved by His Majesty's Government, subject to its acceptance by the Canadian Parliament, to which it will no doubt be submitted shortly. No definite proposals for the federation of the West Indian Colonies have come before me; but in the event of any such scheme meeting with general approval in the Colonies concerned it would, I need hardly say, receive very careful consideration from His Majesty's Government.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    NOTTINGHAM LACK-FINISHING TRADE.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to mitigate the hardships under which those employed in the Nottingham lace-finishing trade suffer since the National Insurance Act became law?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I have no knowledge to what hardships the hon. Member refers, but if he will let me know what specific question is in his mind I shall be happy to have inquiries made on the subject.
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean he is unaware that there are persons in the lace-finishing trade who are only paid a penny an hour from whom the Insurance tax threepences are wrung?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no knowledge of the particular calamities to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Sir MAURICE LEVY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Trade Boards Act came into operation people are not employed at a penny an hour?
    Sir J. D. REES: They are.

    PART-TIME BAILIFFS.
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of officers of county courts employed as part-time bailiffs, the Treasury refund the salaries of the officers to the high bailiffs

    333
    and registrars of the courts; whether the Treasury have refused to refund the employers' contributions payable under the National Insurance Act and require the high bailiffs and registrars to pay these contributions out of their private purses; and, if so, whether he will see that the Treasury assume the legal responsibility of employers in such cases in future?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The insured persons referred to in the question are the personal employés of the registrars or high bailiffs of county courts out of whose salaries, remunerations, and allowances they are paid. Although there is no liability on the part of the State in respect to their insurance, the Treasury, on the application of the representatives of the county court officers in question, agreed to allow in the accounts of the courts any payments for insurance made in respect of any clerk or bailiff who gave his whole time to the county court work. If on investigation a clear case is made out for any concession in respect of any particular part-time employés, the claim will not fail to receive consideration on its merits.
    Mr. PETO: Why is this distinction made between part-time and whole-time men?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is very doubtful if the part-time men are employés of the Crown at all. If they are not employés of the Crown, the Crown have no call to pay.
    Mr. PETO: Is it not clear in any case, that the payment of contributions under the Insurance Act constitute an additional charge on the salaries of high bailiffs and registrars, which was not contemplated when their salaries were fixed?

    YOUTHFUL, WORKERS (IRELAND).
    Sir WALTER NUGENTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the interpretation placed on the Second Schedule, Part II., of the National Insurance Act by explanatory leaflet, No. 6, issued in Ireland, which provides that from the wages of all workers between the ages of 16 and 21 3d. per week shall be deducted from males and 2d. from females, although those persons would only be entitled to receive sick benefit of 6s. and 5s., respectively, for the first 13 weeks' illness, and reduced to 5s. and 4s. for the second 13 weeks; whether he is aware that this class of workers rarely receives more than 9s. per week and often very much less; and whether, in view of the fact that adults receiving the same
    334
    rate of wages would have to contribute nothing and would receive sick benefits of 10s. and 7s. per week, respectively, he will state if the Schedule referred to has been correctly interpreted; and, if so, whether the National Health Insurance Commissioners have the power themselves to correct the effect of this interpretation?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The leaflet referred to correctly states in the portion quoted in the question the provisions of the Second Schedule (Part II.) of the Act, as they affect young persons under 21 who are not married and have no dependants; and the Commissioners have no power to vary these provisions.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. ROYDSasked whether, under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, no sanatorium or other benefit is available for consumptives suffering from that disease at the date the Act came into operation; and whether such benefits are confined to persons actually employed at that date and attacked with the disease afterwards?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Any insured person is entitled to sanatorium benefit if the Insurance Committee recommends the case for such benefit, whether he was suffering from tuberculosis before or after the Act came into operation; but no person is entitled to become insured under the Act unless he is either employed within the meaning of Part I. of the Act or engaged in some regular occupation and wholly or mainly dependent for his livelihood on the earnings derived by him from that occupation.

    HEALTH INSURANCE STAMPS.
    Mr. DENMANasked how many insurance stamps of each different value have been sold up to the last date for which such information is available; and what is the total amount of money so collected?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Up to 28th September, namely, for the first eleven weeks, 120,142,350 health insurance stamps had been sold, amounting to a total value of £3,257,230. In addition arrangements had been made by quarterly payments and through the Labour Exchanges, representing another 14,206,098 weekly payments, making a total for the eleven weeks of 134,348,448. I am circulating details of the sales of the stamps of each denomination.
    [See Written Answers this date.]

    STATE AND SOCIETY HEALTH CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked whether in certain lodges of friendly societies a large proportion of existing members are paying the State health insurance contribution in addition to their existing contributions to the society, thus voluntarily paying at least 10d. a week in order to secure, inter alia, sickness benefit of 22s. a week; whether this practice is general; and whether any figures can be given?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that very many members are choosing to continue their previous voluntary contributions in addition to their contributions under the Act. I am unable, however, at present to give any exact statistics showing the extent of such voluntary insurance outside the Act.

    MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY EXEMPTION.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the particulars of the guarantee given by the Midland Railway Company to the Insurance Commissioners for exemption from the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The terms of employment in respect of which a certificate of exception has been issued to the Midland Railway Company under Part II. (c) of the First Schedule to the National Insurance Act include the usual rights in the Midland Railway Superannuation Fund and the payment of full salary during sickness for not less that three months.

    ISSUE OF BOOKS AND CARDS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a large friendly society is sending insurance books and cards for the second quarter to all its members, irrespective as to whether such persons have made that society their approved society for health insurance, and thereby causing waste of stationery; if he can state whether it is contrary to the Regulations of the National Health Insurance Commission for insurance books to be issued by approved societies to persons who do not sign an application for membership form; and if he proposes to take action in the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware that any approved society is acting in the manner stated. Under the Regulations of the Commission a society should issue contri-
    336
    bution cards or insurance books only to persons who have been admitted as members of the society for the purposes of the National Insurance Act. If the hon. Member will give mo the name of the society to which he refers I will have inquiries made into the matter.

    CHARWOMEN.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether married women, not mainly dependent on their earnings for their livelihood, who work two or three days a week irregularly at charing, or who work two or three days a week for a laundry company, or who work whole time at a laundry, must be insured under Part I. of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Women employed casually as charwomen are excepted from the compulsory provisions of the Act if their employment is not for the purpose of the employer's trade or business, but not otherwise. All persons, however, who would otherwise require to be insured are entitled to a certificate of exemption (relieving them, but not their employers, of the duty to pay contributions) if they can show that they are ordinarily and mainly dependent for their livelihood upon some other person. Apart from such exemption, the women in the last two classes mentioned in the question would be employed contributors; those in the first class would not be, if they are employed quite casually and in domestic work.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Must a woman who does one day's charing a week regularly be compulsorily insured?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: She must be compulsorily insured as far as the employer is concerned. She need not pay in the event of her not being able to depend mainly on her own earnings.
    Mr. LANSBURY: But if she docs mainly depend on her own earnings?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Then she is compulsorily required to insure.

  Taxation of Land.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde) had authority from him for saying in a recent speech that certain Members of the Cabinet, amongst whom was included the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

  337
  approved the policy associated with the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme of expropriating landlords by excessive taxation?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am not aware that my hon. and learned Friend ever made the statement attributed to him.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am perfectly certain that no report I have seen bears out this question.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what actually is his policy? May I ask what does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate of a more drastic character than he has already done?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should give notice of the question.

  Income Tax (Deduction Allowed to Members of Parliament).
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what are the items of expense in respect of which a deduction of £100 is allowed to Members of Parliament for the purpose of Income Tax on their salaries; and whether similar deductions from salaries are allowed in any other, and, if so, what cases?
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain why the salaries of Members of Parliament have been increased for the past quarter owing to a reduction in the amount of Income Tax deducted; what representations were made to him on the subject; and is this to be a precedent for the allowance of a similar reduction of Income Tax in the case of other salaries earned under similar conditions?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In assessing the duty chargeable in respect of the emoluments of any public office or employment a deduction is allowable, and is in practice allowed, in respect of the expenses of travelling, and of other expenses and disbursements wholly, exclusively, and necessarily incurred and defrayed, in the performance of the duties thereof. For administrative convenience, and after receiving representations from certain Members, I have decided that in assessing the salaries allowed to Members of Parliament from public funds, a uniform sum
  338
  should be adopted as the deduction to be granted in respect of such expenses.
  Mr. CASSEL: Which are the items in respect of which the allowance is made, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the travelling expenses of directors of public companies have been disallowed, and will he allow the legality of this deduction to be contested in a Court of Law?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that the case of directors of public companies is an analogous case at all, but if travelling were an essential part of a man's work certainly travelling expenses should be allowed.
  Mr. CASSEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in the case of a London Member travelling is an essential part of his work?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sorry to say that it is an essential part of the work of every Member of Parliament in these days to go about a great deal to address not only his own constituents but others. Apart from that there is the other point, I had to consider whether there should be a separate allowance in each case, or whether it would be better to have it uniform.
  Mr. BAIRD: Is it not the fact that in the case of other public servants, when travelling expenses are given, it is necessary to send in a bill? Why should an exception be made in the case of Members of Parliament?
  Mr. HOGGE: How many Members of the House have refused to accept the increased allowance?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly give us the names of the Members who asked for it?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. I think that that would be a rather invidious thing to do.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend's question as to why a different procedure is pursued with regard to Members of Parliament from that which is pursued with regard to all those who are engaged in other services who have to show what their expenses are before an allowance is made?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought on the whole that it would be more desirable that there should be a uniform rate rather than that there should be an examination of each case and that Members of Parliament should bring up their bills and vouchers.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Unhappy lawyers have to bring up their bills.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give the House the interesting information how any Member of Parliament coming, say, from Ireland, can possibly pay his necessary expenses out of £100?

  Imperial and Local Taxation (Motor Omnibuses).
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a recent conference of local authorities at Richmond, at which a resolution was unanimously passed in favour of giving the proceeds of Petrol Taxes and Licence Duties in respect of motor omnibuses to the local authorities in whose areas such omnibuses ply; and whether he is prepared to give effect to this proposal?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A copy of the resolution referred to has been forwarded to me, but I do not propose to take any action in the matter pending a general settlement of the question of the relations between Imperial and Local Taxation. The hon. Member is of course aware that under Section 90 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and Section 18 of the Revenue Act, 1911, the net proceeds of the Duties in question are carried to the credit of the Road Improvement Fund, and are thus made applicable to services of a local character.
  Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider some proposal supplemental of the law in that respect, and with regard to the report referred to can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to when we are likely to get that report, the evidence having already been published?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not answer the second question. With regard to the first, I will consider any suggestion which the hon. Gentleman makes to me on the subject. I am very doubtful as to the advisability of the course.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the whole of the tax paid by each motor 'bus went to the local rates, it would be altogether inadequate to repair the amount of damage done by these 'buses to local roads?

  Income Tax (Imprisonment of Mr. Mark Wilks).
  Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any and, if so, what precedent, prior to the case of Mr. Mark Wilks, for the enforcement of payment of Income Tax on a wife's income by imprisonment of the husband; and whether he will introduce an amendment of the law into the Finance Bill of next year so that a man may no longer be made responsible for income over which he has no control; and whether he will give orders to stop any further imprisonments in the meantime?
  Mr. LOUGHasked (20) who ordered the imprisonment of Mr. Mark Wilks for non-payment of tax due on the income of his wife, Dr. Elizabeth Wilks; for what year or years was the amount due on which the proceedings were taken; whether the tax demanded, or any part thereof, has been paid; by whose instructions was Mr. Wilks released; whether it is contemplated to take any further action against him or his wife; and (21) whether the usual proceeding of the Income Tax Commissioners is to exact from the husband Income Tax on the separate income of a wife over which he has no control, and, if so, has this course been followed from the commencement in the case of Mr. Wilks; and whether, if this is not found practicable in all cases, he proposes to take any steps to amend the law so as to enable the collectors to proceed directly against the owner of the property which is taxed?
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Mark Wilks by the order of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the offence charged against him being that he refused to pay Income Tax due from his wife; whether he is aware that Mr. Wilks is a school teacher without means other than his salary, and has no means with which to pay; if, under those circumstances, he will consider the advisability of asking the House to so amend the law as to make a married woman liable for Income Tax herself responsible for its

  341
  payment; by whose instructions Mr. Wilks was released; and if the Income Tax has yet been paid?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Mr. Wilks was imprisoned under a writ of the High Court executed by direction of the Board of Inland Revenue in consequence of his failure to pay Income Tax and costs due from him under a judgment of the Court. The tax was payable for the years 1909–10 and 1910–11 in respect of the income of his wife, which, under the Income Tax Acts, is deemed to be his income, and the tax thereon is recoverable from him. Previously to 1909–10 tax was recovered by distraint, but it was subsequently claimed that the goods on which distraint was made belonged to Mrs. Wilks. Mr. Wilks was released by order of the Board of Inland Revenue. The tax has not yet been paid. No further action is being taken in respect of the sums comprised in the judgment. I am not aware of any previous instance in which it has been necessary to have recourse to the ultimate remedy of imprisonment in such a case. I will consider the question of amending the law so as to obviate the necessity for such action, but in the meantime I am certainly not prepared to instruct the Revenue authorities to refrain from administering the law as it stands.

  Income Tax Receipts.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked what was the total amount of property and Income Tax received into the Exchequer on and since 6th April, 1912, up to and including 7th August, 1912; how much thereof represented arrears of tax for previous years; and how much thereof represented tax levied by deduction during the period in question?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The total amount of Income Tax (exclusive of Supertax) paid to the Exchequer from 6th April to 7th August, 1912, inclusive, was £4,190,000. Of this sum approximately £3,210,000 consists of arrears of tax for previous years, and £980,000 represents tax paid by deduction and proper to the year 1912–13.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. ROYDSasked what steps, if any, have been taken with reference to the appointment of the promised Committee to inquire into the working of the valuation of land under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and whether an early opportunity
  342
  will be afforded the House of considering the terms of reference and the constitution of the Committee?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, Sir. I at once took steps to frame terms of reference, and secured the services of a suitable chairman. Before, however, the constitution of the Committee was definitely completed, I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, to whom I had communicated the proposed terms of reference, to enlarge their scope in such a manner as to take them outside the undertaking that I had given, and to introduce questions of principle and policy with which a purely expert Committee such as I was constituting could not suitably deal. I was, and am still, perfectly willing to fulfil my original promise.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. W. O'BRIENasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will consider whether the quarantine regulations as to Irish store cattle should not be carried out at the Irish ports previous to embarkation, so that healthy cattle when landed might not be left at the mercy of English buyers?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I think it is important that Irish store stock should be inspected and kept under observation for the prescribed period after they are landed in Great Britain. I regret therefore that I am unable to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the long period of supervision of fifteen days over cattle after they have reached the consignee ought to be sufficient security?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think it is necessary to have inspection at the port of arrival in order, if they are diseased, that they may not be allowed to travel along any high road.
  Mr. W. O'BRIENasked whether it has come to the knowledge of the Board of Agriculture that the recent relaxations of the Order forbidding the export of Irish store cattle to England are quite inadequate for the relief of Ireland's principal trade; that, except in the case of direct Orders from England, the cattle will be subject to a loss of £1 per head for keep and deterioration during the four days of detention, and must then be sold at any

  343
  figure offered by English purchasers; whether any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has taken place in any district of the two provinces of Munster and Con-naught; and, if not, what is the reason for subjecting stock raisers and farmers in these provinces to a boycott from which those of England are exempt?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I realise that the facilities which have been given for the admission of store stock will not admit of the resumption of the trade to anything like its normal extent, and that the requirements of the Orders will entail special charges upon the trade, but I am by no means sure that the effect upon prices will be what the hon. Member anticipates. As regards the necessity for special regulations in connection with the movement of stock from Ireland to Great Britain, perhaps he will allow me to refer him to the full explanation which I gave to the hon. Member for North Westmeath on Monday last. I have no reason to believe that any outbreak of the disease has occurred in either Munster or Con-naught, but it would be convenient if questions as to the existence of disease in Ireland could be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: If the President of the English Board of Agriculture claims the right to hinder the trade of two whole provinces admittedly free from disease for the last thirty years, may I ask whether the Vice-President of the Irish Agricultural Department would be allowed to retaliate by preventing the landing in those provinces of any merchandise from England because of fear of contagion from cases of disease which are far more numerous in areas of England?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot go into the questions of the comparative powers of the English and Irish Departments, but I would point out that until quite recently the Irish Department always took a very severe view of the importation of English animals into Ireland in the case of an outbreak.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Would not the whole difficulty be met by a uniform administration of the Contagious Diseases {Animals) Act by one authority?
  Mr. GILHOOLY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman state to-day to a Unionist deputation that the English county councils
  344
  had the power to completely frustrate the existing regulations for the sale of Irish cattle in England?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not received a Unionist deputation. I saw a deputation representing agricultural interests in England. I do not recognise the sentence which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, but if he has any question to put on the subject, perhaps he would give notice in the usual way.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked if he will permit the free transit of pigs and store cattle to the several English markets free from detention at any of the English ports to the different markets throughout England from the South and West of Ireland, where no foot-and-mouth distemper has appeared for the past thirty years?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; I regret that under existing arrangements I do not see my way to sanction the arrangement proposed.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Is it not reasonable to allow pigs to be imported into English markets, and, where they are brought in wagon loads, to be killed in the English markets?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that at the present time I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state the number of live cattle and sheep imported into Great Britain from Ireland for the months of July, August, and September, 1911, and the number for the corresponding period this year; and whether he will also state the quantity of dead meat imported from Ireland during the respective periods?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: With regard to the first part of the question I propose, if the hon. Member will allow me, to circulate the statistics with the Votes. I have no information enabling me to answer the second part of the question, but perhaps the hon. Member would address his inquiry to my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department.—[See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether deputations both from Manchester and Ireland have urged upon the President of the Board of Agriculture the advisability of allowing fat cattle for immediate slaughter to be trucked from

  345
  Liverpool to Manchester; having regard to the relief to the fat cattle trade from Ireland that would ensue from his conceding their request, is he now prepared to grant it; and whether he is aware that the landing of fat cattle in this particular market is considered to be of far greater importance to the cattle industry than the admission of store cattle to it at the present time?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I do not see my way, under existing conditions, to allow Irish fat cattle to be moved from the places at which they are landed to markets held elsewhere. The representations made to me by the deputations to which the hon. Member refers will, of course, be kept in view.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the long continued and serious check to the interchange of live stock between different countries owing to the fear of transmitting contagious animal diseases, the Government will consider the advisability of convening at an early date an international conference to consider the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not at present see that any advantage would be likely to be gained by the issue of invitations for an international conference, but perhaps the hon. Member would let me know the particular points to which he thinks that the deliberations of such a body could usefully be devoted.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at several meetings of agricultural societies held recently resolutions were passed to this effect?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have heard of the resolutions, but if some definite suggestions can be made I shall be very glad to go into them.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, since the publication of the Board's order permitting the landing at certain British ports of store cattle from Ireland, any further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred in Ireland; and, if so, whether it is proposed to cancel the Order?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was informed yesterday that an extension of the disease had occurred in the Fermanagh prohibited area, but it would be convenient that questions as to the existence of disease in Ireland should be addressed to my right hon.
  346
  Friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department. The extension in question makes no material change in the position, and it is therefore unnecessary to cancel the Order to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked what are the specified ports in Ireland from which, under the recent Order of the Board, store cattle may be shipped to the five British ports mentioned in the Order; and will the right hon. Gentleman state whether, since the issue of such Order, suitable accommodation for such cattle has been found to be available at any other British ports, and similar shipments thereto been authorised accordingly?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Irish ports, named in the First Schedule to the Order, are Belfast, Cork, Dublin, Londonderry, and Waterford. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will arrange to allow the sale of young pigs at the following markets: Lisnaskea, Enniskillen, Derry-gonnelly, and Blacklion?
  Mr. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): In view of the occurrence on 7th instant of a further case of foot-and-mouth disease in the district scheduled in the county of Fermanagh, the time has not yet arrived when such markets can be allowed with safety.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will reduce the restricted area in county Fermanagh to within a few miles of where the foot-and-mouth distemper broke out, so that the farmers may be able to dispose of their cattle and to enable them to meet their liabilities, seeing that no outbreak of the foot-and-mouth distemper has occurred for the last fourteen days?
  Mr. RUSSELL: It would be premature to reduce the restricted area in county Fermanagh, especially in view of the fact that another case of foot-and-mouth disease in the area was confirmed on Monday last.

  Floods in Huntingdonshire and Norfolk.
  Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked: (30) Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn

  347
  to the recent floods in Huntingdonshire; and may I ask what help the Government can give towards the farmers in their distress; (31) has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the plight of the county council small holders in Huntingdonshire; and will he authorise the county council to remit their rent for the current year?
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: Has the President of the Board of Agriculture caused inquiry to be made into the loss and damage sustained by farmers and small holders in Norfolk through the recent floods; and whether it is proposed to render assistance to those seriously affected out of national funds, either in the shape of special Grants or by loans made on easy terms, whereby such may be enabled to tide over a period of stress and difficulty.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have caused inquiries to be made as to the extent of the damage caused by the recent floods, and, although it is impossible at present to estimate the loss even approximately, I am afraid there can be no doubt but that farmers and others have suffered severely not only in Huntingdonshire and Norfolk, but in other parts of England as well. Funds have been opened to public subscription for the relief of distress in several districts, and I do not think that it is either necessary or desirable for the Government to take any action, at any rate for the present, but I shall continue to watch the situation very closely. With regard to small holders, the Board are prepared to consider favourably applications from county councils for assistance out of the Small Holdings Account, in conformity with the conditions prescribed in the Treasury Minute of the 31st December, 1907, in cases where schemes have resulted or are likely to result in loss through the inability of small holders to pay their rent in consequence of the floods.
  Mr. O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If I raise £5,000 outside, will the right hon. Gentleman contribute a similar sum in order to start a credit bank for farmers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I could not at present see my way to agree to that suggestion. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific proposal to make, I shall be only too happy to consider it.

  Celluloid (Committee of Inquiry).
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the numerous fatal accidents due to celluloid, he will make, any further regulations for its manufacture or use or require it to be distinguished by some mark which will readily direct attention to the dangerous nature of the material?
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether any steps have been taken with the object of securing greater safety against fire in industries in which celluloid is used; and, if so, whether he will indicate them?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into this important matter. The names of the members of the Committee and the terms of reference were published in the papers this morning.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the Committee sit at once, so that we may have a speedy decision?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir.

  Stealing Apples (Somerset).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Home Secretary whether he has now been able to consider the case of William Crew, sentenced at Keynsham (Somerset) Petty Sessions, to six weeks' hard labour for stealing some apples; whether he has received a petition on Crew's behalf; and will he, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, advise a reduction of the sentence?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have had the facts of this case under my careful consideration. The prisoner and two other men with a horse and cart were found plundering an apple orchard in a lonely village in broad daylight. When the owner tried to get them to stop, they threatened him and went on with the work of pillage. In these circumstances I do not find any sufficient ground for advising a reduction of the sentence.

  Motor Omnibuses and Electric Tramways (Accidents).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many persons have been killed by motor omnibuses and electric trams, respectively, in the Metropolitan area since the 1st of January, 1912?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner of Police informs me that 118 persons were killed by motor omnibuses and twenty-one by electric trams from 1st January last to yesterday, inclusive.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether any inquiry other than the inquiry of the Coroner's Court was held into the causes of those 118 deaths by motor 'buses?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think my hon. Friend should give me notice of that question, and I will have inquiries made.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many new licences have been issued for motor omnibuses in London this year?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of licences issued during the nine months ended 30th September, 1912, was 1,949. I am informed, however, that many of the licences issued during the end of last year and the early part of 1912 were in respect of vehicles of an old type since permanently withdrawn.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the right hon. Gentleman if he has seen the resolutions passed by borough councils and other public bodies in London, calling attention to the increase in the number of persons killed by motor omnibuses; to the damage which such omnibuses cause to property; to the unsuitability of many of the routes through which they run; to the excessive speed at which they are often driven; and to the failure of the present system of traffic control by the Home Office to remedy any of these evils; and whether he proposes to introduce any reform?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have seen the resolutions referred to, and the whole matter, so far as it concerns the public safety, is engaging my attention. I will confer with the Commissioner of Police as to whether any further action by the police is possible; but it must be remembered that neither the Commissioner nor the Home Office has any power to control the omnibus routes or to deal with questions of damage.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is it not within the power of the Commissioner to decide how many licences shall be issued to such people?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe that to be so. I would rather have notice of the question.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there is
  350
  a lever by which pressure can be put on the company that is killing all these people?
  Mr. McKENNA: The question is engaging the immediate attention both of the Chief Commissioner and of the Home Office.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anybody has been seriously punished—whether anybody has been hanged or sent to penal servitude?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not know if Police Court proceedings have been taken, but if those were cases of unjustifiable homicide proceedings would certainly be taken.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman ascertain which of the companies that run motor 'buses has killed the most people?

  Metropolitan Police (Precept).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the revolt of certain aggrieved districts in Outer London, the refusal of the West Ham overseers to pay in full the police precept now levied upon them, their payment of the previous precept only under threat of personal distraint, the fact that the basis of levy for the expenses of the Metropolitan Police has become disarranged, and that the recent Departmental action only perpetuates the disarray and aggravates it, he will undertake to refund all unjust balances charged or to be charged on the aggrieved districts in this matter pending speedy readjustment, if these districts on their part will consent to pay them for the present without prejudice and under protest; whether he can give any hope of a speedy readjustment and rectification of the basis of Government contribution to the Police Fund or of the methods of financial maintenance of the Metropolitan Police; what practical steps he is prepared to take to put an end to the present disarray; and when is he prepared to take such steps?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot accept as accurate the hon. Member's statements. A slight inequality in the incidence of the charge for the Metropolitan Police has arisen owing to the fact that the counties of London and Middlesex are unable to pay from their Exchequer Contribution Accounts the full sum due from them, while the West Ham Borough Council has sufficient funds from the Exchequer Contributions to meet the full charge. The

  351
  overseers of West Ham, by way of a protest, have deducted a portion of the police rate due from them. The grievance is a very small one, and can only be set right by legislation; and I have strongly advised the West Ham overseers to represent their case to the Departmental Committee which is now considering the whole subject of the incidence of local taxation. No Departmental action has been taken outside the ordinary procedure required by law. I have no power to give any such promise as the hon. Member suggests, and I can only say that I shall be very glad to assist in putting the matter on a more satisfactory footing when Parliament finds time to deal with the important question of local taxation in all its bearings.

