Sitting of 9 July 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill (by Order),
London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
East Ham Corporation Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Greenock Port and Harbours Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
London and South Western Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Arundell Estate (Closing of Arundell Street and Panton Square) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Private Bills (Group G),
Colonel BATHURST reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Friday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 12) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Message, from the Lords,
That they have agreed to,—
Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill, York Corporation Bill,
Coventry Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Barry Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Ancient Monuments; and for other purposes in connection therewith." [Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Bill [Lords. ]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower Watney, Combe, Reid, and Company, Limited, to redeem a portion of its existing capital; and for other purposes." [Watney, Combe, Reid, and Company Bill [Lords. ]
Watney, Combe, Reid, and Company Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Carolin's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Dooner's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, with Minutes of Proceedings; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.

DIVORCE BILLS.
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on

387
the Second Reading of Carolin's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Dooner's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in each case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[The Lord Advocate].

WEEKLY REST-DAY.
Bill to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to Sunday employment, and to regulate the conditions of labour upon the basis of six working days in the week with Sunday as the normal rest-day, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Noel Buxton, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. W. Hudson, Mr. W. Redmond, Mr. P. Morrell, Mr. Harold Smith, and Colonel Williams.
WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
"To amend and consolidate the Acts relating to Sunday employment, and to regulate the conditions of labour upon the basis of six working days in the week with Sunday as the normal rest-day, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 17th July, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
Return Ordered, "showing, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1913 (1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, to the Revenue collected by the Imperial officers; (2) the Expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which are available for Imperial Expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 190, of Session 1912–13)."—[Mr. John O'Connor.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    BRITISH