  Street Collections (Prosecution of Mr. Ebury and Miss O'Brien).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the prosecution of Mr. Ebury and Miss O'Brien for taking collections in the streets of Bow and Bromley at meetings held under the auspices of the "Clarion" Van Committee, and that in each case fines were inflicted by the magistrate; whether he is aware that at similar meetings held before and after the alleged offence by the same man in other districts of London collections were taken and no complaint made, and that only during the visit to Bow and Bromley were any proceedings taken, and that in the same road, at the same time as the collections were taken by Mr. Ebury and Miss O'Brien, the Salvation Army took collections and continue to do so without any interference by the police; and whether under the circumstances, he will issue such instructions as will secure that the law shall be administered in such a manner as not to differentiate between political or religious bodies?
  Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been drawn to this matter. One of the Regulations made under the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1903, prohibits collections in the carriageway, but allows them in the footway if they do not cause obstruction or annoyance. The Commissioner of Police informs me that on three or four successive days Mr. Ebury and Miss O'Brien, in spite of repeated warnings from police on the spot, persisted in breaking this Regulation. After this deliberate breach of the law they were both summoned. Miss O'Brien gave an under-
  352
  taking not to offend again, and the magistrate discharged her on payment of the costs of her summons, but Mr. Ebury refused to give an undertaking and was fined. The collections referred to of the Salvation Army were, I am informed, made from the footway.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man had taken exactly similar collections right throughout the summer in every other part of London, and in the Poplar parish portion of this particular borough, and proceedings against him were only taken in reference to his action in Bow and Bromley, and that since the summonses he has taken collections regularly in Bethnal Green, Hackney, and every other part of the Metropolis?
  Mr. McKENNA: I was not aware of the circumstances stated by my hon. Friend, nor do I gather from what my hon. Friend states that in the other cases the collection was made on the carriage way. As I understand, it is legal to make a collection on the footway, but not on the carriage way.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the collections for the last thirty years have been made in the carriage way and on the footway; and that this man, who was fined for making collections in Bow and Bromley, made exactly similar collections in the road and carriage way in Poplar, Bethnal Green, and all the surrounding districts, and that the same collections are being made now both by the Salvation Army and other people?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure my hon. Friend Miss O'Brien and Mr. Ebury were extremely lucky in not having got into trouble before.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last part of my question and tell me by what right the Police Commissioner singles out the "Clarion" Van for prosecution, and does not proceed against other people who to my knowledge do tly the same thing in the same road and at the same time?.
  Mr. McKENNA: From the information given to me, I understand my hon. Friend does not accept it.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I was there.
  Mr. McKENNA: The information given to me is that the other case was on the footway, and in this case it was on the carriage way.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow evidence to be put before him as to the statements of those who gave him the information. Nobody objects if the Salvation Army is prosecuted as well as the Socialists of the "Clarion" Van?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why while the Liberals are in office there are so many petty prosecutions?

  Telephone Service.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that many of the telephone factory hands who are about to be moved from Nottingham to Birmingham are natives of the former town, where they have been employed for many years; that many of them are unable to move to Birmingham for financial reasons; and whether he can see his way to take any and, if so, what steps to mitigate the hardships imposed by this transfer, and to obtain accommodation in Birmingham for those transferred?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I do not know how many of the staff of the Nottingham factory are natives of that town, and I am not aware that many are unable to move to Birmingham for financial reasons. Removal expenses will be borne by the Post Office. Nor is it to be anticipated that any real difficulty will be experienced by the staff obtaining accommodation in Birmingham. I am informed that the transfer, which is essential for administrative reasons, is welcomed by the majority of the persons concerned, who will perform their work at Birmingham in much more comfort than is possible in the existing building at Nottingham.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Postmaster-General whether he has taken into consideration the fact that the change in telephone numbers proposed for January next will be a matter of considerable expense to those who have already had their letter-paper stamped in quantities and who will also be subject to the expense of a new die?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The transfer of subscribers to the new Regent Exchange may put some among them to some inconvenience and expense, but the transfer is indispensable if the service is to be efficiently conducted. Three months' notice has been given to the subscribers concerned.
  Sir G. PARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider the question of expense?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If there are any exceptional circumstances.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked whether the telephone subscribers in Cambuslang are no longer allowed to use the Glasgow area without extra charge; and, if so, whether this new arrangement is intended to be permanent?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: New telephone subscribers in Cambuslang are required to subscribe at the current tariff which involves the payment of junction line fees on calls to exchanges in the Glasgow area other than Cambuslang, Shettleston, and Baillieston. This arrangement, which has been in force for the last two years, will come under review in connection with the general revision of rates which I have promised.

  Wireless Telegraphy.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked if the agreement entered into with the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company in 1909 provided for extending the system outside Great Britain upon arbitration terms; and, if so, whether advantage was taken of this provision when arranging terms of the new contract with the company?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The paragraph in the agreement to which the hon. Member refers merely provided that if at any future time the Government desired to use the Marconi patents for purposes of communication with any station outside the United Kingdom the terms should be settled, failing agreement, in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907. It therefore merely recited, and added nothing to, the powers already existing in the hands of the Government under that Act, which apply to the use of all patents. Advantage could only have been taken of this provision if the Government had decided itself to erect the stations for the Imperial wireless system through one of its own Departments instead of contracting for them. For reasons which I outlined to the House on 7th August this course was not considered advisable.
  Mr. HALLasked upon what terms the use of the Muirhead system of wireless telegraphy was offered to the Government;

  355
  whether the Law Officers of the Crown opposed the validity of the Muirhead patents in the Courts; whether such patents, although refused by the Government, have as the result of being upheld in the Courts been purchased by the Marconi Company; and, if so, what were the terms of such purchase?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: With regard to the first part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, as the use of the Muirhead system was not offered to the Post Office. In answer to the second part, my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General informs me that there was no question of opposition by the Law Officers to the validity of the patent referred to; but when the patentees applied to the Court for an extension of the statutory term of fourteen years the Solicitor-General appeared on behalf of the Crown. It is usual in all such cases for appearance to be made by or on behalf of the Law Officers in order that, in the public interest, all relevant considerations may be laid before the Court. The action taken in this case was in the ordinary course of procedure. I would add that the Post Office were not concerned. The patent was afterwards acquired by the Marconi Company, but I do not know upon what terms.

  Loss of Steamship "North Briton."
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at the inquiry into the loss of the ss. "North Briton"; and whether he intends to take any steps to lower the deep-load line to accord with the Regulations which existed before 1906, seeing that the loss of this vessel with twenty lives was, according to the finding of the Court, primarily due to insufficient freeboard?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I am examining the evidence given at the inquiry into the loss of the ss. "North Briton;" and the question whether any action should be taken by the Board of Trade in connection with the case is receiving my careful consideration.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the day the "North Briton" went down, fifteen other ships also disappeared; and does he attribute that to the altering of the load line?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. HALL: Since the regulation of 1906 placing the mercantile marine of this country on the same terms as the mercantile marine of other countries, has there been any extra loss?

  Loss of Steamship "Titanic" (Cost of Inquiry).
  Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the House the amount of the expenses, from public funds, of the "Titanic" Inquiry; and if he will further itemise such expenses?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The accounts are not yet all settled. As soon as they are, I will circulate with the Votes a statement showing the various items of expenditure.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  STANDING ORDERS.

    TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I desire to submit a point of Order of some importance to the regularity of our procedure. There is a Notice of Motion on the Paper "That the proceedings on the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, if under discussion at eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." You will recollect that yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted a Motion that the proceedings on the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, if under discussion at eleven o'clock "this night or to-morrow," be not interrupted. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) moved to omit the words "and to-morrow." That Motion was accepted by the House, and thereby the House decided that the Eleven o'clock Rule should not be suspended to-day. I submit that there is a well-established rule that the same Question shall not be offered twice in the same Session. As long ago as 1844—indeed the rule goes back, I believe, to the seventeenth century—one of your predecessors said specifically that, the House having once given a decision on a specific Motion, the Motion cannot be renewed. When a proposition has been made and negatived the House cannot entertain another to the same effect. In 1886 there was a similar decision in reference to a matter of local taxation, where an Amendment was moved, and the Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question" was put as a preliminary to inserting other words. The Question was negatived, and therefore the words stood part of the original Question; and when it was proposed to add words similar to the Amendment which would have been moved if the Question had been' decided differently, the Speaker held that the words could not be moved because, although the House had not actually voted on the Question, the decision of the House had been, in effect, contrary to the words then proposed. I quite recognise that this is a technical question, but I am sure you will agree that the only protection for minorities is the strict observance of the rules of the House. I submit that since we specifically decided yesterday that the Eleven o'clock Rule should not be suspended to-day, it is not open for the House now to consider the question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord has quite correctly stated the general proposition, but he will have observed from the way in which his statement was received that he has assumed that the House decided something which the House had not any idea that it was deciding. What happened yesterday, as I understand it, was that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) proposed to omit from the Motion the words "and to-morrow," in order that to-day the House might have an opportunity of reconsidering the question. I am sure the House would have been very much taken by surprise when the Government accepted the Amendment if Members had been told that by the acceptance of the Amendment the House was precluding itself from considering the question of the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule tonight. I quite agree that it is extremely desirable, in fact, absolutely necessary, to keep to the Rules of the House as strictly as may be; but in doing that it is also necessary to bear in mind the intention of the Rules and as to what the intention of the House is in coming to a certain decision. The House never intended by accepting the Amendment yesterday to say that it would not sit beyond Eleven o'clock tonight. I am confirmed in that by the observations of the hon. Baronet who moved the Motion, and who said in the course of his remarks: "Why should we decide today to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule tomorrow?" If the hon. Baronet had desired, if it had been his intention, to ask the House not to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night he would have distinctly have said so.
    Sir F. BANBURY: As you have alluded to me, Sir, perhaps I may put myself right with the House on this particular question. If you remember when I began my speech you unfortunately ruled me out of order and said that I could not make the speech now which I ought to have made on the previous Motion. I said that the reason that I made the observation I did was that I was contending that the Government having done one disorderly thing were now proposing to do a second disorderly thing, and that was what we objected to. I said that what they ought to have done was to bring in a Motion suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night and another Motion for to-morrow—that is to-day. I humbly ventured to suggest to the Government the better course. I then

    369
    moved to alter the course they were proposing to take. I asked:
    "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; hut 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."
    Apparently I am going to hear the views when I am sleepy, the thing I do not want to do. I wound up by saying:
    "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 daring the small hours of the morning so soon after our return from a pleasant vacation."—[Official REPORT, 8th October, 1912, col. 163.]
    That was a very frank explanation of my views as to sitting up at night. I would, further, humbly submit that this question is a question of what the House did, and not what I said. I may have said all sorts of things, but I find that what I say often has influence on the other side. The fact is that I did propose a Motion to omit certain words, and the House agreed to it. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not quite understand what he was doing—and I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a rule, does not understand what he is doing—I am sorry for him.
    Mr. LEIF JONES Mr. LEIF JONES rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Debate going on. The speech of the hon. Baronet was supposed to be addressed to me. If the Government desire to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, the better course to adopt is to put down a special Motion under the Standing Orders. The House yesterday, however, in coming to its decision, did not mean to decide what should happen to-night. I will not go so far as to say that the Noble Lord and the hon. Baronet are even technically right. I am not a Court of Law for construing documents or Statutes strictly. I am here to interpret the general Rules of the House in accordance with the general views of the House upon those Rules. Under those circumstances I am bound to rule that the House did not intend by accepting yesterday the Amendment of the hon. Baronet to preclude itself from reconsidering the question again to-day.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That the proceedings on the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 103.

  Division No. 223.]

  AYES.

  [3.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

  Falconer, James

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Adamson, William

  Chappie, Dr. William Allen

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Clough, William

  Field, William

  Armitage, R.

  Clynes, John R.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Arnold, Sydney

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Barnes, George N,

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Goldstone, Frank

  Bentham, G. J.

  Cullinan, John

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Bethell, Sir Henry

  Davies, E. William (Eilion)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol S.)

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Delany, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hackett, J.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hancock, John George

  Brace, William

  Doris, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Brady, P. J.

  Duffy, William J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Harvey, T E. (Leeds, West)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Hazleton, Richard

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Hinds, John

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Hodge, John

  Molloy, M.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hogge, James Myles

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rowlands, James

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Mooney, John J.

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

  Hughes, S. L.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Morrell, Philip

  Scanlan, Thomas

  John, Edward Thomas

  Morison, Hector

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cieophas

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

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Muldoon, John

  Sheehy, David

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Munro, R.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Nolan, Joseph

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Joyce, Michael

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Tennant, Harold John

  King, J.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Ogden, Fred

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Lansbury, George

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Leach, Charles

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Logan, John William

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lough, Rt. Hon, Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Webb, H.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  White, James Douglas (Glasgow)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilkie, Alexander

  MacGhee, Richard

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Maclean, Donald

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Reddy, Michael

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Winfrey, Richard

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

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

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  NOES.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Baird, J. L.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hills, John Waller

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Croft, H. P.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Barnston, Harry

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Bigland, Alfred

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Bull, Sir William James

  Forster, Henry William

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Grant, J. A.

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  M'Mordie, Robert James

  Cator, John

  Gretton, John

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Cave, George

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Grave-send)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  372

  373

  Peto, Basll Edward

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Stanier Seville

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F, (Preston)

  Winterton, Earl

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stewart, Gershom

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Younger, Sir George

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Royds, Edmund

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    Clause 4.—(Resolution at Further Polls.)
    (1) Where a poll has been taken, and such poll, or the declared result thereof, has not been declared void in terms of this Act, a further poll shall not be taken before the month of November in the third year from the date of the last poll.
    (2) Such further poll may be taken—

    (a) if a no-change resolution is in force, for the following options, that is to say, the continuance of such resolution or for a no-licence resolution or for a limiting resolution;

    (b) if a limiting resolution is in force, for the following options, that is to say, for the repeal or continuance of any such resolution or for a further limiting resolution or for a no-licence resolution, provided that if the repeal of any such resolution is not carried, the votes in favour of such repeal shall be added to those recorded in favour of a continuance resolution, and shall be deemed to have been recorded in favour thereof; and

    (c) if a no-licence resolution is in force, for repealing the same.

    (3) The provisions of this Act as to requisitions and the taking of the poll thereon and the majorities requisite for carrying resolutions shall so far as applicable apply to such further polls, provided that where a further poll is taken in any area where a no-licence resolution is in force and the majority of the votes recorded is not in favour of the repeal of such resolution, such resolution shall continue to be in force.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), after the word "force" ["if a no-change resolution is in force"] insert the words "or a limiting resolution or a no-licence resolution has been repealed."
    Leave out the words "the continuance of such" ["that is to say, the continuance of such resolution or"] and insert instead thereof the words "for a further no-change."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (c), to add the words,
    (3) When a no-licence resolution has been repealed, the Licensing Court shall grant certificates to suitable applicants as far as applied for in lieu of those withdrawn under the operation of the repealed resolution, and certificates so granted shall not require confirmation provided that the total number of certificates to be so granted in any area shall not exceed one for every thousand of population in burghs and one for every five hundred of population elsewhere.
    This really is a limiting proposal, and deals with the situation when a no-licence resolution has been put in force and repealed, and it restricts the powers of the magistrates in granting licences. I do not know what the House will think of an Amendment of this kind, but it is distinctly restricting; it is intended to free the hands of the magistrates in the matter. It introduces a limit of population of one for every thousand of population in burghs and one for every five hundred of population elsewhere. I do not know whether it is worthy of discussion or consideration whether under circumstances of this kind there ought not to be some sort of limit to the number of licences to be granted in a particular area.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): There are certain limits of population required as part of this Amendment, but, on the other hand, there is a very considerable extension, because it proposes that the Licensing Courts shall grant certificates to suitable applicants. They must grant a number equal to those withdrawn if there are

    375
    suitable applicants, and these certificates are not to require confirmation which is a departure from the practice at the present time. Why have they not to require confirmation? The hon. Baronet has given no reason why they should not require confirmation. I think it is much better to leave it to the Magistrate rather than to try to dictate to them that they should issue a certain number of licences, and that there should be no need for confirmation of these certificates.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3), leave out the words "this Act as to requisitions and the taking of the poll thereon and the majorities requisite for carying resolutions shall so far as applicable," and insert instead thereof the words "Section 2 of this Act except as regards the questions to be submitted to the electors shall."
    After the word "a" ["where a no-licence resolution is in force"], insert the words "limiting resolution or a."
    Leave out the words "resolution shall continue to be in force" and insert instead thereof the words "shall not be carried." —[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

    Clause 5.—(Supplemental Provisions.)
    (1) The requisition for a poll shall be in the form set out in Schedule I. of this Act, and shall be signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area; and the signatures to the said requisition shall be appended thereto with the full addresses of the signatories, on papers which shall be issued on demand of any elector by the clerk to the local authority, not earlier than the fifteenth day of August immediately preceding the month in which the requisition is to be lodged; and such papers shall bear on each sheet the date of issue. The requisition shall be lodged during the month of September in any year with the clerk to the local authority, who shall thereupon insert, in not less than two newspapers circulating in the area, a notice of the receipt of such requisition, and shall allow inspection of the requisition by any elector, but, after the requisition has been so lodged, no signatures thereto may be withdrawn.
    (2) On the day on which a poll under this Act is taken in any area, all the premises in such area in which exciseable liquors are sold by retail shall remain
    376
    closed for the sale of such liquors until after the hour fixed for the close of the poll, but nothing in this Sub-section contained shall prohibit the sale of such liquors to lodgers or to bonâ fide travellers taking meals on the premises in any room usually set apart for that purpose, for consumption therein at the meal, or the sale, distribution, or delivery of exciseable liquors under the conditions prescribed by Section sixty-three of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.
    (3) A poll shall be taken on any day which the local authority may fix in the month either of November or of December immediately following the lodging of the requisition: Provided that in a county a poll shall be taken only in the year of a triennial election of county councillors, except in the case of a poll held in the year in which a resolution under this Act is first competent; and provided further, that if a poll, or the declared result thereof, is by a judgment of the Court of Session declared void, the Court may, if they think fit, order the local authority to cause a new poll to be taken, or one-tenth of the electors in the area may, by requisition lodged with the clerk to the local authority within one month of the date of the judgment, demand a new poll, and the local authority shall thereupon forthwith cause such poll to be taken.
    (4) Polls under this Act shall be by ballot, and the Secretary for Scotland shall make rules for regulating the procedure with respect to requisitions and the taking of polls, and providing for the recounting or scrutiny of the votes recorded on any poll when a demand is made there for, and, without prejudice to the generality of the power hereby conferred, may by those rules apply for the purpose with any necessary modifications any enactments relating to Parliamentary or local government elections (including the penal provisions thereof):
    Provided that where a poll is taken for the first time in any area, the ballot papers shall be in the form contained in Schedule II. of this Act, with any modifications thereof to meet the circumstances of the case which may be sanctioned by the Secretary for Scotland, and in case of polls other than the first poll or in cases where there are no certificates or not more than one certificate in the area, in such forms as may be prescribed by the Secretary for Scotland, who shall fix a maximum scale for the expenses of a poll, and any expenses incurred within such scale by the local authority in connection

    377
    with this Act shall be defrayed out of the county general purposes rate in counties and the burgh general or police assessment in burghs, but shall not be reckoned in any calculation as to the statutory limit of such assessment.
    (5) If any returning officer, presiding officer, clerk or officer of the local authority is guilty of any wilful act or omission in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, or of any of the rules made by the Secretary for Scotland under this Act, he shall on summary conviction, in cases where no penalty is otherwise provided, be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds for the first and twenty pounds for every succeeding offence.
    (6) Every person who forges or procures the forgery of any signature to a requisition, or alters or defaces a requisition, or delivers to the clerk to the local authority any requisition knowing it to contain signatures which have been forged, or to have been altered or defaced in any way, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, or, failing payment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months with or without hard labour.
    Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "one tenth" ["shall be signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors in the area "], and to insert instead thereof the word "one-fifth."
    If a resolution of this kind is to have effect, it ought to be supported by at least one-fifth of the electors. I cannot see any possible objection, even from the point of view of the Bill itself, to the acceptance of this Amendment. If the question is of sufficient public interest in the locality it ought to be possible to get this proportion of the electors to move. I believe I am
    correct in saying that where legislation of this kind is in force in other countries, the proportion is one-fifth and not one-tenth. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to second the Amendment which, I think, is a perfectly sound one. If there is sufficient feeling in the district in favour of prohibition, there would be no difficulty in getting the number proposed in this Amendment. If there is not, then it means that a certain number of people are asking for that for which there is really no necessity.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This matter was considered at length in the Committee, and it was felt that it was hardly fair to put a burden upon the parties whoever they might be, of obtaining more than one-tenth. It will work both ways, and will affect not merely those who wish to have restriction, but those who wish to raise the question again of having more licences in the district. The Committee came to the decision that 10 per cent, of the electorate demanding a poll was a sufficient safeguard against any frivolous demand. I am sorry I do not see my way to accept the Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It is important that there should be no unnecessary continuance of these polls, and what we are asking for is only a very small proportion of the electorate. How any man is to conduct his trade under this continuous repetion of polls I do not know. I think the only effect will be that every reputable man will get out of the trade as quickly as he can and leave only the blackguards to continue it.
    Question put, "That the word 'one-tenth' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes,101.

    Division No. 224.]

    AYES.

    [4.10 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Adamson, William

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Brace, William

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Brady, P. J,

    Cotton, William Francis

    Armitage, R.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Crumley, Patrick

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

    Cullinan, John

    Barnes, George N.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Delany, William

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Clough, William

    Doris, William

    Boland, John Plus

    Clynes, John R.

    Duffy, William J.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Leach, Charles

    Radford, G. H.

    Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Reddy, M.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Logan, John William

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Falconer, James

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lundon, T.

    Richards, Thomas

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lynch, A. A.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    McGhee, Richard

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Maclean, Donald

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneslde)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Gill, A. H.

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Ginnell, L.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Glanville, H. J.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Rowlands, James

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

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

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hackett, J.

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    Hancock, John George

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Menzies, Sir Waiter

    Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Molloy, Michael

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Mooney, John J.

    Sutton, John E.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morgan, George Hay

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hayward, Evan

    Morison, Hector

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Tennant, Harold John

    Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

    Muldoon, John

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Munro, R.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Higham, John Sharp

    Needham, Christopher Thomas

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hinds, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Hodge, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Webb, H.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rutus

    O'Dowd, John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Ogden, Fred

    Whitetnuse, John Howard

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

    0'Kelly, Edward P. (Wickiow, W.)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Shee, James John

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Jones, William S. Glyn (Stepney)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Joyce, Michael

    Outhwaite, R. L.

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

    Keating, Matthew

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Kelly, Edward

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

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

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Young, w. (Perthshire, E.)

    King, J.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    NOES.

    Archer-Shee, Major

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Ashley, W. W.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Baird, J. L.

    Cassel, Felix

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cator, John

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cave, George

    Dixon, C. H.

    Barnston, H.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Barrie, H. T.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Falle, B. G.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Fell, Arthur

    Boyton, James

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Forster, Henry William

    Bridgeman, W. Cllve

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Bull, Sir William James

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Goulding Edward Alfred

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Grant, J. A.

    380

    381

    Greene, W. R.

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

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Gretton, John

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

    Stanier, Beville

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Stewart, Gershom

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Maliaby-Deeley, Harry

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Newman, John R. P.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Hills, John Waller

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Younger, Sir George

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

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

    Kerry, Earl of

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Mr. FELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "issue" ["on each sheet the date of issue"] to insert the words "and shall forthwith lie for signature at the post office or any branch post office within the area."
    My Amendment is to make the procedure a little more clear and add a little more solemnity to it, so that this requisition when signed my carry greater weight than would be the case if it were simply taken round by an individual who canvassed and obtained signatures through his or her own influence. The signatures may be taken on different sheets. We know how petitions to this House are frequently obtained, and very often they do not have the weight which the number of signatures obtained appears to give them. We know how petitions have been got up in favour of this Temperance Bill. I do not know what effect they will have upon the divisions, but I know that petitions obtained by an influential person who goes round asking for signatures does not carry very much weight, because a man is not very likely to refuse his signature when his friend asks him to sign. Consequently many of the signatures obtained may not represent the opinion of the people who put down their names. It would be better for all purposes if the petition were lodged at the post office. In the Bill there is no guidance as to what is to be done and the procedure must be created, and I suggest as the most public place the petitions should lie for signature is the post office. The petition should be one document and it should lie at the post office, where the people can go and sign their names and addresses. Under these conditions you would be far more likely to get such a requisition as is intended by the promoters of this Bill. A document sent to us signed under those circumstances would have more influence, although you would
    382
    get very much fewer signatures than if canvassing took place by persons in sympathy with it. If the post office is not considered the proper place, I would suggest it should be the town hall or some other public building, but the post office is the only one I can suggest now.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I beg leave to-second this Amendment.
    I would like to call the attention; of the Secretary for Scotland to the total absence in this Bill of any provision which will make these requisitions substantial and real. You have under this Clause simply the provision that the requisition may be issued. There is no provision as to where it is to be taken or by whom, and no method of getting the signature is provided. The only provision is that it must bear the names and addresses, and then it is to be deposited with the clerk to the local authority. You have no provision for inspection by anybody until after it is deposited, and after it has been deposited no signature can be withdrawn. You have no provision for a verification of the names and addresses, and no signature may be withdrawn if it his been forged, altered, effaced, or procured by misrepresentation. Unless you make this alteration, you are going to have this state of things. Anybody may get a directory, take the names and addresses of a number of different people, and copy them and put them into a petition. You hand it in just before the time expires for lodging. Nobody can inspect the names until they are lodged, and when they are lodged none of them can be withdrawn. That is the position. On the next page of the Bill you have a provision for prosecuting people who forge, deface, or alter signatures, but you have got to find them first, and then get evidence against them. You

    383
    have nothing which requires the person who brings in the requisition to stand responsible for the signatures, and you have no provision at all for prosecution of a man who secures signatures by misrepresentation and fraud. How can you ascertain public opinion in that way I have an Amendment to this Clause later on to make it possible when a man, an hon. Member of this House for instance, finds that by fraud or forgery his name appears on a requisition he may go to the clerk of the local authority and say, "That is not my signature, and I want it withdrawn." Unless you make some radical alteration, and put in some sort of machinery for the honest carrying of it out, the whole thing will become a public farce and a scandal.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is suggested this should be done on the ground that there are no provisions in the Bill to prevent fraudulent signatures being appended to a requisition for a poll.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Xo provision for wrong signatures, whether altered or fraudulent, being withdrawn on lodging.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If it can be shown the signatures are not the signatures of persons who are entitled to vote, or that they are forged signatures, or that they have been improperly obtained in any way, those signatures will not be counted. There is a very stringent provision in this Clause providing that any person who forges, or secures the forgery of any signature to a requisition, or alters or defaces a requisition, or who delivers any requisition to the clerk of the local authority knowing it contain signatures which have been forged, may not only be fined, but, as I am going to propose, may be imprisoned without the option of a fine.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at his own provision for punishments he will find the things which appears upon the document and is forged is described as a "signature." ["Every person who forges or procures the forgery of any signature."] It is still a signature, though a forged signature.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Does the hon. and learned Member really suggest that anybody can go to a directory and copy out a hundred names with impunity? If anyone did anything of the sort he would render himself liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months with or without hard labour. We have to rely on
    384
    penalties of that sort with regard to all electoral corruption, and we have nothing else to rely on. I think it is a perfectly sufficient remedy against forged signatures. The hon. and learned Member also complains that there can only be inspection after deposit. I do not see how there can be inspection before deposit.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: If it laid at the Post Office, anybody could see it.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It would not be a convenient thing for it to lay at the Post Office in a great many cases. There is not the slightest doubt this proposal would render it extremely difficult to get signatures, because the Post Office is not at all a convenient place in the rural parts of Scotland. I cannot help thinking the object of this proposal is to make it very difficult to get signatures. I certainly could not agree to the Amendment without the sanction of the Postmaster General, and he would probably tell me it would be an inconvenient thing to have the Post Office mixed up in this business. The responsibility is put on the parties who want the poll to get a requisition of the right number of people, and very severe penalties, which I am about to make more severe, are imposed upon people who fraudulently obtain signatures. I think that is a perfectly sufficient safeguard.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point I put to him? There is no provision in the Bill to punish anybody who procures signatures by fraud or misrepresentation. You have punishments for forgery and for defacement if you can find it out, but you have no punishments for procuring signatures by fraud or misrepresentation.
    Sir J. D. REES: The Secretary for Scotland in defending this Bill, seems to me to develop all the worst qualities of an Oriental tyrant. It is not enough apparently to deprive people who are prepared to drink in moderation of the opportunity of getting drink, because a small number who may easily be got together by methods of peaceful persuasion, picketing, and other methods with which we are becoming familiar, but it is actually provided, when the petition-writer or the person corresponding to that well known attribute of Oriental government, has got together the requisite number of signatures, that no person who has been coerced, persuaded, or in any manner

    385
    persuaded to give his signature, shall be able to withdraw it. That I know will be dealt with by a later Amendment, but the Amendment of my hon. Friend which is now before the House, will be a very useful safeguard. I have compared the right hon. Gentleman's procedure with that of an Oriental town where it is usual to have an official whose attribute it is to obtain signatures. You go to him and pay him two rupees or so for such signature, and they are put in. In this case it would be perfectly easy to obtain the requisite number of signatures. Fanatics are always with us. [Cheers.] I am very glad hon. Gentlemen opposite see themselves as others see them. It will be the easiest thing in the world to obtain these signatures, and, when they are locked up in the clerk's desk, why, in the name of wonder, is a man not to have an opportunity for glorious repentance? There is to be no opportunity of his undoing what he has been persuaded to do, perhaps on insufficient information or for some improper reason. If this register remained as, my hon. Friend's Amendment provides at the post office, there would be some opportunity of recalling signatures, provided the subsequent Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet (Mr. Norman Craig) is carried. The Secretary for Scotland is driven again and again to the most desperate straits to defend his case, and he actually says the post office is the most inconvenient place possible, being generally situated in some place where nobody can find it.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I did not say that.
    Sir J. D. REES: Well, words to that effect. I may be guilty of more or less embroidering the right hon. Gentleman's statement, Taut, if that was not the substance of what lie said, I do not understand the English or the Scotch language. Why, in the name of wonder, should there be any difficulty about this when the post office is used for old age pensions and every conceivable purpose? The post office in small Scotch villages is absolutely the centre of all gossip, of all business and purchase, and of everything else. The right hon. Gentleman, if he is not going merely to use, as I say, the methods of an Oriental tyrant, should honour the House by giving something like fair colourable reasons for rejecting an Amendment of this sort which is so necessary to provide that these polls which interfere so desperately with
    386
    the liberty of the subject—not that he and his friends object to that—shall be bonâ fide and shall be open in every possible manner to such Amendment as can be applied to them.
    Sir H. CRAIK: The answer of the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand it, was that under another Sub-clause certain penalties are imposed upon anyone who forges or secures the forgery of any signature or defaces or alters a requisition. That is not the difficulty. The difficulty is, that it might be absolutely necessary to go through the whole procedure, involving heavy expense and great disturbance to all concerned, though the petition when presented and lodged might have signatures forged or fraudulent. I see the right hon. Gentleman is good enough to smile at my argument. Perhaps, instead of smiling, he will listen to me and then attempt to give an answer to it. The only time when guilt could be brought home to the guilty person would be when the matter was brought before the Court of Sessions and the Court of Sessions had declared the proceedings void. We wish, instead of these long and expensive proceedings taking place upon the presentation of a petition, some precautions should be taken to see that signatures are rightfully appended by those who are really entitled to sign, and that persons are not induced under pressure to append their names to a requisition. That is the difficulty we feel, and if the Secretary for Scotland cannot solve it perhaps he will allow the Lord Advocate to give us some explanation as to how to prevent this misrepresentation and how to render a requisition with improper signatures nugatory without relying upon the possibility at some long-distance date that certain persons may be found guilty.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I think rather more safeguards are required than we have at present. I am certain the Secretary for Scotland would wish to have the poll as clean as possible, and if we were satisfied that Sub-section (6) would deal with cases of fraud, bribery, and intimidation, as well as forgery, it would make a good deal of difference. After all there are various ways of proceeding on lines that ought not to be encouraged. My hon. Friend wishes the signatures to be obtained as openly and above-board as possible, and I cannot see what objection there can be to their being appended at the post office. We do not want signatures got from a man while he is drunk

    387
    and at a time when he does not know what he is signing. Why cannot the petitions or requisitions stand at the post office, where they can be signed in open daylight?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think these fears are all unfounded. You are going to have a vote of the electors, and electors are the only people on earth who can sign the requisition. A certain proportion must sign it before the requisition can become operative. You must have no fewer than one-tenth of the electors in the area. You have consequently to deal with a limited number of names, and no one can doubt that the requisition for a poll will be closely scrutinised by those who object to the poll. There will be no difficulty in seeing if the signatures are proper, and it should be remembered that very serious consequences—imprisonment without the option of a fine—are attendant upon any misconduct in this respect. I submit there is no substantial fear that this requisition will not be signed by the proper persons, who must be electors on the roll of the district. To my mind there are sufficient safeguards.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is there power to examine the signatures?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The requisition is to be lodged with the clerk to the local authority.
    Sir H. CRAIK: But you do not specifically give him power to examine them.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: One would expect that if the requisition is lodged at the offices of the local authority and it is necessary it should bear 200 signatures, if twenty of them are wrong, the local authority will declare that the requisition is not in order and will decline to act upon it.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I cannot quite appreciate the objections raised by the right hon. Gentleman. What is the procedure prescribed? A resolution is put forward advocating the refusal of all licences or a restriction of their number, and, up till the end of September, people may go about with papers in their pockets worrying the electors in order to get signatures. The requisition must be deposited with the local authority by the 30th September, and then the signatures can be examined, as it is not until the 1st of November that a poll can be ordered.
    388
    We know that the months of September and October are very inconvenient ones, as the Registration Courts are being held and the new register is being drawn up. There is some trouble, in fact, in knowing exactly where the electors are. Apparently no provision is made for a scrutiny of the signatures to the resolution.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Sub-section (4) deals with that.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I certainly cannot sec any provision for scrutiny. The Secretary for Scotland is to lay down rules regulating the procedure. Is it intended that he may prescribe that the requisition shall be signed at the Post Office? If he is to have that power, if it is intended to give it to him by Subsection (4), why should not the provision be put by this House itself into the Bill? Nobody would be the worse off, and surely the Secretary for Scotland has already sufficient work upon his hands without adding unnecessarily to his duties. If the requisition were directed to lie at the post office everybody would be entitled to see it, and could, if they so desired, test the genuineness of the signatures. This Clause only provides a penalty for forgery and for nothing else. We have had some experience of requisitions of this nature already. We have had petitions got up either for or against the granting of licences, and it has constantly occurred that whoever the petition may be opposed to, claims that the signatures have been obtained by means of misrepresentation. That does not necessarily involve forgery. Therefore I am in favour of these requisitions being signed at the post office, where everybody can see them. That would make them public documents, open to public inspection, and at the same time it would save people being worried by unpaid canvassers. If it is honestly desired to secure properly signed requisitions, what ground can there be for objecting to their being placed in an office where the public can see what is going on? If the electors are to be put to the trouble and expense of an election, surely they are at least entitled to have the protection, small as it may be, which this Amendment offers.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): May I remind the House of what it has apparently forgotten, that this is by no means a novel procedure, so far as the law of Scotland is concerned. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have been

    389
    speaking as if we were enacting the provisions for these requisitions for the first time. But, as a matter of fact, we have been familiar with such requisitions for many years. Requisitions for setting into operation statutory machinery are well known, and never before has it been suggested that they should lie at the post-office for signature. There are a great many things which burgh and county authorities can only do after they have been set in motion by a requisition signed by a certain number of the electors. But nobody has ever before thought of suggesting that such requisitions should lie at the post office for signature. It is a remarkable fact that my right hon. and learned Friend opposite took a very active part in our discussions upstairs, and yet never until the present moment has he made such a suggestion as this.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I am always learning.
    Mr. URE: No doubt. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will learn to the end of his days, but I certainly do not think that he will find this a useful part of his education. After all, it is a question of convenience and nothing else. People who may be deeply interested in these questions may not be in the habit of visiting post offices. It may be their practice to post all their letters in the nearest pillar-box. As to the suggestion that there are no provisions against fraud, I would point out that under the law of Scotland fraud can already be punished without its being necessary to put any special provision for it in an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: But the requisition remains good, all the same. The signatures cannot be withdrawn.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. URE: I disclaim the idea we are dealing with dishonest men, whose only desire is to cheat one another. Surely if it can be shown that the requisition has not been properly signed, it will not be acted upon. While the requisition is lying at the offices of the clerk to the local authority it will be open to inspection. The provision does not mean if a man discovers, or somebody else discovers for him, that his signature is put there, that it cannot be withdrawn. It is not the signature of an elector at all. I further draw the attention of the House to the fact that
    390
    if any additional safeguards are thought to be necessary—for the life of me I cannot see that any are required—the Secretary for Scotland has ample power under Sub-section (4), Clause 5, to provide all the procedure necessary with regard to requisitions. That is not confined merely to the handing about of the requisition, but it covers the whole area, from the beginning of the operation to the end of it, from the time the clerk to the local authority issues the requisition until the last day of inspection. I submit to the House that if this Amendment were carried it would be a great inconvenience to a great number of respectable people, who ought not to be put to such inconvenience on such a flimsy ground.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The Lord Advocate says it would be very inconvenient for an elector to go to the post office, because he puts his letters in the pillar-box. Does he get his insurance stamp at the pillar-box? Every week every employer or employé must go once to the post office. [HON. Members: "No, no."] Well, I suppose he can buy a considerable number of stamps at a time, but he must get his stamps. [HON. Members: "The employer must."] There can be no question that the ordinary elector must go to the post office to get the stamps to put on the letters which he puts in the pillar-box. If the letter is not stamped when it is put in the pillar-box it is charged up at the other end. The argument of the Lord Advocate is almost as futile as the arguments brought forward against the Amendment by the Secretary for Scotland. What were the arguments of the Secretary for Scotland? First of all, he said that we on this side of the House desired that there should not be many signatures to the requisition. That is not at all what we desire. What we do desire is that the signatures to the requisition should first of all be genuine signatures and should have been put there by people who knew what they were signing when they affixed their signatures. Everyone knows perfectly well that there is nothing easier than for a person of persuasive manner to go round to a number of people—it is often done in this House—and say, "My dear fellow, would you mind signing this for me?" The person asked says, "Oh, well, yes," but he says privately, "What an infernal nuisance. I want to do something else." Then he says, "What is it, my dear fellow?" and he is told, "It is one of

    391
    those things you ought to sign, it does not mean very much; won't you sign it?" In order to get away he signs it. That has often happened in this House, and on this side of the House, where there is more common sense and a greater desire to know what we are doing. I can remember one occasion when I found myself that several Members on this side of the House had put their signatures to a document which was viewed with disfavour by right hon. Gentlemen who sit below me. I went round to a good many of them who told me, "I did not know what I was signing. When I put my signature to it I did not know what I was doing."
    If human beings, such as hon. Members on this side of the House, do that sort of thing, what is to be expected from the ordinary elector? The result will be that there will be a large number of people who will sign these requisitions, not because they desire to do so, but because they desire to give pleasure to someone to whom they are under a debt of obligation, or whom they personally like, or because they want to get rid of a tiresome fellow. That is what we want to avoid. Does the Secretary for Scotland desire it? I cannot believe that he does. We must remember that these signatures are going to cause, I will not say ruin, but a very considerable pecuniary loss to a great number of people. There is not the slightest doubt about that. It may be right that that should be done, but before we do that we should be very careful to see that the people who are going to inflict this loss on other people are really cognisant of what they are doing before they put their signatures to a document. That is a very simple proposition, and I cannot see any argument against it. With regard to whether or not the Post Office is a convenient place I have already attempted to show that stamps must be bought there, and I should have thought that it was the most convenient place. Old age pensions are paid at the Post Office, and a large number of other matters are settled there. The Secretary for Scotland says that he has not got the consent of the Postmaster-General. Is that a proper argument to put before the House? Has he asked the Postmaster-General for his consent?
    Mr. McKINNON WOODindicated dissent.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, he has not. The Amendment has been on the Paper for a
    392
    considerable time, and the right hon. Gentleman might have asked the Postmaster-General whether he would consent. I am convinced that the Postmaster-General, with the tact that distinguishes him, would have consented at once. Therefore that argument falls to the ground. The next argument was that the area was a very small one. Is it? If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Bill he will see- that an area may consist of 9,999 people. It will have probably 1,500 electors in it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: That is the Parliamentary area.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend tells me I am wrong. There will not only be small areas, but a large number of areas where there will be a considerable number of signatures to be obtained, and it will be difficult to ascertain whether the signatures are forged. It must be remembered further—I say this without any desire to cast any reflection upon the advocates of temperance, either in this House or in the country—that the advocates of temperance in the country are, to a certain extent, fanatics, at any rate some of them. You do not quite know to what lengths people who believe they are doing something for a good cause will go. Look at the suffragettes. They actually starve themselves in order to advance their cause. Is it not possible to conceive that a woman who is a suffragette and also a teetotaler may consider that, in order to advance the temperance cause, she is right in endeavouring to obtain signatures by going round and putting a little gloss upon the actual results of those signatures. That is what we want to guard against. We have not had a single argument from anybody on the other side of the House which meets one of the questions I have raised, and in these circumstances I hope the Government will reconsider their decision. I have not dealt with the question of forgery. I understand that a signature cannot be withdrawn, and that if it is on the requisition it must be counted. We require some Amendment to deal with that, and I understand the Lord Advocate is prepared to consider favourably an Amendment on that point. If it is not done here, I hope it will be done in the House of Lords, which exists for the purpose of allowing the Government to correct their errors. If they do not accept my hon. Friend's Amendment here it can always be done in the House of Lords. If the Postmaster-General refuses his con-

    393
    sent, which I think is most unlikely, I hope the Government will find some other place which is better or as suitable as the post office. With reference to Sub-section (4) of Clause 5, the arguments advanced against the Amendment only strengthen the case for it. It is advisable that we in this House should know what we are doing, and should not give to Ministers the power of making requisitions for this, that, or the other. Let us make the requisitions ourselves.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: The main question raised on the other side of the House is whether there is sufficient precaution to make sure that the signatures are real signatures and not bogus signatures.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That they should be signatures by people who know what they are doing, and who, when they sign, know the effect of signing.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: The hon. Baronet spoke of forged signatures.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I said that with regard to forgery I would not deal with it, because I understood the provisions with regard to it are satisfactory, and that with regard to the counting of forged signatures the Lord Advocate was going to bring in an Amendment.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I believe the ease is sufficiently met. I would ask the hon. Baronet's attention to Clause 5, Subsection (1):
    "The requisition shall be lodged during the month of September in any year with the clerk to the local authority, who shall thereupon insert, in not less than two newspapers circulating in the area, a notice of the receipt of such requisition, and shall allow inspection of the requisition by any elector."
    Sub-section (3) says:
    "A poll shall be taken on any day which the local authority may fix in the month either of November or of December, immediately following the lodging of the requisition."
    The hon. Baronet will see that between the lodging of the requisition and the poll there must be at least one clear month, and during that time the signatures can be investigated to the fullest possible extent.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: They are not withdrawn.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I did not say withdrawn, I said investigated.
    Earl WINTERTON: The withdrawal is the whole point.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I am taking the hon. Baronet's own point. If any signature is proved to be a false signature, or a forged signature, then, as the Lord Advocate has pointed out, it is no signature, and will not be counted by the local authority in deciding the number of signatures on the requisition.
    Mr. FELL: Can any elector in that district, during the month of October, call at the clerk's office to see this list, and see whether his name is on it?
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I have no doubt that those who object to this requisition will take the ordinary steps to see that the signatures are genuine. Every opportunity is given for that. In regard to the point of the hon. Baronet as to whether every man who signs a thing fully realises all the consequences, and that every man who votes for something fully realises all the consequences of his vote, I think that is more than the wit of man can contrive, but I, for my own part, can trust to the common sense and common honesty of my own countrymen. Then the hon. Baronet spoke of this requisition as inflicting grave pecuniary loss on various people. I would ask him to distinguish between the requisition and the poll. All that the requisition does is to make the poll possible, and unless a great preponderance of the voters, and in any case at least a third of those on the register, are in favour of one or other of these resolutions, the Act will be inoperative and will have no force at all. We are dealing now, not with the poll, but merely with the requisition, and for that purpose, at all events, we have ample safeguards in the way I have suggested.
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentleman who has been put up to speak has been put up as the fifth wheel of the Government coach, and he has made no better fist of it than the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. He entirely misunderstood the point put by my hon. Friend, which was simply this: What provision is there under the taking of this requisition for signatures which are found to be fraudulent and are not real signatures to be withdrawn before the requisition comes into operation? My hon. Friend, I thought, was far too optimistic when he said the Lord Advocate had given a promise that he would consider the matter. The Lord Advocate

    395
    made no reference to it at all in his speech. As far as I can understand, there is nothing in the Act regarding the taking of the requisition which would prevent a number of fraudulent signatures being appended to that requisition and counted and being used for the purpose of taking the poll. It says at the bottom of this Sub-section: That no signatures may be withdrawn. We are in some difficulty in discussing the Amendment, because many points arise on subsequent Amendments. It illustrates the difficulty of doing business under the Government's present arrangements when they send Bills of this kind, which ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole House, upstairs. The result is merely that Committee points have to be discussed on the Report stage. Before we go to a Division, I hope the Government, or one of their private secretaries—there is a whole row of private secretaries behind them who have not exhausted their right to speak—will give us an answer on this point as to whether or not there is any means in the Bill for removing signatures which have been found to be fraudulent before the requisition comes into operation. The whole method of taking these polls is reminiscent of the methods of Tammany, and might have been invented by Mr. Boss Croker, the prominent supporter of the Irish Nationalist party. The whole of the provisions for taking the poll have been so fashioned as to make intimidation easy and undue pressure of every kind, not only on the elector, but on his family, and to make it perfectly easy for fraudulent signatures to be put in the requisition, and it would be impossible for these fraudulent signatures to be withdrawn. The argument of the Secretary for Scotland is the most grotesque argument I have ever heard—that it was impossible for a voter to walk to the post office. I should like to ask the Government this question, which has not yet been raised: If it is impossible for him to walk to the post office to sign his name there, what steps is he going to take when the requisition is circulated in the area to go to the authority in question and discover whether or not the names on the requisition are real or forged names? Anyone who knows anything about election law and registration knows how difficult it is under our present law to prevent wrong names creeping in and people being wrongly described. Schedule I merely asks for the elector's signature, his
    396
    address, and his number on the register. There is nothing whatever to prevent a man going to some lonely cottage in a Highland district to obtain signatures. The occupants themselves will probably be ignorant whether or not they are on the register, and if those names be placed on the requisition the list will be published in the newspapers—they may or may not see the newspaper—and the requisition will be put into force, and, in the absence of any intimation to the contrary from the Government, there is nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent it being enforced.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Surely the clerk to the local authority will know whether the name is on the register. The local authority will not incur the expense of a poll on a bogus requisition without a sufficient number of names. If the requisition is deposited with him, he will look over it to see the names of the electors.
    Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. There are very frequently two men of the same name—for instance, Thomas MacNeil, senior, and Thomas MacNeil, junior. A man goes round with a list to obtain signatures and both Thomas MacNeil, junior, and Thomas MacNeil, senior, believing they are on the list, sign the requisition. In the case of an ordinary poll, taken at an ordinary polling place, the polling clerk asks the man if he is the Thomas MacNeil described in the register. Who is going to do this under this form of taking the poll?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If there are two MacNeils, only one is on the register.
    Earl WINTERTON: I see. The Thomas MacNeil who is entitled to vote does not vote and the Thomas MacNeil who is not entitled to vote does vote. That is the only logical result of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Both names have the same value. That just shows the way in which this requisition is being drawn up. It does not matter in the least, according to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, whether the man is on the register as long as there is a name and someone signs it. He may be a man from Glasgow. It is perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, when they drew up this thing, were quite unaware of the effect it would have, and when the Lord Advocate speaks of this having been put into operation under former Acts in Scotland he quite omitted to tell those who are not familiar with Scotch procedure

    397
    that it has never been used for anything except comparatively small questions affecting the water supply of a parish—small compared with the gigantic interests of a trade such as this, in which many millions of pounds are invested and in which many men's livelihood is at stake. Seeing the strong belief that exists opposite that the end always justifies the means, I am prepared to find temperance fanatics in the Highlands putting men under the influence of the very whisky they are anxious to ban and then making them sign the requisition.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They would not be able to sign it.
    Earl W1NTERTON: A Scotchman has to be very drunk before he is unable to sign his name or to do a good many other things which an Englishman would have to be sober to do. It is not in the public interests that a matter of this kind, in which big trade interests are affected, should be left in the hands of persons who may misuse the opportunity they obviously have to intimidate and to act fraudulently.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: Though I am not a private secretary, perhaps the Noble Lord will forgive a sentence or two to show that his fears are absolutely groundless. It docs not depend as to whether a requisition is effective or not on how many names or addresses are on it, but that it should be signed by not less than a tenth of the electors in the area; and it does not matter whether the signature is withdrawn or not if it is a false signature. It has not been signed by an elector. If the people who have to examine these requisitions find that there are upon it signatures which have not been signed by electors they count for nothing, and it does not affect the efficacy of the requisition at all. Therefore this point about withdrawing signatures does not arise. Another point that ought to be borne in mind is this. Hon. Members opposite seem to think it is most important that there should be no attempt to obtain forgeries to the requisition, and we are told that if they do certain people may be injured. But who is going to attempt to get forged signatures to a requisition, knowing perfectly well that the requisition will not in the end be effective unless they have got a three-fifths majority of the whole electorate? If the requisition is going to decide anything I can understand people who are unscrupulous attempting to get forgeries. But this is
    398
    only something to set the machinery in motion, and if you have a number of them forgeries, what better are the people who want to bring about a reduction of licences unless they have the whole of the population behind them? It seems to me that a great deal of fuss is being made about the danger of forgeries to these requisitions, and I am certain the point raised about there being no machinery to allow of signatures to be withdrawn is utterly worthless, seeing that the Act itself provides that it shall be signed by not less than a tenth of the electors.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I wish to support the Amendment for a somewhat different reason from those which have been advanced in recent speeches. I do not wish to deal with the chances of forgery, although I agree that ought to be guarded against. My view is that there ought to be a certain amount of reasonable difficulty in the matter of the signature of this requisition. There ought to be a certain amount of formality, because we want to secure that this tenth of the electorate shall not be chance persons worried into signing, but shall be serious teetotal reformers who have considered the question and come before the locality advocating a change. They ought to be a tenth of the inhabitants. Let me suggest what would happen when the time approaches for the Bill to come into force. The teetotalers do not regard this as an end. It is a means to an end. Their intention is to make Scotland piebald. They want to have a certain number of dry districts, and they know that the result of a certain number of dry districts will be that a certain number of the remaining districts will become very wet indeed. It will be a public scandal, and the result of that scandal will be that they will be able to take a further step forward. What will happen when the Bill is approaching the time when it comes into force? The organisations in Edinburgh and Glasgow will take a map of the country. They will carefully consider every single unit under this Bill, and they will select suitable areas in which they think it desirable for one reason or another to try the experiment, and, if possible, to make those districts dry. An emissary will then go down to the quiet and peaceful parish in question. He arrives, let us say, in a parish with 300 electors, and he has to get thirty signatures to the requisition. He gets hold of half-a-dozen men, and they meet in a back parlour. The whole electorate of the parish

    399
    is gone carefully through, and the character of each man and woman is carefully considered. Their price mentally, morally, and, in some cases perhaps materially, is considered, and the best way of approaching each individual is carefully weighed. I venture to say that this is what will happen. Each of these half-dozen people—everyone who has sat on a Committee knows how these things are done—will undertake to see a certain number of the electors, and in that way they will get their thirty signatures. They will arrange to waylay the electors in a suitable manner in order to obtain the signatures. The result will be that the necessary number will be forthcoming. Once they are forthcoming, there is no means by which they can be withdrawn. The whole parish may be laughing at them, but even the Secretary for Scotland has no power to make regulations for the withdrawal of signatures.
    The whole place will be turned into a state of turmoil. There will be a tremendous teetotal agitation carried on, and there will be great defensive action on the part of the publicans. The whole place will be upside down, and what is the hope. The hope is that there will be a certain number of people who will say, "Confound both parties, I am not going to vote," and the proposal will be carried by
    a small number of electors. The work will be done systematically. The power which has been exercised to get the Bill brought here, will be exercised in the carrying out of its provisions. It is the organisations which have forced the Secretary for Scotland into the position he has taken up. Circulars have been sent by the supporters of the Bill asking us not to alter a single line. What the organisations want is the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. They have been successful in these Debates in achieving their end, and those who have been so successful in organising this stone-wall attitude on the part of the Government will sit in their organisations in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and elsewhere, and carry out a campaign in the way I have indicated. I venture to say that it is in the best interest of the little community to which I have referred, the interest of freedom, and the interest of temperance in the long run, that you should have a certain amount of formality, delay, and difficulty in obtaining signatures, in order that they may be obtained, not in a hole and corner manner, but from those who are convinced that the question ought to go to the poll.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 264.

    Division No. 225.]

    AYES.

    [5.35 P.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Baird, J. L.

    Dixon, C. H.

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Falle, B. G.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Barnston, H.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Kirloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Beckett, Hon. Gerase

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. (Griffith-

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Boyton, J,

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Grant, J. A.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Greene, W. R.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gretton, John

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Nield, Herbert

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Cassel, Felix

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Cator, John

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Cave, George

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

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

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hills, J. W.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stanicr, Beville

    Croft, H. P.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Stewart, Gershom

    Watt, Henry A.

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Younger, Sir George

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Winterton, Earl

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. Norman Craig.

    Touche, George Alexander

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

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Glanville, H. J.

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

    Adamson, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meagher, Michael

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Goldstone, Frank

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Armitage, Robert

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

    Arnold, Sydney

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Molloy, M.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hackett, J.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Morgan, George Hay

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

    Hancock, J. G.

    Morrell, Philip

    Bentham, G. J.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Morison, Hector

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Muldoon, John

    Black, Arthur W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Munro, R.

    Boland, John Pius

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hayward, Evan

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Brace, William

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Brady, P. J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hinds, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Hodge, John

    O'Dowd, John

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hogge, James Myles

    Ogden, Fred

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Grady, James

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Horne, C. Sylvester (Ipswich)

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

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Shee, James John

    Clough, William

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Clynes, J. R.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Joyce, Michael

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Keating, M.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cullinan, John

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Kelly, Edward

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk,)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    King, J.

    Radford, G. H.

    Delany, William

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lansbury, George

    Reddy, Michael

    Doris, W.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duffy, William J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Leach, Charles

    Richards, Thomas

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Logan, John William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robinson, Sidney

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rock, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Falconer, J.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Rowlands, James

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Field, William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

    Furness, Stephen W.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Ginnell, L.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

    402

    403

    Sheehy, David

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

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

    Soames, Arthur Weliesley

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Sutton, John E.

    Webb, Henry

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Tennant, Harold John

    White, Patrick (Heath, North)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wiles, Thomas

    Mr. GRETTON: I beg to move in Subsection (1), after the word "year" ["September in any year'], to insert the words "within twenty-eight days immediately following the date of issue of the requisition."
    The point raised by this Amendment is quite a simple one. The Clause as it originally stood, provided that the requisition papers should be issued not earlier than 1st August in any year, and that they should be lodged within thirty-five days of being issued. During the passage of the Bill through Committee the date was altered from the 1st of August to the 15th August, and subsequently the thirty-five days were struck out of the Clause. This was done by the Committee somewhat inadvertently, because the effect of that Amendment was that the period of the requisition was extended from thirty-five days to forty-five days. It is issued on the 15th August, and is not to close till the 30th of September. I am asking the House to put a somewhat shorter period, and I suggest twenty-eight days. There is strong reason why this process of collecting signatures should not be unduly prolonged. If there is a real desire in any area that any one of these resolutions should be passed there will not be the slightest difficulty in getting a requisition signed by one-tenth part of the electors. On the other hand, if there is a reluctance to pass these resolutions, it is not easy to understand, why should the area be subject to a prolonged canvass and the electors constantly harassed by the advocates of one view or the other? On the grounds of convenience to the electors themselves the period should not be unduly prolonged. Twenty-eight days surely is quite long enough to collect all the material signatures necessary in a case of this kind, and there is no reason why forty-five days should be required unless very great difficulty is apprehended in getting these signatures. If there is difficulty in getting these signatures clearly there is not the necessary majority
    404
    to carry a resolution. No election is necessary, the public will be put to quite unnecessary expense, and there is no reason why the matter should proceed further. On these grounds I think that the Amendment is one which should be accepted by the Government, as it is not vital in any way to the principle of the Bill but improves the somewhat crude machinery which they have incorporated in the Clause as it now stands.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think that the hon. Member has stated any adequate reason for reducing the period except to place more difficulty in the way of carrying out this procedure. The Committee met this point by reducing the time from the 1st to the 15th of August, thus taking off a fortnight. I do not think that six weeks is an unreasonable period for things which are to be done not by a public body, but by voluntary organisation. I do not see any disadvantage in their having a reasonable time of six weeks to educate the electors in the matter and to see if they can get them to share their views.
    Mr. GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. He was talking to someone else. What the Committee did was to alter the date from the 1st of August to the 15th, but they struck out of the Clause the words "thirty-five days," thus making the period forty-five days. But the right hon. Gentleman says that he will not accept this Amendment, and I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division. He shows very little confidence in the powers of temperance organisations if he thinks they cannot get one-tenth part of the electors to sign a requisition in a very much less period than twenty-eight days.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I beg to propose in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "no" ["no signatures thereto may be withdrawn"], and to insert instead thereof the word "any."
    Having regard to what has happened, this Amendment becomes a little more important than it otherwise would be, but I think that it is important in any case. As I have already pointed out, under this Clause you get your requisition first and then lodgment and inspection is only after lodgment. There is no withdrawal of signatures after lodgment. Therefore nobody sees anything except what he signed at the time of signing until it is too late for him to withdraw. In answer to the attitude of hon. and right hon. Members on the other side that we are trying to make the proper working of this Bill more difficult, it is remarkable that they should think that it is the people who are in favour of extreme temperance who are necessarily going to do dishonest things. I do not know why they should assume that that is the case. There is another aspect of the matter. Suppose you have got a "no-licence" resolution in operation it may be to the interests of certain persons to get the "no-licence" resolution repealed, and this would be just as applicable to them as if the extremist temperance advocate was seeking to get a "no-licence" resolution. I think that hon. Members on the opposite side do themselves an injustice when they assume that the dishonesty is only going to be done by the people who advocate extreme temperance, and I think they do us an injustice when they assume that the people on this side of the House take no interest in temperance. It is in the interests of temperance that the machinery under this Clause, which is a very important Clause, should be efficient, because we want a repeal of a "no-licence" resolution to reflect public opinion as fairly and as thoroughly as we want the original passing of a "no-licence" resolution to do, and any abuse if possible is just as likely, probably hon. Members opposite think more likely, to be worked by those who carry on this trade.
    The Lord Advocate said that there were plenty of precedents for requisitions in Scottish law. So there are. But I am quite certain that you cannot produce any Statute applying to Scotland or to any other part of the United Kingdom, provisions for requisition without provisions for efficiency of machinery and for the prevention of abuse of the regulations. Here we
    406
    have got Sub-section (4). When we come to it, there is power to make regulations as regards the procedure with respect to requisitions and the taking of polls, but when it comes to provisions for scrutiny or re-count of votes the only provision you have got in Sub-section (4) is as regards the polls. So you extend your provisions as regards procedure both to requisitions and polls, but you limit your provisions as regards scrutiny of the votes. You have got no provisions at all for scrutiny. You have no power vested in any person, not even in the clerk to the local authority, for scrutineer's work, or for securing the purity and the accuracy of the poll. It does not really meet the case for the Minister of the Crown to say: "I am a great believer in my fellow-countrymen, and they are not a dishonest nation," or to say, as the hon. Gentleman behind me was saying, that he is a great believer in the common sense and the common honesty of his countrymen. We are here to pass Acts of Parliament which are watertight and which affect all sorts of people. I suppose even in Scotland the people are not wholly virtuous, otherwise we should not be concerned with a Bill which is intended to prevent them from getting drunk. No, that is not the way in which any representative institution whose business is legislation should deal with a serious argument as to the nature of the Bill under discussion. I hope that some more solid argument than the lack of necessity to provide watertight Bills in regard to Scotland, as the Scotch people are this, that, and the other, will be forthcoming.
    6.0 P.M.
    The Lord Advocate said to the hon. Member who sits behind me that a signature to a requisition is only a signature if it is the signature of a real elector. I can demonstrate from his own Bill that he has inadvertently mistaken the legal effect of what he is asking the House to pass. It is true, you begin by saying that the requisition must be signed by not less than one-tenth of the electors. That must be done to make it a requisition under the Act, but it says that after the requisition has been drafted, no signature may be withdrawn. A signature is no less a signature because it is a forgery. Look at the next page, and the Bill calls a forged signature still a signature. In line 22 you do not even say, "and no signature thereto may be withdrawn unless it be not an elector." You simply say that no signature shall be withdrawn, and a

    407
    forged signature is still a signature. On the next page of your Bill, page 5, in lines 37 to 40, you call it so, and you have the word signature used twice in relation to forgery. It says in clear terms that even where the signatures are forged the requisition contains signatures, and then the words of the Bill with which we are dealing say that no signature to the requisition shall be withdrawn. You have by the Bill no machinery against the practice of forgery in signing a requisition. You have no machinery for taking the signatures of the requisition; there is no punishment for fraud, and no provision for the removal of signatures obtained by fraud. In either case they must remain on the requisition, unless the Government accept my Amendment. We know how many are the ways in which names are affixed to requisitions. A roll of signatures is presented to persons and they sign, though their mind is not carried with their signatures. The requisition comes in a long roll, probably, and its object is buried in the head of that roll, yet the requisition is signed without the object being known. It might be a petition for the reprieve of some murderer who had excited public sympathy. It might be a petition for the release of Mr. Wilks because he had not the money to pay the Income Tax in respect of his wife's property and because his wife would not pay it; it might be a petition for the reduction of the Licence Duties, and anti-temperance men would sign it; or it might be one in favour of local veto, and temperance men would sign it. Let me give as an example what took place last Session in this House. Last Session, as I understand, a matter of difficulty arose between the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. Falconer) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie). The hon. Member for Forfar, at the request of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, had signed a petition, and that petition turned out to be in favour of removing the Scottish Board of Education to Edinburgh. When that subject came up in this House for discussion, the hon. Member for Forfar, in spite of having signed the petition in favour of the proposal, voted against it, and incurred the wrath of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, who could not understand it. It turned out that the hon. Member for Forfar had not the least idea what was in the petition, although he is not only a Member of Parliament but a lawyer.
    408
    If that can happen in the case of a highly intelligent and very important Member of the House, there is all the more reason why special attention should be given to this subject. If such a thing could happen in a question of Home Rule for Scotland, how much more easily would it happen in the case of requisitions such as I have referred to? Whether it is on the side of temperance or not, or whether it is on the side of moderate men or not, it is important that you should be certain that the requisition which is lodged carries with it the mind of its signatories. So long as this Clause remains unamended there will not be that assurance. Short of crime, short of false pretences, short of fraud, signatures may be given by inadvertence, ignorance, or mistake, and it is manifestly only just that there should be opportunity to withdraw such signatures. What you are doing here is equally against temperance as for it. Whichever way you look at the matter it is but natural justice that a man, whose signature has been procured by fraud, by mistake, or by lack of apprehension on his part, when he finds out what he has done, and when he learns that it does not really express his view, should be able to withdraw his signature. That you wholly decline to do. I agree that it will produce strange results. It will encourage and induce people who are not too particular in their methods, whether they are in favour of temperance or whether they are interested in the sale of alcohol, to be a little unscrupulous in obtaining signatures to the requisition, whether for a no-licence resolution or the repeal of a no-licence resolution. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the Amendment which I propose.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This Clause, without the Amendment of my hon. Friend, sins against the light. He has given instances, and many more can be given if necessary, of how signatures may be obtained. If mistakes occur in the case of signatories of the utmost intelligence, how much more likely is it to happen in instances such as those to which reference has been made? I frankly own that I think the getting of signatures should be made as difficult as possible, and that their withdrawal should be as easy as possible. If that shows any bias in the matter, I can only say that I would take no action in restraint of liberty, and would continue the enlarge-

    409
    ment of such liberty or the retention of such liberty as the subject has hitherto possessed. I should like to see that liberty continued. The hon. Member for Glasgow said the getting of signatures should be made difficult. On one occasion Dr. Johnson saw acrobatic feats performed, and a friend remarked how difficult they were. Dr. Johnson remarked, "So difficult that I wish they had not been possible." That would be the attitude I should adopt in regard to this matter, and in the interests of liberty I should make the obtaining of signatures as difficult as possible. In reference to an observation by one hon. Member, that the Secretary of Scotland is not the tyrant, but that certain organisations are the tyrants. One can see the organisations which set men in motion—one can see them plotting against the peace of mind of every man in Scotland who at the end of the day's work looks forward to his pipe and pot of beer or pint of claret. Every action which is in restraint of liberty should be subject to the intensest scrutiny, and I cannot understand the Secretary for Scotland in accepting a measure which really puts a great deal of restraint upon the free people of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman says there are safeguards under this Bill which are analogous to those which exist in the case of elections for Parliament.
    But this is a wholly different question. It does not so very much matter who is elected to be a Member of Parliament as it does whether a man is to be deprived of the liberty to have a drink, or of the man engaged in an honest trade being deprived of the power to pursue that trade. We must all see that the two things are on a totally different footing. As the right hon. Gentleman, on this side, said, they differ toto in cœlo, or, I should say, toto inferno. The safeguards in the Bill are wholly insufficient where the liberty of the subject is concerned. Whatever may be the good intentions in regard to this measure, we know that many places are paved with good intentions besides the House of Commons. In classical times, before the country was flooded with the paid agents of Government, there was an appeal from Phillip drunk to Phillip sober. Why should there not be an appeal in the case of signatures obtained in circumstances with the description of which I need not trouble the House? Why should there not be supervision and scrutiny of signatures; and, above all, provision for their withdrawal, if that should prove to be neces-
    410
    sary? It has been suggested that it is not necessary to have these safeguards, because there is a sufficient safeguard already in the limitation to a tenth of the electors. Everybody knows that men in the possession of liberty to take a drink, men who are in the position of living their lives contentedly, are not active as agitators; they do not get up early in the morning and cease not from ill-doing, nor try to compel everybody to accept their nostrums, seeking from day to day whom they may devour.
    It is well known that the ordinary moderate man is not active in signing requisitions. He loathes agitations and elections and will not sign at all. In consequence of a tenth being required, they can easily get the number of signatures required, and these cannot be withdrawn, so that a district may be brought under this extremely penal measure without the matter ever having really come before any sufficient number of the intelligent electors or without any sufficient explanation to justify it. The Lord Advocate just now said it was a small matter, just as he did with Home Rule when it was to be the chief factor in elections in Scotland. But when it did not seem to catch on, he said it was only a gas-and-water business. But surely this Bill is not analogous to a gas-and-water business. It is not enough to refer to the fact that similar requisitions are not unknown in Scotland, and that the electors will know how to deal with them. An hon. Member referred to the suffragettes who starved themselves, but here we have to deal with people who would starve others in order to impose their own will on the necks of the electors. The Secretary for Scotland said there was a sufficient safeguard in Sub-section (4), Clause 5, but I would not even trust the present occupant of that office to deal with those safeguards and to make the necessary rules for regulating procedure. The reasons which have induced the Government to bring forward this Bill have availed with him to make him refuse every suggestion which would impair its popularity among those who support the Government.
    There is no sweet reasonableness in regard to this measure, and there is a departure from the old traditions, which have been so much neglected of late, of impartiality on the part of the Minister who deals with matters, whatever may be permissible to private Members on either

    411
    side of the House. We have had interesting disquisitions as to when a signature is not a signature, and the hon. Member for Stepney argued that it does not matter whether the signature is false or not, because you must get a certain percentage. The whole point is that the false signature makes up the number, and there is an irreparable error, whereas under the Amendment of my hon. Friend the error is easily repaired, and no one is any the worse. Those who support this Bill are not prevented from obtaining another signature in place of the one which ex hypothesi has been obtained by foul means, peaceful picketing, or those other methods which are fashionable at the present time. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Dundas White), with the other Members for Glasgow, with one honourable exception, is in favour of this Bill, though if I know any place in the whole world where it is likely to be more unpopular or less likely to express the feelings of a great city, it is in Glasgow. He said why should there be any feeling about this, as he, the hon. Member for Tradeston, had no doubt that proper rules and regulations would be made. That is all very well, but it is not the intention or the feelings of the hon. Member for Tradeston which will settle this matter, but the law which is actually passed to-day, and I sincerely hope the Amendment of my hon. Friend will be adopted.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think I need deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) further than to point out that he indicated what his view is in voting for this Amendment, and it is to make it as difficult to obtain a requisition as to be equivalent to an impossibility. I do not think I am misrepresenting what he said. With regard to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Norman Craig), he troubled himself with three or four difficulties which do not exist in the Clause, and which exist purely in his own imagination. To begin with, he said that there was necessity for a scrutiny. He also troubled himself greatly with entirely unimportant and irrelevant considerations as to the signature and as to it being a forgery.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not desire to misrepresent me. What I said was that the Bill contained provision as regards a
    412
    scrutiny on a poll, but that as regards the requisition the Bill only contained provisions to proceed.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: What is the trouble about that? What is the position of this requisition? The matter has been explained several times. It is perfectly clear on the face of the Bill, and there is no difficulty whatever about it. A certain number of people sign a requisition to the local authority asking that the poll should be taken. The local authority, whatever its views may be on the subject of temperance, has no inducement or temptation to provide for a poll unless it believes that a sufficient number of electors will vote at that poll. Even though the majority of the local authority may desire temperance legislation, or, as the hon. and learned Member very fairly pointed out, the reversal of temperance legislation, they have no interest in acceptiong a requisition unless they think it represents the opinion of a considerable number of voters in the-constituency, because they are merely putting their locality to the expense of a poll for nothing. Most exaggerated language has been talked about the importance of this requisition. The requisition decides nothing in the world except that there shall be a poll. My argument is that the local authority has ho temptation or object in having a poll unless they are satisfied the requisition represents real opinion in the electorate. What will happen? A certain number of signatures are sent in. Those must be signatures of electors. The question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman about forgery was very clearly answered by hon. Friends behind me. They point out that if a signature is proved not to be the signature of an elector, it does not count. There is no question of with drawing it, there must be 10 per cent. of electors signing. If you prove that the signature "William Jones," either is not the signature of an elector, or is a forged signature, it does not count in the 10 per cent.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The poll may have taken place before you have proved it.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend is a practical man, and knows perfectly well that the moment that requisition is lodged with the clerk the representatives of those who are opposed to the requisition or the representatives of the temperance party will go and very carefully scrutinise it. If those opposed to it can prove that there is not 10 per cent.

    413
    of the names of the electorate, then the whole thing is naturally void. People have asked how is that to be done. It will probably be the same as putting lodgers on the register. You will probably have agents of both parties, and you will certainly have agents of the trade, so that all this talk about forgery and so on is in the air. There is no substance and reality in it. The local authority will see that it gets a requisition signed by 10 per cent. of the electorate. Take the next point raised by the hon. Member. He says you cannot go into the mind and motives of the elector. Under what circumstances can you do that. Why are you to be asked in the case of this requisition to go into the minds and the motives of the signatory. An hon. Member of this House cannot go into the motives and the minds of the elector who returned him or who voted against him.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I desire to correct a false impression of the right hon. Gentleman. I never suggested that you should go into the motives and the minds of the elector. I said, if a man's name is got for a requisition and if his mind did not go with it, it is only just that his name should be taken off.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: How can we go into the question of the man's mind, whether it goes with it? He is an individual who knows presumably what he is doing. He is a responsible person and signs, and how are you going to go behind that any more than behind the case of the man who puts a cross against your name or the name of your opponent on the ballot paper. You cannot go behind his mind. The thing is perfectly absurd to suggest.
    We get another suggestion, which shows the spirit in which this thing is fought, and which is equally absurd, and that is that people might go and tell him that this was a paper about Home Rule for Ireland or a copy of the Covenant, or that it had something to do with any other subject. Really, why is that suggestion made? Those signatories must sign their paper provided for them by the local authority, and the form of the Paper is settled by the First Schedule of the Bill. It is headed:
    "Form of Requisition for a Poll."
    "We, the subscribers hereto, being electors, do hereby demand a Poll under the terms of the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1912."
    They have got to put their names and addresses.
    Mr. CLYDE: Anybody may put the address, they must sign.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The name and address has to be put on, and the number on the register. Why is it suggested when a clear paper of that kind is to be signed on a prescribed form, that people are more liable to be told falsehoods about it than about anything else. There is no substance in that argument or in any of the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments. The whole point, as the hon. Member for Nottingham put it, is that it is desired to make it so difficult to get the requisition that in practice it will be impossible.
    Question put, "That the word 'no' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 107.

    Division No. 226.]

    AYES.

    [6.25 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Doris, W.

    Adamson, William

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Armitage, R.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Chancellor, Henry G.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Clough, William

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Clynes, John R.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Barnes, G. N.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Esselmont, George Birnie

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Falconer, J.

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

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Bentham, G. J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Cowan, W. H.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Black, Arthur W.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Field, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Crumley, Patrick

    Furness, Stephen

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Cullinan, J.

    Gill, A. H.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

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

    Ginnell, L.

    Brace, William

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Brady, P. J.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Delany, William

    Goldstone, Frank

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Maclean, Donald

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Richards, Thomas

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Hackett, John

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Hancock, J. G.

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Robinson, Sidney

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Meagher, Michael

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Hayward, Evan

    Meehan, Patrick (Queen's Co.)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Millar, James Duncan

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Molloy, Michael

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Mooney, J. J.

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

    Hinds, John

    Morgan, George Hay

    Sheeny, David

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morrell, Philip

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Hodge, John

    Morison, Hector

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Muldoon, John

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Munro, R.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sutton, John E.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Nuttall, Harry

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Dowd, John

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Ogden, Fred

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Keating, M.

    O'Grady, James

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Webb, H.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    King, J.

    O'Shee, James John

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Lansbury, George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whyte, A. F.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

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

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Leach, Charles

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Williamson, Sir A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pirie, Duncan V.

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Logan, John William

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Winfrey, Richard

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Lundon, T.

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

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Lynch, A. A.

    Radford, G. H.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Reddy, Michael

    McGhee, Richard

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Baird, J. L.

    Clyde, James Avon

    Goldman, C. S.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Gretton, John

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Croft, Henry Page

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Boyton, James

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Bull, Sir William James

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Butcher, John George

    Fell, Arthur

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Forster, Henry William

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Hickman, Col. T. E.

    416

    417

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

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

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Malcolm, Ian

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Ingleby, Holcombe

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Younger, Sir George

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Norman Craig and Sir J. D. Rees.

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

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Stanier, Beville

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. HARRY HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "area" ["taken in any area"], to insert the words "the local authority may by order provide that."
    The Clause as it stands provides that all licensed premises shall be shut while a poll is being taken. This Amendment would give the local authority power to shut or not, as they pleased. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent there are at certain periods of the year a large number of visitors, and at such times if a poll is taken it is only right that the local authority should have power to say whether or not the premises are to be closed.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I thought it was common ground in the Committee that as far as possible we should take this matter away from the local authority, in order that they should not be made more responsible than was necessary. Taking that view it seems desirable that the provision should be mandatory. As the poll takes place in November it is not likely that many places will be thronged with summer visitors. Therefore, I think, that the argument of the hon. Member is not very strong.
    Question negatived.
    Amendment made: After the word "the" ["all the premises"], insert the word "certificated."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
    Mr. WHYTE: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "day" ["A poll shall be taken on any day"], to insert the words "not being a market day." There was a short discussion in Committee on this point, since when I and probably other Members have received representations from various quarters ex-
    418
    pressing the hope that this Amendment will be inserted on Report. On the face of it it is a reasonable Amendment. Many traders, especially in the smaller towns, will be grateful if it is made possible for the disturbance consequent on the taking of a poll to be avoided on market days.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We thought that there was security on this point. It is one of the matters which might properly be left to the local auhority, and if my hon. Friend thinks it desirable I will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "elections" ["local government elections"], to insert the words "and to the prevention of corrupt practices thereat."
    These words are inserted to meet an Amendment put down by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Younger). It is certainly desirable that all the provisions with regard to corrupt practices at other elections should apply to these elections so far as they are applicable. I am advised that it would be difficult to accept the Amendment in the form proposed by the hon. Baronet, because there are many provisions in regard to corrupt practices which would not be applicable to these elections. Our view is therefore that under Sub-section (4) the Rules should include, as far as applicable, the provisions against corrupt practices included in the Acts mentioned by the hon. Baronet, namely, the Ballot Act, 1873, the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and Acts amending the same, and the Election (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890. I hope that the insertion of these words will meet the view of the hon. Baronet.
    Mr. CLYDE: It is sufficient to say "corrupt practices"? Ought it not to be "corrupt and illegal practices"? There was a distinction in the Act of 1890, though I do not think there is much in it.
    Mr. URE: I think it would be better to say "corrupt and illegal practices."
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am willing to accept that.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment made: After the word "corrupt" insert the words "and illegal."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (4), after the word "certificate" ["not more than one certificate in the area"], insert the words "in force."
    After the word "counties" ["county general purposes rate in counties"] insert the words "(excluding police burghs)."
    In Sub-section (6), leave out the words "failing payment," and insert instead thereof the word "alternatively."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

    Clause 7.—(Later Hour of Opening.)
    Notwithstanding anything contained in the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, the Licensing Court shall insert in all certificates granted from or after the twenty-eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirteen, the hour of ten o'clock in the morning in lieu of the hour of eight of the clock in the morning, and the forms of certificate contained in the Sixth Schedule to the said Act shall be construed accordingly: Provided that where sale of commodities other than exciseable liquors is permitted by the certificate, such commodities may be sold before such hour, and provided further that exciseable liquors may be dispatched before such hour in fulfilment of orders received as prescribed by Section sixty-three of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, and that Section fifty-six of that Act shall apply to this Act.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    Ever since 1862 the hour of opening in Scotland has been eight o'clock, and whoever has been responsible for the drafting of this Clause seems to have considered the convenience neither of the trade nor of the public. As regards the trade, in Scotland as compared with England, you are putting the licence holder under more serious disadvantages than
    420
    those under which he already labours. If the hours are from ten to ten for six days in the week, you are giving him a seventy-two hours' working week. Against that, the English, Welsh, or Irish licence holder will have hours from 6 a.m. to 10 or 11 p.m., or even later, making 102 hours per week, apart from such hours as he maybe open on Sundays. That is not a handicap as regards local competition, but it is a very serious handicap in regard to the adjustment of such things as Licence Duty. If you take twelve hours off an eighty-four hours' week, without making any abatement of the Licence Duty or of the other-taxes on the trade, you will do that which is unfair and likely to cause difficulty and trouble to the licence holder. There is no provision for reducing the Licence Duty, though you are taking away about one-seventh of the working time during which a man can make money. That that is wrong according to the recognised canons and obligations which the Government recognises in this respect I can show simply by this: that the Excise Regulations already recognise that where you have earlier closing you are allowed an abatement of one-seventh off your duty, and where you get Sunday closing you are allowed an abatement of one-seventh. Here you are doing what is equivalent to one of these two things, because you are taking in effect a day from the man's week, and you are continuing this difficulty of making ends meet. That is one aspect; but I want to look at the matter rather from the point of view of the public. It is all very well to open at ten o'clock, but what about the difficulty of the man who is a night worker, or the man who lives at a distance from his work?
    In places like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and Leith many are engaged in the shipping. There are large bodies of labourers, mechanics, and dock hands. Often the work is all-night work. These are men whose days are nights. Then you get large bodies of men like sailors and firemen, who begin their day very much earlier than ordinary persons. You are putting them in this position, that when their day's work is done they are unable to have their nightcap. It is not a question of one or two men, but of many thousands who want their nightcap after their work is done, and who cannot have it because you are not opening before ten o'clock. It is a perfectly arbitrary infliction upon people of that sort. There are many people who work at night. A large body start their day's work and have done

    421
    a good part of it before ten o'clock arrives. All sorts of dislocation of business will follow. Take, for instance, the steamboat traffic at a place like Rothesay. Many passenger steamers are despatched from there before ten o'clock, and you will compel the people who are going away pay a higher price on board for the liquor they want. It is not fair. Take the large bodies of men who are at work at Glasgow and on the Clyde. They start away from home early to get to their work. Their breakfast hour is from nine to 9.45. You open at ten o'clock. They cannot go to a licensed house, which really is not a place only where drink is sold, for these places are also restaurants. The men cannot go to them, and you are putting a premium upon unlicensed houses. Even to open at nine o'clock would be a very great hardship, but it would not be as unfair or as bad as opening at ten o'clock. I speak not from the point of view of the trade, but from the point of view of the workers, especially those who work at night and in the early morning and have a distance to go to their work. For these you are creating a great hardship by the change of hours.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The idea, no doubt, underlying this change is that there should be no possibility for the working classes to get any drink at all during the breakfast hour, which in Scotland is from nine till ten. There may be something to be said from that point of view in some respects, but it is interfering with the liberties of the workers. It seems to be forgotten that there is a very large number of people who work during such hours that at the time of our breakfast they are really preparing for their supper, or taking their meal after their night's work. There are other places where there are markets, and so on, and nine o'clock in the morning is a different thing to them to what it is to us, who perhaps arise at eight o'clock. These people have been up at three o'clock in the morning, and nine o'clock is their dinner hour. The point, it seems to me, is one for some compromise. I did not vote against this Clause in Committee. I say that quite frankly. But I had it borne in upon me since that the object of the right hon. Gentleman is not likely to be obtained by the proposal. Employers of labour, particularly on the Clyde, men who employ riveters and men of that sort, have
    422
    told me that their men have intimated to them that if the Bill goes through that they will be required to change the breakfast hour of nine to ten to 9.30 to 10.30, so that their men may, if they like, get a glass of beer. The employers have told me that it will be perfectly impossible for them to resist any demand for the change of the sort, and that they are not going to have a strike over a trumpery change of the breakfast hour. Therefore, the idea underlying this extremely prohibitive proposal will be defeated by a change in the breakfast hour. The right hon. Gentleman might meet us, I think, in this matter. He has not accepted any Amendment from me yet.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The last Amendment?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Not from me. No Amendment of substance from me has been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. I think in this particular case he might take a more reasonable view of the situation and not put on so much restriction. If the right hon. Gentlmean replies I should like him to tell us what action he proposes to take in regard to the duties payable by these people in the event of this restrictive change being made. I would like to ask him whether he has found time to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer his opinion upon the particular question.
    Colonel GREIG: I should not have risen if the hon. Baronet had not spoken about the condition of labour on the Clyde and the wishes of the employers in that district. I had the opportunity on Monday and previous days of visiting some of the works there. I represent a large section of the workers upon the Clyde. I was in conversation with the manager of a very considerable works whose name I will give in private if desired. Without any suggestion on my part—for we were not discussing the question of the Temperance Bill or allied subjects—this-manager said: "It would be a great blessing if you people in Parliament would pass a Bill to prevent public-houses opening before ten o'clock." I supported the Bill in Committee, and I am convinced after hearing what the manager had to say that we were on the right lines. This gentleman pointed out to me that in some works half the men only were at work—due to the fact that the public-houses are open early. The men, he said, before they went into the works visited the public-

    423
    houses, where, instead of liquor being served out to them man by man, scores of tables are spread out with liquor poured out ready in hundreds of glasses. The men swallow it, and the result is that they are incapacitated for the rest of the day. At the present time that is the difficulty with the employers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am speaking of what I know: the difficulty with the employers on the Clyde at the present time is to get their men to go to work and do the work that is waiting there for them. Do not imagine that I would support this and be afraid to say so, or defend it before the men. I addressed a meeting of working men in my Constituency on the evening of the day to which I refer. I told them that if I thought this was an interference with their liberty I would not support the proposal, but that I did not think it was. I said that the State had taken control of the liquor traffic by licensing it, and if it was necessary for the public welfare, and for their welfare, that the same should be restricted by opening at ten o'clock I was prepared to support it, and should do so. An hon. Member who rose below the Gangway, spoke as though there was only one trade to be regarded in this matter. He spoke of "the trade." There is the other trade, the trade of the country. I believe it would be benefited—I have had first-hand evidence of it—by fixing the hour at ten, and I shall support this Clause.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must say that it is a great disappointment to me that on the one Clause in this Bill on which I thought there was general agreement and on which there has hitherto been general agreement, we now have a reactionary policy indicated by the Amendment. I think that the hon. Baronet might have spared his heavy attack upon me in this matter, because in the line we have taken we have been supported not once, but I think on three occasions, by Unionist Members of the Committee. They never objected to this. The proposal was first brought forward by a Conservative Member of Parliament, Colonel Denny, of Dumbarton, and it was included in the Bill of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Aberdeen. It was never objected to by the Opposition. There were no Divisions in Committee, nor on the second or the third time when it came before Committee. Now we are told that it is a thing I should be ashamed to put forward—
    Sir G. YOUNGER: No, I did not say that.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Baronet made some rather strong suggestions. My opinion is that the employers as a whole will be very glad to have this provision. They do not want their men nipping in the morning. I do not believe that the mass of the working men want this morning nipping. Nobody wants drink at that hour of the morning except the confirmed toper, or except under very exceptional circumstances. I hope, therefore that the House will maintain this provision. It is a very useful provision, and I think it will be supported, not only by the opinion amongst the working classes of Scotland. I have found time to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the matter, and the view of the Chancellor is, first of all, that there is no justification for the claim suggested by hon. Members opposite. I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment that this is equivalent to Sunday closing or anything like it. The view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that it will be an unprecedented thing in connection with a Bill of this sort to make the provision asked for.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It exists. There is a reduction given now for earlier closing.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to make the allowance, and I cannot promise to insert such a provision in the Bill.
    Sir J. D. REES: Concerning what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Renfrew (Colonel Greig) said, I assert, as one who stood as a Parliamentary candidate for the burgh, and who spent some weeks there, that I do not accept his description of the workmen in that great industrial constituency as being in the habit of nipping in the morning. On the contrary, I think they are in the main intelligent and of the highest type—in spite of the fact that they voted against me! They are highly intelligent working men, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman's description is at all right, and I would say, in reference to what was said by the Secretary for Scotland with regard to public-houses opening early in England, I have known extremely decent men to have their glass of beer early in the morning because they like it better than tea. The inference drawn

    425
    from the fact of a man having a glass of beer with his breakfast is an entirely erroneous one.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, after the word "thirteen" [" twenty-eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirteen"], to insert the words "on condition that no alcoholic liquor may be served to any young person not of the age of eighteen for consumption by such person on licensed premises."
    That is to say, I want to provide in the Clause that in addition to the later opening of public-houses in future, no publican would be able to serve any young person under the age of eighteen years. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will accept this Amendment. Obviously it is one of the best means of securing what this Bill in other ways attempts to do. I cannot imagine that there is any hon. Member on either side of the House who would offer alcoholic liquor to a guest at his table of that age, and I do not see why, if that is the social custom, it should not be transferred to the public-house. The greatest temperance reform that can be achieved in this country is the influence of temperance upon the youth of the country. I am one of those persons who continually emphasises that side of the temperance movement which will secure for the growing generation of the community this dissociation altogether from the licensed trade. I cannot conceive any argument being used against the insertion of this Amendment in the Clause. It would secure for a great section of the community immunity from public-houses for a period of years not provided for in the Bill. I do not think I need elaborate the point, but I intend to press the matter to a Division if the Government do not accept the Amendment.
    Mr. A. F. WHYTE: I beg to second the Amendment. The only serious objection that can be brought against the Amendment of this character is that usually it is difficult to draw the age line. That may be, but I suggest that the intention of the Amendment is distinctly in line with modern movement in raising the age at which it is permissible to serve juniors with intoxicants, and although there will be a certain haziness as to the proper line above and below eighteen, nevertheless it is a desirable reform to attain, and for that reason I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am in great doubt whether this Amendment can possibly come into this Clause. This Clause deals with "later hour of opening," and the Amendment is not limited to the question of the hours of opening.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I respectfully say that what induced me to put it down in this form as an Amendment to this Clause, was that this Clause seemed to apply to the same subject as Clause 58 of the Licensing Act of 1902.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will look at the Clause he will see it deals with "later hour of opening" and matters connected therewith. This should really come up as a separate Clause. It cannot be moved as an Amendment on this Clause.
    Mr. HOGGE: I tried to put it down as a separate Clause, but owing to the fact that I am not a very old Member of the House, I was not aware that it should appear printed upon the Paper, so there was nothing else open to me but to move it as an Amendment as there was not time to have it printed as a new Clause.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Of course there is always great advantage in having these things printed, because it enables persons responsible to consider them.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "permitted by certificate" ["provided that where sale of commodities other than exciseable liquors is permitted by the certificate"], and insert instead thereof, the words "otherwise lawful."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to add at the end of the Clause, the words "and that nothing in this Section contained shall detract from the powers of the Licensing Court as to opening hours in certain cases under Section 35 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903," but the word 'ten' shall be substituted for 'eight' in the said Section."
    I have altered the Amendment slightly from the form in which it appears on the Paper by the addition of the words "but the word ten shall be substituted for eight in the said Section." This is an Amendment which gives a little extra power to to the licensing justices. Clause 35 of the Act of 1903 says:—
    It shall be lawful for a Licensing Court where they shall deem it inexpedient to grant to any person a certificate in the form applied for, to grant him a certificate in any other of the forms contained

    427
    in the Sixth Schedule annexed hereto: Provided always that in any particular locality within any county or district or burgh requiring other hours for opening and closing inns and hotels and public-houses than those specified in such forms or certificates applicable thereto, it shall be lawful for such Court to insert in such certificates such other hours, not being earlier than six of the clock or later than eight of the clock in the morning for opening, or earlier than nine of the clock or later than eleven of the clock in the evening for closing the same, as they shall think fit.
    If there are districts where in Scotland such as were alluded to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Greig), where workmen go in for excessive drinking in the early morning, there may be other districts where the circumstances are different. If the Secretary for Scotland accepts my Amendment, he does not prevent the opening being always ten o'clock, but he does give the justices power, supposing circumstances are brought to their knowledge that an exception should be made, to do so. This Amendment simply provides a little more elasticity in the Clause. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will accept the Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no objection to the alteration which the hon. Baronet made in his Amendment, but I am afraid I have an objection to the Amendment as a whole. There are exemptions now, but they are hardly ever used. I do not think there is any substantial advantage in breaking away from the general practice, as there are hardly any cases in which the exemptions are used, and therefore I do not think it worth while to alter the general law.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision? He says there are not many cases in which these exemptions are used. Is not that an argument for accepting the Amendment? I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that by the alteration of the word "eight" into "ten" there is the possibility that it may be used more frequently. It was not likely to be necessary to open much before ten, but it is possible that it may be necessary to open for a short time before ten. I
    428
    hope I have shown, first, that the right hon Gentleman's reasons for refusing the Amendment is not good, and that it is possible there might be more use made of this provision if it is carried than there has been in the past.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think the hon. Baronet has rather given his case away. He says he thinks that if this Amendment were accepted the provision would be more frequently used. I do not want it to be more frequently used.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HARRY HOPE: I beg to move to add, at the end of the Clause, the words "and provided further that in places frequented as holiday resorts during certain seasons of the year the Licensing Court may suspend for such period or periods as the Court shall specify, not exceeding in the aggregate four months in any year, the obligation of this Section as to the hour in the morning before which no ex-ciseable liquor shall be sold on the premises."
    There are some parts of Scotland where at certain times of the year the exercise of this power will be very necessary, and the Amendment merely gives to the Licensing Court the power to accommodate people. Those who want to see this Bill work smoothly ought to agree to give the Licensing Court some little power of a reasonable nature such as is asked for here.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid that I am still unconvinced that holiday people want to drink early in the morning, and I do not think the hon. Baronet has made out a case for this proposal.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 10.—(Sale of Exciseable Liquors in Clubs and Theatres.)
    (1) Exciseable liquors may be supplied or sold in a registered club to any member thereof only on the days on which, and during the hours within which, exciseable liquors may be supplied or sold in public-houses within the burgh or county or county licensing district, as the case may be, in which the said club is situated, and at no other time.
    (2) Exciseable liquors may be supplied or sold in a theatre or other place of public

    429
    entertainment, whether erected before or after the commencement of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, only on the days on which, and during the hours within which, exciseable liquors may be supplied or sold in public-houses within the burgh or county or county licensing district, as the case may be, in which said theatre or other place of public entertainment is situate, and at no other time:
    Provided that nothing in this Section contained shall authorise any supply or sale of exciseable liquors which would otherwise be illegal.
    (3) This Section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act.
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNG: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (1).
    In the event of this Sub-section being retained and the Bill becoming law, it would prevent the sale in private clubs of exciseable liquors on all week-days after ten p.m., and on Sundays and public holidays, and likewise in the event of a resolution being carried it would terminate such sales altogether. I have been a consistent, and, I believe, sincere supporter of the Temperance Bill for Scotland because, like the majority of Scotch Members, I believe a very great deal of good is likely to result when this measure has been passed into law—and further, because I know that the main principles embodied in the Bill adopted by the Government have the acceptance and approval of a vast majority of the people of Scotland. This Sub-section, at any rate, did not form a part of the original Bill, and while I give place to no one in my desire to see this measure placed upon the Statute Book, I feel rather strongly that to introduce this innovation which was not in the original measure is, to say the least of it, going beyond the bounds of reason and common sense. The effect of this innovation is to place registered clubs in the same category as public-houses. Not only that, but it will place private and well-conducted clubs in a much less advantageous position than even licensed hotels. There may exist clubs in Scotland as well as in England which deserve to be placed in the same category as public-houses. If they do exist all I can say is there are ample provisions and powers in the Bill to control and regulate such clubs as may abuse their privileges, because the renewal of file certificate for licence may be refused
    430
    should the authorities find any reasonable cause for such action.
    The proposal that, because there may be a club here and there which abuses its privileges, all well-conducted and respectable clubs should be penalised, and their members refused what, at any rate, has always been considered part of the amenities of a social club, is to me almost absurd and preposterous, and I do not think such a proposal merits for one moment the consideration of fair-minded or reasonable people. I am a supporter of the main principles of this Bill as it was originally introduced, but I fear if extremists are to have entirely their own way, and if they are allowed to encroach more upon the liberty of the subject, Scotland may become not a very tolerable place to live in. This proposal was only introduced at a very late stage of the Committee. Some hon. Members opposite voted for this Subsection, I suppose, because they thought it might help to wreck the Bill and make it unworkable. Every recognised club, or, at any rate, the principal clubs of Scotland, representing many thousands of people, have protested against this Subsection. If hon. Members opposite now vote for the retention of this Sub-section I do not envy the reception they are likely to receive from clubs when they next go to Scotland. If this principle is introduced into Scotland no doubt temperance reformers will agitate for the same principle being applied to England, and more especially to the clubs in London; and if they do so I sec no reason why it should not be applied to what had the reputation of being the best club in England—namely, the House of Commons itself. If we had such an innovation here I fear that the process of legislation would be even dryer than it sometimes is under existing conditions. No hon. Member of this House is prepared to go further than I am in demanding for working men equal opportunities, but surely it is carrying this principle too far to say that those who belong to well-conducted clubs should be penalised and restricted simply because others have not taken advantage of circumstances in order to better their position. I cannot see that the retention of this Sub-section, dealing with registered clubs, can in any way further the main object of this Bill or assist in any way the real cause of temperance in Scotland, which I feel sure we all have at heart.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment.

    431
    I claim that even a British Member has a right to intervene at this stage, even in regard to a Scotch Bill. I am not so much enamoured by legislation of this kind, but at the same time surely the club question may be said to concern England and Wales as well as Scotland. I think English Members are prepared to defend the rights of innocent associations like clubs, and they must intervene to prevent a Sub-section like this being placed upon the Statute Book. I understood my hon. Friend to suggest that if he did not intervene at this point we should be threatened with legislation dealing with the clubs of England, and that remark met with a cheer of recognition on the opposite side of the House. I trust to have the support of all lovers of freedom in this House on both sides in voting against this Sub-section. That is something with which the House is so unfamiliar that I think it is desirable that I should occasionally make a plea of this kind on behalf of the freedom of the individual. I do it most frequently in regard to Bills proposed from the opposite side of the House, and threatened legislation with regard to clubs in England emanates from the other side. I hope when any such proposal is made I shall be able to rally the forces of the hon. Member opposite in the cause of individual freedom and against the vested interests of the trade. I can understand this proposal will be opposed by extremists on both sides, but I will deal with the extreme temperance reformers in a moment. I claim at once that clubs are on an entirely different footing from public-houses run for private profit. The club, as a rule, springs into being to meet the natural wants of that kind by joint co-operative movement. The public-house invariably springs into existence by a desire to make a profit out of the supply of intoxicating liquor, and the more it is supplied the bigger the profit. Many-people, those who are not teetotalers, join clubs and take their intoxicating drink there because there is no pressure put upon them. They may sit in a club one, two, or three hours, and no one comes round to ask them if they have got enough, which is very frequently done upon licensed premises.
    Another reason why people frequent clubs is that they avoid the sometimes persecuting attentions of landlords. When an election comes round there inevitably follows a large drift of men from the public-house into the club—men
    432
    who have been annoyed by the politics pressed upon them when they have asked for a glass of bitter. It would not surprise me if the representatives of the trade in the House united, as they have done before this Session, with the temperance extremists in order to defeat the moderate section of the community. I would appeal to the representatives of the trade present to take a more generous view. I believe some of them at any rate are capable of it. I would like to ask them, if they are sincere in their complaint that legislation has been oppressive, how they can expect the community to have any sympathy with them if they wish to impose more restrictive legislation still on clubs not run for private profit? Surely if one fox loses its tail it has no business to persuade the other to lose its tail, or to use the Government and Parliamentary machinery to cut off its tail! Many publicans and brewers who complain of oppressive legislation are ready to vote that the same oppressive legislation, but in a more intense degree, shall be applied to these associations and clubs, and I would appeal to them to allow nobler motives to prevail.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: They have nothing to do with this Clause.
    Mr. BOOTH: It is all very well for the hon. Baronet to say they have nothing to do with this Clause, but they have deliberately put upon the Order Paper a Bill for England which goes much further than this. [HON. MEMBERS indicated dissent.] Indeed, it is the trade Bill. Their supporters in this House have introduced it, and I do not think the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) will deny it is distinctly a licensed victuallers' Bill. I quite agree that sometimes some of the temperance legislation may seem a little harsh upon the trade from the business or commercial standpoint, and I have done what little I could to ease that, but when we come to the clubs surely even the representatives of the trade present will see the vast difference. I do not at all agree with my hon. Friend who suggests this is being moved—it may have been moved, but it certainly is not being seconded—with any desire to specially favour the rich man in his club. There are many more working men members of clubs in Scotland than rich members, and I believe when the Subsection was introduced in Committee it was introduced as a checking move on working men's clubs rather than on middle-class clubs. I therefore hope the House

    433
    will not think it class legislation in that sense. Clubs are naturally the home of the male sex of the community. Women have taken to the hammer, but they have not yet taken very much to clubs. A combination of men in a club should, I think, appeal to most people.
    If the bogus club and the drinking club were aimed at, I should be in entire sympathy with the proposal. There are many publicans, no doubt, who, under the Scotch Temperance Bill, will consider they have a grievance, because it is an undisguised fact there are in their neighbourhood clubs which are nothing more or less than public-houses without the supervision and restraint which attaches to licence holders. I grant there are clubs of that sort, but a law has been passed dealing with them, and what we want is correct administration and not mere legislation. I think the legislation on the Statute Book is sufficient to deal with clubs if the law is properly administered. I would make an appeal to the temperance men in this House. They may consider I have given undue importance to the principle of individual liberty, but at the same time I am not averse to the Scotch Temperance Bill, as I have proved by my votes in the Lobby. There is no doubt the temperance movement in Scotland is in advance of England, and it does seem to me the experiment of this Bill might very well be tried in Scotland, which is more ripe for it than England. If it succeeds in Scotland, then their case will be stronger for introducing it in England. To that extent I am in sympathy with them, as I think any democratic Member will be. I want to ask them, however, whether they think they will carry in any parish of importance a no-licence Resolution if they keep in this Sub-section relating to clubs? What would it mean? It would mean voters who might be willing to try the experiment of a small complete prohibition area—
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Upon somebody else.
    Mr. BOOTH: Upon themselves. I am putting the case for the deletion of the Sub-section. I would put it to the temperance workers whether, if they wish to see this in operation in certain districts in Scotland, they will not achieve their object more surely by leaving out this Subsection. It means they would have the solid and organised opposition of these clubs and the opposition of independent men to whom the club seems quite an inoffensive thing to a no-licence vote. I
    434
    would, therefore, ask him whether they think they are furthering their cause by introducing a Sub-section of this kind, which, to my mind, is foreign to the general purposes of the Bill. Surely if we come to legislate upon clubs, we must do it in a general way by a special Act of Parliament, after the whole thing has been carefully considered. It is a question surrounded with the greatest difficulty. The question of dealing with licences has been thrashed out again and again year after year, but public opinion is not completely formed on the question of clubs, and I venture to say the great bulk of the Members of this House have not finally made up their minds as to the kind of legislation we ought to have to deal with clubs. I would, therefore, appeal to the temperance reformers themselves if they wish to put this into operation, whether they are not more likely to succeed if they leave the clubs alone. If I am not mistaken, they were not in the original Bill. I am not therefore appealing only on behalf of the clubs, which I do sincerely but also in the interests of the Bill having a fair opportunity of contributing to our information and enlightening us as to what an experiment of this kind means in the British Isles. In that interest as well as in the interest of the clubs I appeal to the promoters of the Bill to allow the deletion of the Sub-section.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract was right in saying this was not originally in the Bill. It was inserted I think after a rather brief debate in the course of the proceedings in Committee. It had not been in any of the previous forms of the Bill. My right hon. Friend, the Lord Advocate, did not express acceptance of the Sub-section on the part of the Government. On the other hand, he opposed it. I think it is advisable this Sub-section should not be inserted in the Bill. It has been the invariable practice to deal separately with clubs in legislation, and it is done even in this particular Bill. If hon. Members will look at the last two pages of the Bill, they will see we have inserted a series of important provisions dealing with clubs, and not dealing with them on the same basis as public-houses. Clubs have never been put on the same basis as public-houses; they have always been dealt with separately. There are in the Bill extremely important provisions making it more easy to put down unsatisfactory clubs and more easy to prevent

    435
    licences being granted or renewed to such clubs, all of which provisions were passed in the House without a single Amendment or a single word of objection. I do not think we ought to depart from the usual practice of dealing separately with clubs. If you carry these provisions, it is not merely that you affect the hours during which drink may be sold in clubs, but you put clubs at a disadvantage as compared with hotels, which nobody has attempted to justify. Why should a man who happens to reside in a club for a week-end not get the same advantages or disadvantages, however you may consider them, as he could obtain next door in an hotel. What is the object of shutting up the residential clubs in the interests of the hotels?
    I would like to call attention for a moment to the effect of this Sub-section as it stands, because it is a peculiar Subsection, and I do not think its effect is fully appreciated. It provides that liquor may be only sold in clubs on the days on which and during the hours within which exciseable liquors may be supplied or sold in public-houses, not within the licensing district provided in this Bill but within the borough or county, or county licensing district as the case may be in which the club is situated. The effect of that will be rather curious. If it happens that the borough and licensing district, the district under this Bill, are co-terminous, then in a no-licence area you will not be able to obtain any drink in any club, but if on the contrary you have in the county or borough districts in which you have prohibition, and others in which you have no prohibition, then you will be able to get what drink you want in the club. Surely that is very absurd. I am therefore opposed to this Sub-section on two grounds. First of all, it is departing from the practice of dealing with clubs separately as we have always done in legislation before, and as we are doing under this Bill; and, secondly, I do not think it is fair to put clubs at a disadvantage as compared with hotels. I have received innumerable representations, which seem to me reasonable in character from clubs of all kinds. I have had one from the Carlton Club. I do not mean the Carlton Club near this House. I mean the one in Glasgow. I do not know what its political complexion is. It is a working men's club, and these clubs represent all kinds of opinion and classes of society. I venture to assert that they
    436
    all have a strong and reasonable objection to this provision.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: As I have said on similar Clauses in various licensing Bills which have been before this House, this type of Section is to me the touchstone of the reality of these Bills. If they are genuine Bills the promoters will not seek merely to make experiments on other people, but will be content to include themselves, and the acceptance by the Government of the Motion for the deletion of this Sub-section shows to me conclusively the hypocrisy of the whole history of the Bill. It is idle for the hon. Member for Pontefract to tell us that in clubs there are no inducements to drink. Let me quote again what I have done before in this House, the case of an excellent working men's club in London, the balance sheet of which shows a payment in the course of one year of £4,000 for alcoholic liquors, and receipts to the amount of £6,000, thus showing a profit of £2,000 on that item. The club is a well-conducted club, it is affiliated to some hundreds of clubs in and about London, and out of its profits it has been able to engage the very best music hall artistes for the recreation of its members on Sunday mornings. If the hon. Member for Pontefract went there on a Sunday morning, do you think he would not be expected to contribute towards the upkeep of the establishment by taking some small liquid refreshment, or would he sit perfectly dry and still?
    Mr. BOOTH: I should contribute to the harmony.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Can it for one moment be seriously suggested that there can be any defence for allowing these clubs right and left to be open on Sundays, and at the same time closing the public-houses? It is all very well to talk about equality of opportunity and the liberty of the subject, but it is only so long as you are oppressing people who have no club to go to, who possibly cannot afford to belong to a club, and have in consequence to resort for their refreshment to licensed houses, that you indulge in language of that kind. These clubs can be found in Scotland as well as in England, and if any such provision as this had been introduced into an English licensing Bill what possible chance do you think there would have been of the Government remaining in office for a single day? What would the trade unionists say if every one of their clubs were shut up? What would hon. Gentle-

    437
    men opposite say if the National Liberal Club were shut up in this way? It shows the sham and hollowness of the whole thing. There are certain extremists who think that if you take away from men the opportunity of getting alcohol on Sunday, or before or after certain hours on weekdays, you are going to do good to the cause of temperance. It may be so or not. But if you are introducing a Bill on these lines you should make it apply to everybody, unless you are out for the purpose of catching votes. If you are out for that and not for the cause of temperance, if you are out for the sake of injuring a trade which you believe votes contrary to you at every election, then I say delete this Sub-section and you will have your reward.
    Mr. BARNES: Complaints have been made that the Government have shown themselves obdurate and indisposed to accept any Amendments. I think those complaints have been well-founded, and I am sorry that the Government have now started on the opposite course and in the wrong place. As one who was instrumental in getting this Bill amended upstairs and in securing the insertion of this Section to which objection is now taken, I can only say that if I can get anybody to tell with me I shall take a Division against the Government. I have heard the speech of that genial Sassenach the Member for Pontefract, and I gather he objects to the Sub-section because the freedom of the individual is trenched upon by it. But it is too late in the day to talk about the freedom of the individual, and especially is it too late to do so after we have been discussing for two days a Bill which prevents an individual going to a public-house before ten o'clock or getting liquor after ten o'clock at night. What will happen as a result of striking out this Sub-section? Immediately this Bill becomes operative, if it ever does, and of that I am doubtful—I think it will only be waste-paper—but if it ever does become operative, clubs will spring up and take the place of public-houses everywhere. It is for that reason, and also because I want the Bill to be kept one part in harmony with the other, and to deal out even-handed justice, that I object to the course the Government propose to take. I am raising no question as between rich and poor. I know nothing about the rich man's club, but I do know there is an unmistakable body of opinion in Scotland more hostile to clubs even than to public-houses, and for the very good reason that
    438
    clubs have been found to be more pernicious places even than public-houses.
    8.0 P.M.
    I moved this Sub-section upstairs at the instigation of the Glasgow Town Council, and I have a communication from that body, adopted only the other day, upon this very subject. It sets out that the petitioners on the 7th March, 1912, passed a resolution to the effect that provision should be made in this Bill that all bars for the sale of intoxicating liquors situated in licensed clubs and in theatres should be closed for the serving of customers at the same hours as the bars of licensed public-houses. Then they go on to express satisfaction with what was done by the Committee upstairs, and they announce further that on the 12th September, 1912, at a meeting of the Corporation held to consider the club Clauses of this Bill, the Corporation expressed complete approval of the retention of those Clauses in the Bill. Let me remind the House that the body that adopted this particular resolution represents about one-fifth of the whole of the population of Scotland. The matter has also been discussed by the Town Councils of Dundee, Edinburgh, and other places, and, although no resolutions have been passed, there has in each case been an unmistakable opinion expressed in favour of something of this sort being done. What are the reasons for this action on the part of the Government? An hon. Member near me suggests that this is a matter for separate legislation, thereby repeating a statement of the Secretary for Scotland. Is not that a fraud? We do not get licensing Bills every day, and the probability is that when we have passed this Bill we shall have no more Bills about clubs or public-houses either for some years to come, and in the meantime the evils I have adumbrated will have taken place, and clubs will have been substituted for public-houses. Therefore all this talk about special legislation is so much humbug. What are the reasons operating in the minds of the representative bodies in Scotland which seek to get the same restrictions placed on clubs as on public-houses. They are founded on bitter experience. Just let me read a statement received from the Glasgow town council with regard to convictions for drunkenness in the city of Glasgow alone during the last nine years. The number of clubs proceeded against during this period was forty-three. The number of cases of persons seen leaving these clubs in a state of intoxication was 3,225,

    439
    and upwards of 2,200 of these cases occurred on Sundays. The official who sends me these figures on behalf of the Glasgow corporation, adds these words on his own account:—
    "These cases were proved in Court, and exceeded the number of cases from all the licensed premises in the city."
    Exactly the some testimony comes from elsewhere. Since this Sub-section was put in by the. Committee upstairs, I have been in receipt of a good deal of information. For instance, in Aberdeen there is a club called the Reform Club. Incidentally I may remark, that all these clubs in Scotland go in for high sounding titles. There is another called the National Club, and another known as the Artisans Club. During the last two or three years the Aberdeen papers have been full of cases against these clubs, and it came out some time ago, in regard to the National Club, that ninety-three bottles of whisky were sold on a Sunday morning, in addition to a great deal of beer, and in addition also to orders booked. The amount of money taken was £76, a good deal more I presume than would have been taken by half-a-dozen public-houses. That shows what goes on in clubs in Scotland. It shows the worth of all this stuff that is preached about the club being the same as a man's home. I have no hesitation in saying the clubs in Scotland are for the most part merely boozing dens, the resort of criminals and prostitutes, and frequented by people who form them for the purpose of getting drink when they cannot get it elsewhere. I believe most of the Clauses of this Bill which deal with clubs are very largely illusory. A good deal has been said about giving the people power to object to clubs. Really they have not that power. Some alteration has been made with regard to requiring the names and addresses of the members who form clubs, and I believe, too, the grounds on which objections can be made to clubs have been enlarged. I should like to put this to the Lord Advocate. All these things are made illusory by Sub-section (3) of Clause 8, under which a person taking any objection to a club runs the risk of losing a considerable amount of money. The Chief Constable of Glasgow has repeatedly reported to his body that there is a large number of clubs in Glasgow that he knows are simply frequented by people in order to hide criminality or to get drink, but the law is such that he cannot take action except
    440
    at a considerable risk of losing money. This Bill we are now discussing and the Clause that we have now passed over, Clause 8, Sub-section (3), says that a person taking action or making reports against a club does so at considerable risk. The sheriff has to award expenses against an unsuccessful party. The Chief Constable of Glasgow has already been mulcted in expenses of this sort when he has taken action and has been unable to sustain it. For all these reasons I hope and trust that the Sub-section will be retained as it is in the Bill.
    Reference has been made to workmen's clubs by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). May I tell him that workmen's clubs as a rule do not sell liquor at all. I am not going to say a word against clubs in the abstract. I am a member of a club myself, a club affiliated with the Club and Institute Union, which has done a great deal towards getting clubs to impose some sort of self-discipline upon themselves. In the Labour movement generally we used to have a very large number of clubs where liquor was sold. What do we find? That the liquor caused these clubs to be a source of demoralisation and weakness to the Labour movement. As years have gone by one of two things has happened; either the club has given up liquor, or else the clubs have shed their responsible and respectable members and have ceased to have any connection with the Labour movement. When an investigation was made three or four years ago as to the number of clubs in the Labour movement that sold liquor, it was found that only 3 per cent. of the whole sold liquor, and I think I should be within the mark when I state that half of that 3 per cent. has now disappeared, and that almost invariably we of the Labour movement carry on our social intercourse, do our educational work, and meet together for all those legitimate purposes for which clubs are supposed to exist, without any liquor at all. I trust that this Sub-section will be retained, and that something will be done to save clubs from the miserable position in which they have been placed, in Scotland at all events. For these reasons I shall vote against the Government if there is a Division.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I was not a member of the Grand Commtitee which considered this Bill, but allusion has been made by an hon. Member opposite to a Bill I introduced this Session, and which,

    441
    in a way, was discussed one Friday afternoon together with another Bill introduced by an hon. Member on the other side of the House. The object of that Bill was to establish a general reform in regard to the control and supervision of clubs. I believe it is generally accepted on both sides of the House that the law with regard to clubs at the present moment is in a very unsatisfactory condition. I am not going to enter into that because it is too large a subject, but my object in rising is to say this: One of the provisions in that Bill is similar to the Sub-section now proposed to be omitted. The wording is different, but the effect is the same, namely, that when public-houses are closed, clubs ought to be closed. It is a measure supported by the licensed interest, and it is also supported by the temperance party on the grounds of temperance. I claim the support of hon. Gentlemen at this moment to vote against this Sub-section being taken out. Is it reasonable that when a publican has to close his house at eleven o'clock at night, or later, that a club should be allowed to go on selling liquor all night long, without any police supervision whatever? The licensed trade consider it a very great grievance, and some restriction at all events ought to be placed upon it. If this Amendment is taken to a Division I shall certainly vote that the Sub-section remain in. I very much regret the decision of the Government.
    Mr. HOGGE: I shall also vote for the retention of this Sub-section in the Bill, for one reason which is pertinent to the country we represent. This Bill was sent by the Government upstairs to a Committee largely composed of Scottish Members, and in that Committee this was the only change of any substantial merit that was made in the Bill. It was supported by the chief Scottish Whip. It will be very interesting to see how he will vote to-night in the Division which will take place. I should like to point out that those of us on the Scottish Committee who strove to obtain other changes in the Bill have not persisted in trying to get those changes made on the floor of the House in opposition to the wishes of the Scottish Members in Grand Committee. For example, one is desirous that disinterested management should come in, but we did not challenge a Division on the floor of the House because a majority of Scottish Members in Grand Committee were opposed to the
    442
    option of disinterested management. It was forced from the other side. In this, the only case in which something substantial was put in by the express desire of the majority of Scottish Members on the Grand Committee, the Government presumably now propose to carry, against the desire of the Scottish Members of that Committee, and by the weight of their English, Welsh, and Irish majority, something which we do not want. Some reference has been made to petition from clubs in Scotland. Like every other Scottish Member, I belong to a number of clubs in Scotland, a number of political clubs. Among others I belong to the Glasgow and Edinburgh Liberal Clubs. Both these clubs have sent me requisitions asking me to vote against the retention of this Sub-section, but in neither of these clubs have I ever been asked, as a member of the club, if I am against the Sub-section. These requisitions came from some committee in the clubs. There has been no plebiscite or referendum, and no attempt to put it to an annual or special meeting of any of these clubs in Scotland. They are resolutions like we get from the ordinary temperance society; they represent nobody. I think some honest attempt might be made to make this a real veto Bill. First of all, the Government propose to give the community the power to close all public-houses in a district, but they exempt hotels and restaurants, and give them liberty to serve people with liquor if those people will only take a meal. In Grand Committee they would not even fix a minimum meal at a biscuit. Therefore, if you have a veto in any area, you can get over that veto by having a meal, which may be a biscuit, in an hotel or a restaurant. The whole thing is a farce. If you want a veto, let it be a real veto and not a sham veto. For that reason I shall support the retention of the Sub-section.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down that the whole Bill is a farce, and will not be enforced in Scotland so far as temperance is concerned. But I do not believe in making it more of a farce than it is already, and for that reason I am going to support the Government. There are certain classes of clubs where no harm is being done. If the law requires strengthening with regard to them I should certainly support it. There is the New Club in Edinburgh, the Artisans Club, the Scottish Conservative Club, the

    443
    Scottish Liberal Club of Edinburgh, and the Liberal Club of Glasgow, who have all petitioned against this, without party. I am thoroughly in accord with them; I think it is an absurd proposition to put in this Bill. If it is kept in the Bill it will be a handle against the Bill, and you will have such opposition against the Bill in Scotland that you would never get it to work at all.
    Colonel GREIG: I entirely agree with the last observation of the Noble Lord. My withers are quite unwrung in this matter, because I voted against the Sub-section in Committee. I desire to call the attention of the House to what happened in Committee. Some reference has been made to Scottish Liberal Members voting for it. What did happen was that a Clause was brought up suddenly at a time when very few Members were present, a Clause containing also the provisions dealing with the sale in theatres. It was accepted in order that we might discuss the details. It was proposed to leave out Sub-section (1), and on a Division the "ayes" were 23, and the "noes" 14. Take out the English Members in order to ascertain the opinion of Scotland, and you will find that only seventeen of the Scottish unofficial Liberal Members voted for the retention of the Sub-section. They voted against the Amendment—fourteen Members. Taking out Mr. Charles Roberts—I think he was the only English Member—you have thirteen Scottish Liberal Members against. That is to say, that out of thirty Scottish Members seventeen were for retention and thirteen against. Included in the thirteen was the representative at that time of the Government in the Committee. Clubs are under a special code. If you have these boozing dens you can have stringent laws for them. To say that the clubs in Scotland are boozing dens frequented by people of low character is not the fact. Has the hon. Member seen a list of the clubs which have petitioned against this Sub-section? It includes the New Club, Edinburgh, the Scottish Artisans Club, the Scottish Conservative Club, and the Edinburgh Conservative Working Men's Association. Are these the clubs my hon. Friend referred to? [An Hon. Member: "The Scottish Liberal Club."] I will mention that also. The hon. Member (Mr. Rawlinson) spoke of the hypocrisy underlying this sort of legislation. I do not want to be too per-
    444
    sonal, but if anything was shown by the vote which was taken earlier in the evening it was that those Members of the party opposite who voted for the insertion of that Clause were doing so against the whole line that they and their party had taken about the Bill, which was that it was a bad Bill, and I think it is a perfectly fair observation to say that they voted in order to put the Government into a fix.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I think the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman call for some remonstrance on behalf of Members-on this side. What right has he to attribute motives? I voted, as far as I remember, for this Sub-section.
    Colonel GREIG: If I am not mistaken the hon. Gentleman was not there at all.
    Sir H. CRAIK: If anything can destroy this Bill, many of the provisions of which I think are absolutely absurd, I shall have pleasure in assisting to destroy it. I have listened with some interest to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. Their speeches were of the sort that we very frequently hear from that side of the House. They are admirable and most edifying in their professions of support of personal liberty, and their only fault is that they so very rarely carry out those edifying professions in practice. I shall wait and see, and I shall be very glad to find that the hon. Member has a large support of independent opinion from Members on that side. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Eugene Wason) only yesterday met an Amendment of mine by saying, and by pledging himself to it, that he was representing the opinion of Scotland when he said Scotland desired the whole Bill exactly as it came from the Committee. I shall watch with some interest how the right hon. Gentleman votes. Will he carry out that profession which he made in opposition to me yesterday when I was proposing an Amendment which would have given a little more independence to the democratic voters of the locality? I do not care what the result may be to this Bill. It is no business of mine to defend or to preserve the life of this very worthless Bill, but I shall follow the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) into the Lobby to show that we are prepared, if we are to-carry out these absurd principles, to apply them to ourselves and not to leave it merely to those who, we think, may require our parental legislation to keep them from falling into intemperance.

    445
    I was, above all, amused by one argument used by the Mover of the Amendment. He seemed to think that these restrictions which you impose by this Bill are a sort of privilege which the richer classes have no right to share, and he was prepared to deny it to the richer classes who frequent clubs, because, he said, they do not require to be encouraged in thrift as the working classes do. Is it possible to put a lower level upon Parliamentary action with regard to the working classes than to suppose that there is need of any assistance of ours, and that parental guidance is a privilege which we ought to deny to the upper classes? In order to carry out consistently, and because I believe my countrymen, above all, are prepared to carry out consistently all the provisions which are established by this Bill I shall join with the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) in voting against the Government's proposal.
    Mr. EUGENE WASON: The hon. Member made a quotation from a speech that I made last night which was on an entirely different subject. I find I was not present in the Committee on the day on which the Division was taken to which he referred I was very seldom present at the Committee meetings of the Scottish Bill upstairs, and for the best possible reason, that I was Chairman of Committee A, which happened to meet on the same day. I am prepared now to say what I said last night. I think the hon. Member took me rather too literally. I am never ashamed if I have made a mistake to own it. I have not looked to see what I said, but I understand I said: "No temperance body in Scotland has approved of disinterested management." It is obvious that there is a body in Scotland who are anxious to get disinterested management. So far as this particular Amendment is concerned I am going to support the Government. I know perfectly well what the object of hon. Members is. If by any chance they can carry this Amendment against the Government they will defeat the Bill.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think the right hon. Gentleman's recollection of what he said last night is defective. I think he said he desired the Bill to pass as it came from the Grand Committee without the alteration of a comma. But I do not know that it matters very much what he said last night. The principle which he has enunciated to-night is that he is prepared to support the Government, right
    446
    or wrong. That is the principle on which he and his Friends usually act, and I am not at all surprised to hear that he is going to act on it to-night. As to the merits of the Amendment, I do not suppose there is a single man in the House who doubts—I do not believe even the Lord Advocate doubts—that this Amendment is wrong in principle. How can you defend it? The thing is absurd. You are going to put a Clause in the Bill to provide that the inhabitants in a locality, by a certain majority, are to be able to pass a resolution that no licence shall be issued in that locality—in other words, you are going to put an end to all public-houses in the locality, and you are going to say at the same time that that resolution, is to have no effect as regards clubs. What nonsense to talk of temperance when you pass such legislation! Does anyone suppose that one gallon or one glass less, liquor will be sold in the locality under these conditions? Of course, everyone knows, as the hon. Member for the Black-friars Division (Mr. Barnes) said in his very straightforward and honourable speech, that a club will be immediately established in a place where a public-house is suppressed. If you refuse this Amendment you mean simply that the Bill is directed not in order to create temperance, but to injure publicans. That is, the only object of the Bill. I defy the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. S. Roberts), who is against the proposal, to justify it on any rational ground. I see the hon. Member for Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones), and I should like to know his view.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I voted for it.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I understand that the hon. Member for Lincoln is against it. The only reason is that he really hates the publican. I have listened to a great many speeches of a very low level of political morality, but I do not think I ever listened to one of a lower level than that of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). He boldly appealed to temperance men to support the Amendment, because, he said, if you do so you will be able to get your "no-licence" carried, but if you do not support the Amendment you will not be able. What does that mean? It means that he will get the vote or the indifference of those who get their drink in clubs in order to destroy public-houses. That is the invitation he holds out to temperance Members. I have been in the clubs of working

    447
    men, and I believe they are admirable institutions. I hate this kind of legislation. One of my objections to it is that it plunges you into those difficulties and injustices. If you are to have it, it is monstrous to have one law applicable to public-houses and another law applicable to such clubs as the hon. Member for the Black-friars Division described in his speech. I do not sec why any man, apart from party ties, and the miserable reason just given by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Eugene Wason) should support the Government on this occasion. I do not agree in the least with the Noble Lord the Member for West Perthshire. I do not think he really can have considered the effect of the principle he stated, I cannot help thinking that he would agree with me when he saw how this actually worked in practice when passed into law. I am sure he would agree with me that it is really impossible to defend the injustice that would be inflicted on the publican, and on all who are not members of clubs by this legislation. I believe the allegation made by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division is perfectly well founded, namely, that in point of fact in the matter of temperance there is more evil from a ill-conducted club than from a public-house. I do not say that is the case as regards all clubs, but an ill-conducted club is really a serious demoralisation compared to which no public-house can hold a candle. You cannot have the same supervision in a club as in a public-house. If there is the slightest reality in the Government belief that this is a temperance measure, they will withdraw their opposition to the Subsection and allow the Amendment to be defeated by the honourable, honest, and upright sense of the House.
    Mr. URE: The Noble Lord has referred to me and stated that I am not in favour of the principle of the Amendment. I think it right to state to the House that I am strongly in favour of the Amendment. I resisted the motion in Committee, and I stated my grounds for resisting it. I voted against the proposal to include clubs along with public-houses, and I did so for the reason that for the last eight years in Scotland we have treated clubs on an entirely different basis from public-houses. That may be right or it may be wrong, but Parliament deliberately chose that course of dealing with those two classes of premises on which exciseable liquor is sold. The House is familiar
    448
    with the facts. In 1903 when the party opposite brought in a measure which my hon. Friend took high credit for yesterday, claiming that the Conservative party had been great friends of temperance reform in Scotland, it dealt with clubs on an entirely different footing from public-houses. There is a stringent code applicable to clubs, and experience subsequent to 1903 has demonstrated that it will have to be much more stringent still, and much more stringent than it is made by this measure. If any of those evils referred to by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division exist, they can well be met by further strengthening the code applicable to clubs. There will be no difficulty in dealing with them. It appears to me that the Amendment which was made in Committee militated seriously against the principle of the measure, which I have stated over and over again was designed mainly for transferring the discretionary powers from the licensing magistrates to the voters themselves. These discretionary powers relate to public-houses, and every Member of this House can see that it will operate seriously against the active good which the measure may do if clubs are included. Accordingly, I support very strongly, in the interest of a measure in which I thoroughly believe, the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member.
    Mr. MACKINDER: The Lord Advocate has not met the gist of the argument from this side at all. I do not know whether he is satisfied with the ground he has stated for the vote he is going to give. The argument from our side is simple. The Lord Advocate claims that for a number of years past legislation for the control of public-houses and clubs has rested on two different bases. We do not deny that. Our difficulty is not at all in the matter of the control of the club or of the control of the public-house. Our difficulty is that under this Bill as it would stand if you omit this Clause you are giving power to the clubmen to control the public-house. It is a question of getting a dishonest vote given by clubmen who may take refuge in their club. To tell us that legislation for public-houses and for clubs rests on two different bases is not at all to meet our arguments. You go completely beside our argument. You are concerned with the control of the liquor consumed in the club and in the public-house, in each case by itself, but that is a totally different question from what we contend.

    449
    What we contend is, you are concerned with the votes and we are concerned with the motives of the votes given. You are going to have votes given by clubmen who know perfectly well they will not be influenced in the least by the decision they are helping to give, and those votes will be given carelessly or possibly not given at all. A quite possible difficulty that we find constantly in this measure is that a relatively small number of electors in an area may be able to carry a no-licence resolution because of the negligence of the remainder of the electors. By providing a loophole in clubs where the remaining electors may resort you will render a large number of them totally careless as to how the decision of the remainder may be given. It is because you are giving an obviously tyrannical power into the hands of a portion of the community that we are opposed to this Amendment. The Lord Advocate's reply is no reply at all to the arguments that have been put forward.
    Sir J. D. REES: Not only do I agree with the speech of my hon. Friend, but I
    wish to point out the extraordinary position in which the Lord Advocate stands. In this case, upon one of the most important Clauses in the Bill, he gets up and says that he is anxious to exclude clubs on the Motion of one of his own supporters. Yesterday, in order to support a Clause in the Bill, the Lord Advocate was driven to point out—and I thoroughly agreed with him—how dangerous and how unjust was compulsory insurance, and how wrong it was for a Government to allow compulsory insurance, when they were not in a position to guarantee that insurance and the benefits thereof. It is a curious thing that he never thought of that when he as a supporter of the Government supported the Insurance Bill and left it embodying all these principles, while today, as he has pointed out, he himself is strongly against what is one of the most important Clauses of the Bill which he is supporting.
    Question put, "That Sub-section (1) stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 217.

    Division No. 227.]

    AYES.

    [8.45 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Pringle, Wm. M. R.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goldman, C. S,

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Barnston, Harry

    Greene, W. R.

    Richards, Thomas

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gretton, John

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bird, Alfred

    Kill, Sir Clement L.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stanier, Beville

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Boyton, Jomes

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Steel Maitland, A. D.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stewart, Gershom

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cator, John

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cave, George

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cecil, Lord R, (Herts, Hitchin)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Whyte, A. F.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Malcolm, Ian

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Croft, Henry Page

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Neville, Reginald, J. N.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Nield, Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Barnes and Mr. Hogge.

    Fell, Arthur

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Black, Arthur W.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Boland, John Plus

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Clough, William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Brace, William

    Clynes, J. R.

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

    Brady, P. J.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hughes, S. L.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jackson, Sir John

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Cullinan, J.

    Jones, H. Hadyn (Merioneth)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Davies, Timothy (Louth)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Delany, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Keating, M.

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Dennis, E. R. B.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Kelly, Edward

    Reddy, Michael

    Doris, W.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lundon, T.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Esslement, George Birnie

    Lynch, A. A.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Falconer, J.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McGhee, Richard

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Field, William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sheehy, David

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Manfield, Harry

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Furness, Stephen W.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

    Gill, A. H.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Glanville, H. J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sutton, John E.

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Menzies, Sir Waiter

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Tennant, Harold John

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Molloy, M.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton).

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gulland, John William

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hackett, J.

    Morrell, Philip

    Wadsworth, J.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Morison, Hector

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince).

    Hancock, J. G.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wason, R. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Muldoon, John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Munro, R.

    Webb, H.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nuttall, Harry

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

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Dowd, John

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Ogden, Fred

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Hinds, John

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Hodge, John

    O'Shee, James John

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Question, "That the word 'person' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Clause 11.—(Sales on Order of Officials.)
    Section fifty-five of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, shall be amended by inserting after "officer of police," the words "including any constable in charge of any police station," and after "medical official" the words "or qualified medical practitioner in case of sickness, accident, or emergency."
    Amendments made: Leave out the words "qualified medical practitioner" ["or qualified medical practitioner in case of sickness "].
    Add, at the end of the Clause, the words, "by a qualified medical practitioner."
    After the Amendment last made, add: "(2) This section shall take effect upon the passing of this Act."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

    Clause 12.—(Power to Close Certificated Premises in Case of Riot.)
    (1) Where any riot or tumult happens, or is expected to happen, the sheriff may order every holder of a certificate for the sale of exciseable liquors in or near the

    453
    place where the riot or tumult happens, or is expected to happen, to close his premises during such time as the order shall require.
    (2) If any person keeps open his premises for the sale of exciseable liquor during any time at which in pursuance of this Section they are required to be closed, he shall be liable in respect of each offence to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "sheriff" ["sheriff may order every holder of a certificate"], to insert the word "principal."
    Perhaps the Lord Advocate can state the position in regard to the sheriff and sheriff's substitute.
    Mr. URE: "The sheriff" includes sheriff's substitute, who may be on the spot. Of course, they can rapidly communicate with one another; at the same time the person on the spot should have power to act.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "sale" ["sale of exciseable liquors"], to insert the words "by retail."
    Mr. URE: I accept the Amendment.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "Provided that in the case of burghs this power shall be vested solely in the magistrates thereof."
    I move this on behalf of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Munro-Ferguson), who is unavoidably absent. I hope it may be agreed to, because in many cases the Principal Sheriff is entirely removed from any popular criticism. As we found in a recent strike, the police were called out by the chief municipal authority without the consent of the local bodies. In a case of tumult arising in a neighbourhood, it seems to me, especially in the larger boroughs, that the bench of magistrates, who are amenable to popular criticism, ought to have the authority and not the sheriff.
    Mr. URE: By the law of Scotland the sheriff is the officer who is ultimately responsible, and I think it would be very un-
    454
    desirable that the existing law, which has worked admirably in past generations, should be altered. It might give rise to differences as to the real authority to act in a case of emergency. Therefore, I think the duty should remain with the present officer, who, from the dawn of our legal system in Scotland, has been responsible for the peace.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. In Scotland the sheriff always acts in these matters, and as the situation will often be really difficult, it should not be put in the hands of the magistrates, but should remain with the officer who has always been responsible for the duty.
    Mr. HOGGE: Though I do not agree, I do not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "person" ["If any person keeps open his premises"], and to insert instead thereof the words "holder of aforesaid certificate."
    I think the Amendment is necessary, because the word "person" might mean any person who simply opened the door.
    Mr. URE: If the hon. Gentleman will turn to the second Sub-section he will sea the words are "if any person keeps open his premises for the sale of exciseable liquor," etc. I cannot conceive that this would apply to anybody but the holder of the certificate.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "premises" ["premises for the sale of"], to insert the words "except an hotel keeper for the accommodation of lodgers or travellers."
    I submit that the Sub-section as it stands might mean that people who are bonâ fide living in an hotel, who are actually travellers, might be kept out of that hotel.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. URE: I do not think the words are necessary.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "closed" ["required to be closed"], to insert the words "and after due intimation thereof has been made to him."
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. URE: I should not think it advisable to insert these words. This Clause follows exactly on the lines of the English Clause. If this Amendment were inserted the question might arise as to what was due intimation, and so forth. These difficulties have never been found to arise, and I do not think they will arise if the Clause is left as it is. The effect would be, I think, to put the onus on the Public Prosecutor of showing that due intimation had been given, whereas it ought to be on the licence holder who kept open contrary to law, and if he can show that he knew nothing about the order, of course he would not be convicted.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the Public Prosecutor would be required to prove, so that under those circumstances the onus would rest on him.
    Mr. URE: I should have said would require to prove that the order was given.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: Is there any reason why the ordinary Parliamentary draftmanship should not be followed, that is to say to use the word "ordered" in the second Sub-section as well as the first instead of "required." In that way the symmetry of the Clause would be preserved.
    Mr. URE: We follow the English Statute, but I see no objection to the alteration being made.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), leave out the word "required" ["required to be closed"], and insert instead thereof the word "ordered."—[Mr. Norman Craig.]
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "in respect of each offence to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds," and to insert instead thereof the words "to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, with the expenses of conviction to be ascertained on conviction; and in addition to such penalty, the certificate granted to such
    456
    person may be declared to be forfeited and to become null and void."
    Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. URE: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. It does not appear to me to make the punishment fit the crime any better. The House will see there is a very severe penalty for the offence, the gravity of which I do not wish to underrate. At the same time to say that the licence is to be taken away for having committed an offence of this kind would be going a great deal too far.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has refused to accept this Amendment. I was going to move later on that "fifty" should be replaced by five, as I think "fifty" is a rather Draconian penalty. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will say that that is also the English law.
    Mr. URE: Yes.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add,
    (2) This Section shall take effect upon the passing of this Act.

    Clause 13.—(Termination of Existing Leases, etc.)
    Where any certificate is not renewed in virtue of the provisions of this Act, or of any resolution carried in virtue of said provisions, any lease existing at the first day of June, one thousand nine hundred and twelve of the premises referred to and licensed in said certificate, not being a long lease within the meaning of the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857, and Acts amending the same, to the holder thereof, or any contract by the said holder existing at the said date for the purchase of exciseable liquors, or for service in connection with the sale thereof, shall cease and determine on a non-renewal of the certificate as aforesaid, as if the date when the certificate was not renewed had been inserted in the lease or contract as the date of its natural termination:
    Provided that this section shall not apply in the case of any lease or contract in which there is any provision altering the conditions in the event of the licence not being renewed.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add the words "or any provision enabling the lessee to cause such lease or contract to cease and determine at any time between the first day of June, nineteen hundred and twelve, and the coming into operation of this Act."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am responsible for the insertion of this Clause, and I do not see any objection to this Amendment. I daresay the hon. Member knows there are very few leases in Scotland in this position.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 14.—(Definitions.)
    The several words and expressions used in this Act shall unless otherwise provided, or unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction, have the same respective meanings as in the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903:
    Provided that in this Act—
    "Area" means

    (a) in the case of a burgh divided into wards, the population of which burgh within the police boundaries thereof, according to the census for the time being last taken, is not less than ten thousand, any ward of such burgh, and in the case of other burghs, the whole burgh; and

    (b) in the case of a county, the parish, as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein, and where a parish is situated within two counties, the portion in each county shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a separate parish:

    "Burgh" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh:
    "County" means a county exclusive of any burgh or part of a burgh comprised therein:
    "Certificate" means any certificate for the sale by retail of exciseable liquors granted in terms of or under the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903: Provided that for the period during which a no-licence resolution is in force in any area, no dealer's licence for the sale of exciseable liquor by wholesale shall be granted therein by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise, except to brewers of beer for sale, distillers, rectifiers or compounders of spirits, makers of sweets, wholesale dealers
    458
    in spirits, wine, beer, or sweets for premises for which similar licences have been taken out for twelve months before the date of the poll, without the production of a certificate authorising such sale from the licensing court; which certificate shall be applied for, granted, confirmed, transferred, and renewed in the same manner as though it were a certificate authorising such sale by retail:
    "Elector" means, in the case of—

    (a) a burgh, any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of two councillors for that burgh, and when used in relation to any area in a burgh means a person so registered as entitled to vote at an election for that area; and in the case of—

    (b) a parish (excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein), any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of parish councillors for that parish, excluding as aforesaid: Provided that the supplementary register made up in the year nineteen hundred and sixteen under Section twenty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall continue in operation for the purposes of a poll under this Act in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen, and provided further that for the purposes of a requisition in the year of a triennial election of county councillors before the register of parish council electors is made up "elector" means any ratepayer within the parish, excluding as aforesaid:

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

    (a) a burgh, the town council thereof; and

    (b) a county, the county council thereof:

    "No-change resolution" means a resolution that the powers and discretion of the Licensing Court in regard to the grant of certificates or otherwise shall remain unchanged.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "within the police boundaries thereof, according to the Census for the time being last taken, is not less than ten thousand, any ward of such burgh, and in the case of other burghs, the whole burgh; and," and insert

    459
    instead thereof the words "within the police boundaries thereof, according to the Census for the time being last taken, is less than forty thousand, the burgh, and, in the case of other burghs such areas as the town council thereof shall determine."
    I move this Amendment on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) and I desire to state that it is the considered view of the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland, which represents the municipal experience of the whole of Scotland, and therefore it would be interesting to hear what criticism may be offered to this unit of reference to the electorate.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I very strongly support this Amendment. It is true that there was considerable discussion in Committee upon this point, but it must be borne in mind that those discussions are held practically in camera. No report appears anywhere except in the local Scotch papers. We are now in the House of Commons, and it is the duty of the House not only to review these very important provisions, but to consider them with great care. The fact that there was a discussion upstairs is no reason why there should be an imperfect and futile discussion here. This matter ought to be discussed fully and considered carefully. You have here a proposal made by the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland, by men who understand what those burghs are, and who know the necessities of the case infinitely better than we do. It is futile and absurd to have too small an area in which to enforce drastic legislation of this sort. Everybody knows how very grave the boundary difficulty always is. Under this Bill as it stands you may have the public-houses on one side of a street closed, while those on the other side are open. Anything more idiotic I cannot conceive. How that will operate in the interests of temperance I cannot understand. Anybody who knows anything about police administration in towns knows that it is very often in the best interests of temperance that more licences should be granted, rather than that the number in a particular street should remain as it is. When licensed premises become overcrowded I have known chief constables to ask the magistrates to give further licences in order to relieve the
    460
    congestion and pressure, and thus prevent some of the evils which arise.
    What will you have here? The ward is to be the area, and in perhaps a comparatively small town there may not be more than a thousand people in the ward. You may have the dividing line at the centre of a street, and in the wisdom or unwisdom of the people the public-houses on one side may be closed while those on the other are open. To talk of that as a temperance measure is absurd. You must have a boundary line somewhere, but you ought to minimise the difficulty as much as possible, and not exaggerate it. This Bill expressly exaggerates the difficulty. It creates small areas all over the place. It is so utterly inconsistent that it creates a burgh of 9,900 an area, and then in a burgh of 11,000 it makes the ward an area. Personally, I think it would be impossible to create every city an area for the purposes of this Bill. You cannot make Glasgow or Edinburgh or Aberdeen an area. There must be some kind of limit, and it ought to be a large limit. I think the 40,000 proposal is one which the Government ought not lightly to disregard. It is put forward by people who know infinitely more about the matter than either the Secretary for Scotland or the Lord Advocate. They certainly know more about it than the Gentlemen who originally promoted this Bill, and one of those who put this Bill together is the very right hon. Gentleman who now suggests in the interests of the Convention of Royal Burghs the Amendment which the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) has submitted. If the Government would allow the House to decide this matter on its own responsibility, without coercion from the Government Whips, I am certain that the view of the Convention of the Royal Burghs would be maintained by every sensible man who has considered the question, knows anything about the difficulties, and wants to see a reasonable application of the principles involved.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Is it. desirable that in a case of this sort the area should be such as the town council shall determine? Is it not much more satisfactory to have the areas fixed in the Bill? Is it desirable to make the town council a party to this controversy? I thought that the hon. Baronet was as anxious as we are to avoid that, but that is one of the proposals here. I do not think the hon. Baronet has fully weighed the Amendment. That provision in itself is enough to condemn the proposal. The size of the area is a very

    461
    controversial question, and I am far from saying that because it was discussed in Committee it should not be discussed here. But the Committee considered the matter very carefully, and I think the balance of argument was in favour of the small districts, where every elector knows the local circumstances and can determine more precisely what is wanted. Therefore I hope we shall not alter the small area, and, above all, that we shall not leave it a question for endless controversy in the town council, who may determine it differently from time to time, according as one party or another may be in the ascendant.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I thought that this Bill was for local option, and that therefore the Government would have welcomed the suggestion that the town council, who know the needs of a locality better than the House of Commons, should have an opportunity of determining what the area should be. As the Clause stands at present, every ward in the burghs referred to will be a separate area. You will have this position. I do not know how many wards there will be in Glasgow, but take the Exchange Ward, which is the business quarter, where an enormous number of people congregate—as in the City of London—where you have business men coming from the country or the outlying parts of the city to do business during the hours from nine or ten in the morning until four, five, or six in the evening. During business hours you have a densely populated ward, but outside business hours there is a very small population. This incoming population makes large demands at luncheon time on the provision of refreshments. The determination of this question, so far as the Exchange Ward of Glasgow is concerned, will be left to those who are residents in the ward. They form a very small proportion of the workaday population.
    Mr. WATT: They are largely caretakers.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I am quite certain that if the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen appreciated the situation they would act differently. So far as the Exchange Ward is concerned, no business man, under the circumstances proposed, unless be belonged to one of those hateful entities which were described by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars the "trusts," would be able to get anything at his luncheon hour. There is something wrong here. It is not giving local option
    462
    in the slightest degree; it is thwarting and preventing local option. I would point out that the Amendment does not come from this side of the House. There may be other ways and means of arriving at the point, but as the Clause stands in the Bill it leaves it open—I do not say that it will come into practical operation—for a great injury to be done.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: In reply to my hon. Friend opposite I would like to say I do not think there is very much in his objection. I will tell him why. He suggests that the housekeepers of those in the offices will determine this matter. I have no doubt that, as a matter of fact, in Glasgow, as in London, the housekeepers are not the ratepayers, but the merchants. I myself have an office in the city, and I have a vote as a ratepayer. The merchants are the ratepayers. They are the people who will determine the matter, subject to certain technical conditions. I appeal to my hon. Friend if that is not so? It must be so.
    Amendment negatived.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to move in paragraph (a) to leave out the word "ten" ["is not less than ten thousand"] and to insert thereof the word "forty."
    This is very much the same Amendment as the last one. I am afraid I do not agree at all with the right hon. Gentleman as regards the small areas. Take a concrete case, the case of a place that I think he gave last night, Perth, with probably about 30,000 inhabitants. If you split it up into wards you will find that men will walk from one ward to the next, and will absolutely defeat the whole object of this Bill, which in this particular case is prohibition. It is quite impossible to have a small prohibition area, because a provision to this effect will simply be evaded. If you are really anxious that prohibition should be given a proper trial, then I think that the towns to be divided into wards should be certainly towns of at least 40,000 inhabitants. Otherwise you will have very small wards and areas not worth making prohibition act in, and which in any case are probably not the proper areas to take.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment. I entirely agree with the Noble Lord who has just spoken that the number of inhabitants of the burgh and the size of the burgh should be increased

    463
    to something above 10,000. There should be some definition, too, of the people required in each ward. There ought to be some provision for the grouping of wards. The thing as it stands is ridiculous. You would not even have an experiment of your own policy in an area of the kind proposed. The object of this is perfectly clear. The extremists do not care a bit what the result is so long as they can get "no-licence" carried somewhere. That is their object in life—to be able to say we have "no-licence" areas here and there. It does not matter whether drinking has increased or decreased. Under the circumstances it generally increases. That has been the experience of America and Canada. I note that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln shakes his head. Does he dispute that that has been the experience of New Zealand?
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Yes, I do.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): That is travelling rather beyond the scope of the question, which is that the word "ten" stand part.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The whole thing turns upon that. If you have a large area you make it an advantage to have the option. If you have small areas you get no advantage in any one of them, because they are not big enough, and probably you will increase instead of decreasing the drinking. I am asking now for an increased size of area and the population of the burgh that forms that area.
    Mr. MUNRO: I quite agree with what has been said from the other side of the House that the question of area is certainly an important one in this Bill, but I
    am also inclined to think that whatever area you select must be to a certain extent arbitrary. It would not be difficult to instance anomalies that would arise whatever the size of the area on which you fix. In these circumstances what is the House to do? I venture to think it should in the first place have regard to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is founded on local option, and if you make an area so large as is suggested in the Amendment, you will not have local option in the true sense, because you will have the wishes of the people who are remote and do not live in or near it imposed upon the locality affected. After all the ward is the unit in any burgh in Scotland with which I am familiar for the purpose of having electoral representation from that area upon the town council. If it is thought worthy to have its identity admitted for municipal purposes, then I think it is eminently reasonable to select that particular area as the area for the purposes of this Bill. Therefore I shall first of all support the proposed area because it is in accordance with the principle of the bill. Secondly, one should not only have regard to the principle of the Bill but to the history of the Bill. This Bill has been before the House on many occasions in recent years, and ever since 1909 I think I am right in saying that the area inserted in the Bill after full and careful discussion, is the area in this Bill. Accordingly upon these two grounds I shall feel justified in registering my vote against the Amendment and in favour of the Clause as it stands.
    Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 84.

    Division No. 228.]

    AYES.

    [9.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Brace, William

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brady, P. J.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Adamson, William

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Bryce, John Annan

    Dawes, J. A.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Delany, William

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Armitage, R.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Doris, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Duffy, William J.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Clough, William

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Clynes, John R.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Falconer, J.

    Boland, John Pius

    Cowan, William Henry

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Crumley, Patrick

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Cullinan, John

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Field, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Logan, John William

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Furness, Stephen W.

    Lundon, T.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Lynch, A.

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Gill, A. H.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Reddy, Michael

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    McGhee, Richard

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Glanville, H. J.

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Richards, Thomas

    Goldstone, Frank

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Gulland, John William

    Manfield, Harry

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Robinson, Sidney

    Hackett, J.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Hancock, John George

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-Shire)

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

    Scanlan, Thomas

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

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas, Bridgeton)

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

    Millar, James Duncan

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

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Molloy, Michael

    Sheehy, David

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Hayward, Evan

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Morgan, George Hay

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morrell, Philip

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

    Morison, Hector

    Sutherland, John E.

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Sutton, John E.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Muldoon, John

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hinds, John

    Munro, R.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Ternant, Harold John

    Hodge, John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Nolan, Joseph

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hughes, S. L.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wadsworth, John

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Watt, Henry A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Dowd, John

    Webb, H.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J,

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shee, James John

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Kelly, Edward

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

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

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Leach, Charles

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Baird, J. L.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hewins, William Herbert Samuel

    Baker, Sir Randoll L. (Dorset, N.)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Hills, J. W.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hohler, G. Fitzroy

    Bairie, H. T.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Fell, Arthur

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Bird, A.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Goldman, Charles Sidney

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Boyto, J.

    Greene, W. R.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gretton, John

    Malcolm, Ian

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Cator, John

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Cave, George

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    466

    467

    Nield, Herbert

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Stanier, Beville

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Peel, captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Pryce-J ones, Colonel E.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Younger, Sir George

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutstord)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Harry Hope and Marquess of Tullibardine.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Talbot, Lord E.

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W,)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have an Amendment on the Paper providing that we should substitute for the area mentioned in the Bill the county council electoral division. The idea of my proposal is to make the measure more effective by making the area smaller. In the Highlands of Scotland there is one parish extending over 247 square miles. The idea of my Amendment was to make the electoral division which is a smaller area the area for the purposes of this Bill. In view of the fact that an alteration of this sort at the end of the Bill will create a good deal of disturbance in the various Clauses I do not move my Amendment at the present time.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, to leave out the words:
    "Provided that for the period during which a no-licence resolution is in force in any area, no dealer's licence for the sale of exciseable liquor by wholesale shall be granted therein by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise, except to brewers of beer for sale, distillers, rectifiers, or compounders of spirits, makers of sweets, wholesale dealers in spirits, wine, beer, or sweets for premises for which similar licences have been taken out for twelve months before the date of the poll, without the production of a certificate authorising such sale from the Licensing Court; which certificate shall be applied for, granted, confirmed, transferred, and renewed in the same manner as though it were a certificate authorising such sale by retail."
    I am sorry the Lord Advocate is not in his place, because he promised that he would consider this question very carefully in order to see if there was any way of safeguarding licence holders in the case of these options. I do not see any Government Amendment on the Paper dealing with this point. If we are going to have a no-licence area there ought to be reasonable protection against wholesale licences being taken up by Tom, Dick, or Harry. I sympathise with the
    468
    idea of the promoters of this Bill, but in doing what is proposed they seem to me to be very seriously handicapping the position of those who hold bonâ fide these licences, and who may be succeeded by other equally reputable people carrying on a business which this Bill in no sense of the word interferes with. It deals merely with retail licences and gives a power to limit, retain or prohibit the issue of retail licences, and it does not give any power to the people to interfere in any way with the issue of wholesale licences. It was felt by the Royal Commission when they considered this question, and I agreed with them, that very often there have been cases of shebeens and all sorts of illicit trading carried on under the cover of a wholesale licence. It does not follow, however, that this ought to apply to a man who has a licence for a particular set of premises, and whose business extends very considerably, and who finds that he requires to erect additional warehouses and other buildings. It is absurd that a man who has spent perhaps £20,000 or £30,000 on new premises should have to come year after year to the local justices for the renewal of his certificate, exactly as if he were a publican. That is ridiculous, because under those circumstances he would not run the risk of erecting premises at all under a tenure of that sort. Do Scotch Members realise that in imposing this penalty they are going to handicap the people of Scotland against competition on the perfectly free and untrammelled conditions of the trade in England and elsewhere?
    I am not certain that this Clause as it stands does not interfere with the manufacturer's licence, because the provision is not properly expressed at all. It talks about a dealer's licence. Supposing the brewer has to erect a new and additional brewery, costing a large sum of money. Is it seriously suggested that because an unfortunate brewer happens to be in a no-licence area he has to go to the justices for a certificate before he can build a new brewery, and afterwards go every year for

    469
    a renewal; and he is to be so fettered, although perhaps in the next area, which is not a no-licence area, the manufacturer can go to the Excise people for his licence, and he is not interfered with? I do not think the Secretary for Scotland means any unfairness, but this is one of the cases in which by a measure of this kind you may unwittingly create a case of injustice. I am not satisfied that this does not create a very serious injustice. I rather think it does. I think the reputable trader in some way should be protected against anything of this kind, because under those circumstances such people should not be penalised. This proposal is most restrictive towards the class of trader dealt with by this Bill, and I thought the Lord Advocate, if he has considered this matter, would have had something to say upon the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman has not consulted with the Lord Advocate, may I ask him to have a conversation with me to see whether or not there really is any danger of an injustice of this kind, and if there is perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me some assurance that it will be put right in another place. If he will do that I will not press my Amendment.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am very willing to give the assurance for which the hon. Baronet asks, because it is quite true it is no part of our desire to put anything in the way of the manufacturer. There is no intention of doing what the hon. Member fears, and I think the words provide sufficient safeguard, but if there is any doubt the matter can be put right in another place.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: After the word "sweets" ["makers of sweets"], insert the word "or."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, after the word "vote" ["(b) a parish (excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein), any person registered as entitled to vote at"], to insert the words "a Parliamentary election or at."
    It appears to me the register in this case ought to be as wide as possible. We know, of course, the Parliamentary roll is f not the same as the parish roll, and I think when an elector's name is on the Parliamentary roll he ought most dis-
    470
    tinctly to be able to vote on a question of this sort, whether he is on the parish roll or not.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think there is any need for this Amendment. It will introduce a perfectly useless complication, because the basis of the municipal register both in the case of the towns and boroughs and counties is the register of voters for Parliamentary purposes. Therefore, I do not think there is any doubt at all that what the hon. Baronet desires is provided for. We are taking the municipal register or the register for the election of the county councils, and it includes the Parliamentary elector.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps aware that there was a discussion on this point in the Committee on the Bill of 1909, and these words were inserted. I am only proposing to reinsert them. Is there not a question about the lodger?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: If the right hon. Gentleman can assure me the lodger on the Parliamentary roll is ipso facto on the parish roll I have nothing further to say.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: At the end of the Clause to add the words "and in Section two as applied to a further poll in any area where a limiting resolution is in force means a continuance resolution."

    Clause 15.—(Short Title and Citation.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1912, and shall apply to Scotland only.
    (2) This Act and the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, may be cited together as the Licensing (Scotland) Acts, 1903 to 1912.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "Temperance," and to insert instead thereof the word "Licensing."
    This is really a Licensing Bill, and I think the name ought to be changed. There may be differences of opinion whether it is a temperance measure or not. The right hon. Gentleman would say it is, but I am not so sure about it. It is a sort of canting name introduced into the nomenclature of an Act of Parliament. Acts of this sort

    471
    have always been called "Licensing Acts." It is a Local Veto Act pure and simple, and I think it ought to have its proper designation.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment. I hope the Bill will not pass
    into law, but if it does it ought to be called by its proper name.
    Question put, "That the word 'Temperance' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 90.

    Division No. 229.]

    AYES.

    [9.55 P.M.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Furness, Stephen W.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Adamson, William

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

    Addison, Dr. C.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gill, A. H.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Armitage, Robert

    Glanville, H. J.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Meagher, Michael

    Ballour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Meehan, Francis (Leitrim, N.)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Barnes, George N.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Gulland, John W.

    Molloy, M.

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

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hackett, John

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Mooney, J. J,

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hancock, J. G.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Boland, John Pius

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Morison, Hector

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Muldoon, John

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

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

    Munro, R.

    Brace, William

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

    Murray, Captain, Hon. A. C.

    Brady, P. J.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Brunner, John F. L,

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Needham, Christopher

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hayward, Evan

    Nolan, Joseph

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nugent, Sir Walter R.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Nuttall, Harry

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Hinds, John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Dowd, John

    Clough, William

    Hodge, John

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

    Clynes, John R.

    Hogge, James Myles

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

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Shee, James John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cotton, William Francis

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

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

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Joyce, Michael

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Delany, William

    Keating, M.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Kelly, Edward

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Doris, W.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Duffy, William

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rea, Waller Russell (Scarborough)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Reddy, M.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richards, Thomas

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Logan, John William

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lundon, T.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Falconer, J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    McGhee, Richard

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Field, William

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Toulmin, Sir Gorge

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Sheehy, David

    Wadsworth, John

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

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes, Ince)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhougthon)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Sutton, John E.

    Webb, H.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Tennant, Harold John

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Goldman, C. S.

    Nield, Herbert

    Baird, J. L.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Derset, N.)

    Greene, W R.

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Barrie, H. T,

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

    Bird, A,

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T, Griffith-

    Hickman, Col. T. E.

    Stanier, Seville

    Boyton, J.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hills, J. W.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hohler, G. Fitzroy

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cator, John

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Cave, George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sykes, Alan John (Chies., Knutsford)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Croft, H. P.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. Sir G. Scott

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Maicolm, Ian

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Fell, Arthur

    Mount, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir G. Younger and Sir J. D. Rees.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    SCHEDULE I.—FORM OF REQUISITION FOR A POLL.
    We, the subscribers hereto, being electors in [here insert area for which the poll is demanded], do hereby demand a poll under the terms of the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1912.

    Signature.

    Name in Full.

    Address.

    Number on Register.

    Sir J. D. REES: On behalf of the Noble Lord the Member for West Perthshire, I beg to move, after the word "demanded" ["here insert area for which the poll is demanded"], to insert the words "and being desirous of seeing a resolution for [here insert the resolution or resolutions desired] carried."
    When Clause 5, Sub-section (1), was under discussion the Noble Lord gave the reasons for this Amendment and
    474
    urged upon the House the importance of making the Schedule perfectly clear, and it is for the reasons he then stated that I now move the Amendment.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This Amendment was put down by the Noble Marquess under entirely different circumstances. These words were intended to be consequential on certain Amendments which had been proposed, but which were not carried, and, as the Bill now stands, the adoption of the Amendment would make it simply ridiculous.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will detain the House but a few minutes in moving

    475
    the Third Reading of the Bill. I have been accused of being a very hard and unbending person. The Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), in fact, described me as an Oriental despot, a class of person with whom he is better acquainted than I am. It may be true that the Government have not accepted a large number of Amendments. But then we were dealing with a Bill which has had a peculiar history. This is not the first time the Bill has passed its Second Beading in the House of Commons, and it is not the first time it has passed through the ordeal of the Committee, and a Bill which has been discussed and rediseussed, and with regard to which the promoters have made concession after concession, is not a Bill which, however pliable the Minister in charge may be, will admit of many Amendments. That has not been recognised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I propose to say nothing more on that point, but there is one subject on which I wish to offer a few observations and that is the question of compulsory insurance. Very strong language has been used on that question, because, I think, the exact position has not always been completely understood. There were many reasons why it was quite impossible to put the proposed scheme in the Bill and why it was not desirable to do so. It was perfectly impossible to put the scheme as proposed in the Bill, because it was a choice of one out of some four or five schemes placed before us; it was put on the Paper on the first day of the Report stage, and not a single person from first to last on either side of the House gave a whole-hearted support to any one of the schemes; they were all damned with frank praise. With regard to this particular scheme there was no one prepared to put forward, on his own personal responsibility, any statement as to its financial effect. Could it be supposed, then, the Government would put a scheme like that in the Bill and make itself responsible for it? It would have been a Government with a very feeble sense of responsibility, and the consequences of such a policy would have been disastrous and would have exposed us to criticism from no quarter more strong than the trade.
    But that is one thing. When it is said that we are vindictive people, who desire nothing but the destruction of the publican, then I deny the charge altogether. I am not opposed to insurance, but what
    476
    I say is this: Let us have a scheme put before the trade. We heard yesterday from the hon. Baronet (Sir. G. Younger) of a plebiscite. We were told that the large percentage of those who voted, voted in favour of what? Of the scheme that he presented to the House? Of course not. That scheme had never been presented to the trade; they had never seen it; it had only been set up in type a few hours. We had the general proposition that if compulsory insurance is desirable it would be a very good thing if the Government would undertake it. I daresay it would, from the point of view of some people, but what a very foolish Government this would be to undertake it in the circumstances. That is just the evil of all referendums—the difficulty of putting the question. There was no scheme before the trade, and these votes cannot be quoted in favour of the scheme. More than half of the people who were applied to, and who were pressed to vote, did not vote. Why? They were sensible Scotchmen, and were not going to vote for the unknown. Evidence is plentiful that the trade is entirely divided on the subject, and that there is no unanimity of opinion. There is some criticism of the scheme and of the manner in which this plebiscite has been conducted so forcible that I should not care to repeat it, but which has come from the trade itself, or from the representatives of the trade. I cannot see any justification for the censure that was lavished on the Government yesterday for not having adopted a scheme, to the approval of which nobody on the other side of the House would personally commit himself, a scheme which the trade had not seen, and introducing a principle upon which the trade itself was divided.
    If it is the case that the trade desire compulsory insurance, if they can show to Parliament that notwithstanding the fact that it was alleged that the large majority was in favour of it, they could not do it by voluntary agreement, if they can prove to Parliament that compulsion is necessary to its introduction, and if they can also prove to Parliament that if not the whole trade, a large majority of the trade are in favour of compulsory insurance—it must not be a general proposition—I not only would not view that with hostility, but I would view it with a very benevolent eye. It must not be said, then, that I am hostile to the trade insuring itself. It is not for me to suggest ways and means. There is plenty of time to bring in a private Bill this Session of Parliament if notice is

    477
    given next month. I have had a good deal to do with private Bills, and I know they have two advantages. One is that they are always heard and discussed by the House. The Government neither would desire to nor could interfere with them. They have another advantage—I do not know whether it is desired, but from my point of view it is a great advantage—that anyone who objects to the scheme can appear before a Committee of Parliament and state his objections. Perhaps the promoters of this scheme would not like that so well. But if this is a scheme desired by the trade, as we have been told with great emphasis, but no evidence, if they are almost unanimous about it, let them introduce a Bill, and no one will object. We cannot consent that the question of the reduction of licences should be, bound up and made interdependent with a scheme of that sort. I would be only too glad if the trade would table their scheme, find out what the opinion of the trade is upon it, and then Parliament would give its decision. I do not think anyone can say any injustice or unfairness is contained in that proposal. I hope people will not say that our object in this Bill is, as hon. Members opposite say, to punish the trade.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, is the most extraordinary speech I have ever heard. He has not said a word in support of the Bill, but has spent ten minutes in apologising for things he would not allow to come into it. He began by saying that this was an old Bill, that there had been several Bills of the kind discussed in Parliament before, and therefore we ought not to accuse him of having shown unwillingness to accept Amendments, because they had been often discussed before. Nobody ever took it seriously before. Nobody ever thought that the House of Commons would be so unwise as to allow a Bill of this kind to be passed. He then spoke of the insurance proposal that was put forward. I confess I cannot reconcile his attitude with that of the Lord Advocate yesterday, because the Lord Advocate said that a scheme of insurance must be adequate, and must involve a guarantee by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman now says that if a separate Bill is proposed he will offer no objection to it, but that, on the contrary, he will welcome it. But will he give facilities.
    Mr. McKINNON WOODwas understood to assent.
    Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I should have thought the Government had enough to do with their own programme without saying that they would give facilities for anymore. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in saying he will welcome it he is using a mere phrase. There is no possibility of any Bill brought in by a private Member getting any discussion in this House at all. I am not going to-follow the right hon. Gentleman in discussing what is not in the Bill. I believe it is a bad Bill. I believe it is a Bill that will not work; that it is a Bill that will have no practical effect in promoting temperance. I will conclude what I have to say on this subject by remarking that I am in entire accord with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) who said yesterday it was a dead horse, and with the hon. Member for the Blackfrairs Division (Mr. Barnes), who said to-day that it was waste paper. That is exactly the view I take about this Bill. That is how I think the Bill will work in practice, and I do not believe temperance reformers will have any reason to congratulate themselves on having a measure like this on the Statute Book, if it ever reaches it.
    Mr. PIRIE: I should not have spoken if it had not been for one sentence uttered by the last speaker. He criticised the speech of the Secretary for Scotland as most extraordinary, as perhaps it was, but I think he made a statement which was still more extraordinary, and as extraordinary as any statement I have ever heard from a Scottish representative yet. He stated that the Bill had never been taken seriously by anyone in Scotland. That shows what hon. Members opposite think of the unwavering demand of twenty-eight years of the Scottish people for a measure of this sort. On two occasions in the last few years the Bill aroused more feeling in Scotland than perhaps any other Bill has ever aroused, and on an average something like ten Scotch votes to one have been repeatedly given in favour of the measure. The people of Scotland ought to remember that statement of his and remember that hon. Members opposite flout the demands of their electors and countrymen and treat them with contempt and derision. I trust that in another place they will think more seriously of it than Scottish Members opposite, and that they

    479
    will remember that there is no measure, in my belief, more dear to the heart of the Scottish people than this measure of much-needed and long-delayed reform.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I sympathise with the warmth with which the hon. Member has replied to my right hon. Friend, because everyone knows he takes this quite seriously, but one swallow does not make a summer. Even three swallows do not make a summer, and I believe there were three swallows in the making of this Bill. I do not know that my right hon. Friend was very far wrong when he said, as I think truly enough, that the Bill has not in the past been taken very seriously even by those who supported it through the Committee stage. I propose to take up a point which has been dealt with by the Secretary for Scotland in what I may call his whitewashing speech—whitewashing himself. He knows perfectly well the criticism that awaits him for his attitude and action in connection with the Bill, and there is no one who has done more to wreck the chances of the measure than himself. He has not shown the smallest desire to meet in any reasonable kind of way the criticisms which have been passed on this Bill, and the proposals, mostly from his own side, which have been made for the amendment of the Bill. He has met everything with a non possumus. He has been, if possible, more angry with hon. Gentlemen behind him—and I am not surprised, because he has had a good lot to stand from them—than he has been at bur criticisms, and for him to stand up in a white sheet, as he did to-night, and attempt to suggest that he is not unfavourable to insurance, that he is not against the publican, that he does not for a moment desire to do anything unfair, does not entitle him to expect that we should believe him. I do not say he is against the publican at all. I say he is one of those who get hold of a theory and exalt it almost into a fetish. He has got hold of this Bill and I suppose he is going to build a political reputation on carrying it. I am afraid he has besmirched it very seriously at the outset from the fact that he has not shown any desire to carry out in the Bill when he had the chance the feelings and principles which he has expressed in the speech he has just made.
    He said the people in the trade had never seen this scheme. In one sense that is true, but they saw the scheme which was
    480
    discussed in Committee. It has been in front of them for a very long time, and the scheme which was submitted yesterday had only one or two alterations made in it from the time when it was rejected by the Committee at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman. The main alteration in the scheme was a Clause placing a certain burden, like Clause 46 of the Budget of 1909, upon the wholesale trade. It had nothing to do with the retail trade at all except that it relieved them from the burden imposed on them by the former scheme, and to that extent it was a better scheme for the people who signed the plebiscite than the one in Committee, which they believed they were supporting when they sent in their postcards. That is how the House of Commons can be misled, I do not think intentionally, in a matter of this kind. To hear the right hon. Gentleman speak, one would think there were drastic alterations in the scheme as against the retailer. That is not the fact. I put it to him that the only alteration of any consequence whatever in the scheme was the one which imposed a burden on the wholesale trade, and for the right hon. Gentleman to say now that no one is responsible for the scheme is to say what is not correct. He said:—
    "The hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment said of the scheme that he had not had time to consider it—"
    If you search the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT you will not find I said that at all. I made no such remark. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
    "and he quoted figures which he said had been supplied to him for which he could not vouch."—[OFFICIAL Report, 8th October, 1912, col. 209.]
    If you look through my speech you will not find that I made such a statement. What I actually said was:—
    "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th October, col. 189.]
    That is the only remark I made with respect to the figures. I said so for this reason: that working under the pressure which unfortunately one had to do on Monday, I had not had time to calculate what the amount of the fund would be under certain circumstances, and I asked a competent person to do so. I wished to be perfectly frank with the House when I made that remark, and the right hon. Gentleman no doubt misunderstood me. If he had not repeated to-night the statement which he made about myself I should not have minded. He says that no one takes

    481
    responsibility for these figures, and in reply I ask—having got the figures accurately calculated for me—was not that taking responsibility? Surely, when I put the scheme on the Paper, it might be assumed that I accepted responsibility for it! Of course I accept responsibility. One surely does not require to be so specific as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think. He knows perfectly well that he had no right to repeat that statement tonight. I thought we had that matter cleared up yesterday. I say it rested with those proposing this measure, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer honestly believed that there should be some way of protecting these people, to propose some sort of scheme and not leave it to the people themselves.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is my case.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Well, it is a very poor case. The right hon. Gentleman stands up here as a saint and says, "I want to be kind and considerate to these people." How does he do it? By rejecting everything they propose in their own interest, and proposing nothing in its place. You have the Lord Advocate blessing an insurance scheme and cursing every proposal put before him. He says that every scheme proposed is inadequate. How is it inadequate? It is because hon. and right, hon. Gentlemen opposite, by the Budget of 1909–10, made it impossbile for these unfortunate people to insure themselves. There is no money left in the till. You are the people who are responsible if you are not able to bring up a scheme to meet their views. They are content, and have stated it through their responsible leaders, and I am here responsible stating it for them, to accept at all events the only solatium in their power left to them to accept, namely, something like 5s. or 6s. in the £ by this partial scheme of insurance. I made no secret about the fact that it was partial. I never claimed that they were expecting 20s. in the £, and to suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman did, and I am not sure also as to whether the Lord Advocate did not also suggest it, that the fact that there was not 20s. in the £ would enable them to make a demand upon the Government that the insurance should be made good is a claim that is not well founded, and should never have been made. No such demand was made or is made. It is useless for the right hon.
    482
    Gentleman to say, "it is no fault of mine; it is the fault of these wretched people in the trade who did not bring forward a scheme which was suitable or which was perfect." If it was not suitable the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are responsible for that and not the trade. It the Government had intended to deal with the licensing question in Scotland they have gone the wrong way about it. I recognise the perfectly reasonable desire of the Government to restore its freedom in the matter of licence in Scotland, and I think if I had anything to do with it I should have been inclined to sweep away the whole system by offering a reasonable time limit in which these people could insure their interests, and that at the expiry of that time Parliament would then decide in what form these licences should be issued; whether they should continue to be issued at all, and what public opinion would have demanded at the time. It would have restored your freedom of action. Parliament would again have had authority without interfering with or hurting anyone to deal with the whole system, and we should not then have been foolishly legislating for a period of five or six years ahead, when, please goodness, it will not be the present Government that will be sitting on that bench, and when perhaps others who take a different view of the situation will be able to deal more satisfactorily with the question than the right hon. Gentleman.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: The hon. Baronet conveyed to the House a wrong impression a little while ago in a speech which he made. I had not an opportunity of correcting that impression, because the hon. Baronet was ruled out of order. He said that when this Bill was in Committee I had admitted that the consumption of liquor had increased in New Zealand owing to the no-licence system.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: No, I did not say that; I said you had admitted that notwithstanding the fact that no-licences had been adopted for many years in New Zealand, the consumption of liquor itself per head in New Zealand had increased.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: I certainly admitted that, but I qualified it by saying that while the consumption per head over the whole country had no doubt increased, it had decreased enormously in the no-licence area. I said that the slight increase over the whole population was due to the abounding prosperity in New Zealand, but that in the licence area the

    483
    consumption per head during the year 1910 was £4 3s. 1d., while in the no-licence areas the consumption per head was ouly 18s.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBAR DINE: We have certainly had a most excellent argument from the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Dr. Chapple) in favour of prohibition, which he says is likely to increase the consumption of liquor, apparently in places where there is no prohibition. He says that where there is prohibition the consumption has gone down. Of course it has gone down. It is obvious that the people have gone to another area, where consequently the drinking has increased. It simply means that they have gone out of a small prohibition area into another part. It is admitted in New Zealand that drinking there has enormously increased since prohibition. It is obvious from this Bill that the temperance party in this country have no idea of what true temperance is. They think they can drive temperance into the people instead of trying to educate them up to it. They are simply so many doctrinaires with their nostrums, and they show no appreciation of human nature in dealing with this question. If they really wanted to put the cause of temperance on a sound basis, they would have done something to educate the people to realise the value of temperance. All they have done is to fix in Scotland the present class of public-houses, which are likely to remain there for the rest of our time in this House. Their own Bill shows that they have no sense at all of fairness and justice to the people whom they seek to dispossess of their property. And they absolutely refuse to allow compensation, though the money would come out of the pockets of those to be compensated. Was it anything incompatible with Liberalism or teetotalism to allow the trade to compensate itself with its own money? If it is a question of compulsory insurance, and the Lord Advocate dislikes it, I do not see at all why he should, after the compulsory insurance which he supported under another Bill last year. But circumstances apparently alter cases. Hon. Members talk about trusting the people, and the Liberal party say that we must trust the people after giving local option. But are they trusting the people? They are only trusting the people to do those things which they want them to do, and they refuse to trust the people to do those
    484
    things which they might want to do. The people may be trusted with prohibition, but when it comes to the question of keeping the house to the subject of disinterested management, and to seeing that the public-house is properly conducted, then the people are not to be trusted. That is what the Lord Advocate calls trusting the people.
    They have done absolutely nothing in this Bill, and I think many people interested in temperance hoped they would, with regard to the spirits that are drunk, in trying to see that there should be a better class of spirits, of pure spirits, or I might say weaker spirits. They have done nothing to try and teach the people, by taxation, which is one of the best ways probably, that there are many better classes of drink than spirits. They might have done something in separating the consumption of beer and the consumption of spirits in different places. They could have done something by lowering the Licence Duty on those houses where, what I may call, decent liquor is sold. An hon. Member laughs at that. I suppose he wishes to see the people of Scotland drink the liquid fire which this Bill is still going to force them to do. I know hon. Members opposite treat the whole question of temperance in Scotland as a sort of joke. Teetotalers, and I see it with regret, to a great extent support the party opposite because they protest that they are the only people of temperance, although they have not passed any temperance Bill before now except to license grocers. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For their votes, of course. I am absolutely certain of that. This is supposed to be a prohibition Bill, so that the teetotalers, or rather the prohibitioners, and they are different, may go about and say that at last they have prohibition. They have not dared to go the logical length by having big areas, and by having prohibition on a proper scale. Instead of that they have gone to small areas in order that by some lucky chance on one occasion, and probably never afterwards, they may have prohibition in one area and say what a success the Bill is. That is all that is going to happen about this Bill if it is going to come off. The clubs are a very good example of what is being done. Personally I am perfectly consistent. I voted with the Government in favour of the Amendment removing clubs out of the Bill, because the whole way through I have consistently opposed many of the Clauses of the Bill, and I should

    485
    have opposed that measure whether in or out of it. I certainly do support some parts of the Bill. I do not think whatever happens that the Liberals of Scotland have any right to say that we have not been friends of temperance. I should like to ask, when they talk about this Bill, will they also say that I voted personally against disinterested management, that I voted against compensation, that I voted against having any idea of improving the character of the drink sold in those houses and so improving the houses, that I voted in favour of small areas rather than big ones? I think the Bill, as a temperance Bill, is a lamentable failure. I only wish it had been a good one and a real temperance Bill, and I would have backed it up whether it was popular or not. It is a perfect farce, and will not work in Scotland.
    Sir JOHN M'CALLUM: I desire to thank the Government for bringing in this Bill. I think they have conducted the different stages of the Bill in a masterly way. They have shown great adroitness in the manner in which they have tackled the question, and, although they have been fighting against tremendous odds, they have done it with credit and honour to themselves. Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Act was admirable in many respects, and has tended greatly to reduce drunkenness in Scotland. Nevertheless, we have a sore which neither England, Wales, nor Ireland has—the Saturday night drunkenness, which we wish to avoid. We have been working hard during the last eight years, using drastic measures, with the result that our liquor bill is now 13s. 4d. per head under that of England. In eight years we have reduced it by over £1. But we have a canker worm which we are anxious to destroy. For fifty-four years social reformers in Scotland have been working in this direction, and they now see the triumph of their cause. The measure passed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh was supported by the Liberal party. It was because Liberals and Tories united they were able to achieve a reform for which we give due credit. But what has been our experience during the last, few months? We have had to fight every inch of the ground. We have had no support from our Friends opposite. The Government have carried out the mandate which every part of Scotland has given them by ten or twelve to one. During the last twenty-eight years we have returned an overwhelming majority in favour of the principle of this Bill. That principle has triumphed in the
    486
    Colonies and in America; why should it not succeed in Scotland? We believe that we are now within measurable distance of bringing about changes in Scotland which will not only make the country more thoughtful and sober, but accomplish possibilities of which England, Wales, and Ireland will be envious. In spite of the croaking Jeremiahs that we have heard—
    Mr. CROFT: Is the hon. Member in order in referring to my hon. Friends as croaking Jeremiahs?
    Sir J. M'CALLUM: I am referring to several Members opposite who have been prophesying evil to-night. They are only doing what their predecessors have done ever since 1832 in regard to every Liberal measure. Yet we find that this is now the best country in the world to live in, because we have had progressive legislation. Members opposite have opposed it root and branch, but I believe that their prophecies will be falsified, and that this will be one of the finest pieces of legislation ever brought into this House.
    Mr. MORTON: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a very few minutes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I quite understand that cheer on the other side, for hon. Members there do not want to hear anything. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side have declared that this is not a Temperance Bill, and that it will do no good. Why then do they oppose it if it will not interfere with their trade? I quite agree that there are many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are as much in favour of stopping excessive drinking as I am. But there is an awkward corner. They always have two difficulties before them. They know very well that if they do not keep the interests of their election supporters in the drink trade at heart that there would hardly be a solitary Tory Member returned. I pity and sympathise with them in their wretched position. We have another class of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are financially interested in the trade. They know very well that to get rid of excessive drinking would be to get rid altogether of their illgotten gains. I am aware that out of these gains, they build churches and hospitals, and that they get into the House of Lords. But I am exceedingly sorry that they have not got a better occupation. We in Scotland axe anxious to help them to reform. People in England and Scotland have been for

    487
    many years trying to do something to stop excessive drinking. Some people may say that all drinking of alcohol is excessive. But everyone knows except those interested from an electioneering point of view, that the drinking of liquor is unnecessary to anyone, and that we are all the better without it. They know that a large percentage of the crime, distress and trouble in this world is brought about by excessive drinking. Therefore that is what we want to put a stop to. Everyone admits that there is a difficulty to deal with, yet hon. Gentlemen opposite say we depend upon this for electioneering purposes and profit, and we will not allow a stop to be put to excessive drinking and the profits we make out of it. Note what this extract from the "Times" says in this connection and in relation to the construction of the Panama Canal: "Crime is infrequent because of the prohibition of liquor by the Canal Commission." You read of the wonderfully good health of those engaged on the work in an infectious district owing to this prohibition.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the hon. Member where else a man can get liquor if it is prohibited on the Canal?
    An HON. MEMBER: Mexico!
    Mr. MORTON: They prohibit it being brought into the country at all, and there is therefore no place to get it. The result is that crime has been done away with, and the health of the workers in that unhealthy district is good.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I have had several whiskies and sodas in that district.
    Mr. MORTON: Then let me tell the hon. Member that he has had several whiskies and sodas too many. I am going to read to the House the opinion of a great authority upon this question—that is the present Bishop of London. Referring to the great forward movement which was to be commenced in the autumn of 1909, his lordship gave reasons why it was necessary. In the first place, he said:—
    "He was not going to sit down under a drink bill of £166,000,000."
    And I want to point out that that is mostly spent by the industrial classes in this country, the very people who cannot afford it. His lordship said;—
    "They heard talk about the cost of 'Dreadnoughts'; let any school child reckon up how many 'Dreadnoughts'
    488
    they were drinking every year. Sixty thousand of their fellow countrymen and women perished annually from strong drink. Statistics showed crime was due to this cause alone. Ninety out of every hundred cases of neglect of children was due to drink. Children of alcoholic parents were consumptive—ten in every hundred."
    I have the opinion of a doctor, who says it is dangerous to health and shortens life. [An HON. Member: "Name."] At this time of night, and with these constant interruptions, I will not read all I have got, but I want to say we all know the evil effects of the drink habit in this country. It has been described as a curse, and it has been described by a Tory leader as an accursed trade. We, the Liberals, are trying to do something to mitigate this great evil; we get no assistance from the other side. They use it for electioneering purposes and for profit. Let us bear in mind that every shilling of that ill-gotten gain is covered with the blood and tears of women and children that have suffered and have been ruined through it. I hope, at any rate, the people of this country will never support the Tory party in their drink traffic. I dare say a good many of them do not drink too much. What I say is that they should have the courage to help us to put a stop to this excessive drinking and drunkenness. These ill-gotten gains are not got from the moderate drinker, but from the drunkard. We have done something in Scotland to-deal with this evil. Fifty or sixty years ago we got Sunday Closing, and is there a Tory Member who dare suggest we should now repeal that Act? Is there a publican, even in Scotland, who would ask to have that Act repealed. No; they are all satisfied with the law as it stands, and we want the assistance of all good people to help us to put a stop to what is admitted to be the greatest curse in the country. I trust that, in another place, we shall have the assistance of all the Members of that House in helping us to do something, if only a trifle, towards removing this great curse that always hangs over the country.
    Sir JOHN JARDINE: I have kept silent for two days, and I did not really wish to speak now. I am not going over the old ground, the arguments for and against this Bill, and against each other used during the whole time we sat in the Standing Committee, nor over what we have been saying during these two days Debate. As the Bill will soon be going to another place, I think we have done very well. On the eve of this Bill passing the Third Reading, there is one consideration which

    489
    I think ought to be seriously borne in mind. I join quite heartily with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Sir J. McCallum) in the thanks he has given the Government for their conduct of this measure. What we ought to be thinking about now, and what ought to be thought seriously about in another place, is what will be the opinion of Scotland about this measure, which I hope will pass this House to-night. I had an opportunity not long ago of going through a part of Scotland which I looked to for light and leading, namely, the county of Roxburgh. I had an opportunity of judging what the people there believed was required and what was demanded. I find that for the last ten years, ever since I came from India, the keenest interest has been taken in this measure. The more intelligent and thoughtful the people are, the keener is the interest which
    they express. I am referring to those gentlemen who occupy a high position in our parishes and on the county council. I am referring to many engaged in the education of the youth, and to many excellent and devoted women who make a continual study of children, and I find what I might say a unanimous consensus of opinion among them that something was wanted, and that they were satisfied with it. It is a question which has been frequently before the House. I do not think it is necessary to touch upon the question of compulsory insurance and other important matters now, but I feel satisfied that what we are doing to-night will be highly appreciated by the people of Scotland.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 104.

    Division No. 230.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dawes, James A.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Adamson, William

    Delany, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hinds, John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Doris, William

    Hodge, John

    Armitage, Robert

    Duffy, William J.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Arnold, Sydney

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hclmes, Daniel Turner

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Barnes, George N.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Esslemont, George Birnio

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Falconer, James

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Boland, John Plus

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jowett, F. W.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Ffrench, Peter

    Joyce, Michael

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Field, William

    Keating, M.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Brace, William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Furness, Stephen

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    King, Joseph

    Bryce, J. Annan

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Gill, A. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Glanville, H. J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Logan, John William

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Greig, Col. James William

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Lundon, T.

    Clough, William

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Clynes, J. R.

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

    Lynch, A. A.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hackett, John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    McGhee, Richard

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hancock, J, G.

    Maclean, Donald

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Macpherson, James

    Cowan, W. H.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Crumley, Patrick

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

    Cullinan, John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

    Hayward, Evan

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Sheehy, David

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Simon, Sir John Ailsebrook

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Millar, James Duncan

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Molloy, Michael

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Sutton, John E.

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

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

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Mooney, John J.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Radford, George Heynes

    Tennant, Harold John

    Morison, Hector

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Muldoon, John

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Munro, Robert

    Reddy, Michael

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Richards, Thomas

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Webb, H.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wilkie, Alexander

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    O'Dowd, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

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

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh)

    Rowlands, James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

    O'Shee, James John

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

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Nield, Herbert

    Ashley, W. W.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Norton-Griffiths, John

    Baird, J. L.

    Goldman, C. S.

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Balcarres, Lord

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex. S. E.)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Barlow, Montague (Saltord, South)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bird, Alfred

    Harris, Henry Percy

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

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

    Stanier, Beville

    Boyton, James

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cassel, Felix

    Hills, John Waller

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cator, John

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cave, George

    Hohler, G. F.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwalk, West)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Ceil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Croft, H. P.

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

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Younger, Sir George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Malcolm, Ian

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Bridgeman and Mr Sanders.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Fell, Arthur

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    Adjournment.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes past Eleven of the clock

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  HEALTH INSURANCE STAMPS.
  HEALTH INSURANCE STAMPS.
  DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES.
  DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES.
  Secondary Education Scholarships (Ireland).
  Secondary Education Scholarships (Ireland).
  Outdoor and Indoor Relief (Ireland).
  Outdoor and Indoor Relief (Ireland).
  Land Purchase Annuities.
  Land Purchase Annuities.
  Applications for Free Grants.
  Applications for Free Grants.
  Midnapur Case (Appeal).
  Midnapur Case (Appeal).
  Pensions in India.
  Pensions in India.
  Rupee (Cost of Coinage).
  Rupee (Cost of Coinage).
  Indian Imports and Exports (Merchandise).
  Indian Imports and Exports (Merchandise).
  East Africa Protectorate (Indian Rupees Imported).
  East Africa Protectorate (Indian Rupees Imported).
  Fast Motor Traffic.
  Fast Motor Traffic.
  Flood Damage in Norfolk.
  Flood Damage in Norfolk.
  Fatal Trawler Accident.
  Fatal Trawler Accident.
  Fair-Wages Clause (Ulverstone).
  Fair-Wages Clause (Ulverstone).
  Live Cattle and Sheep Exports (Ireland).
  Live Cattle and Sheep Exports (Ireland).
  Irish Store Cattle.
  Irish Store Cattle.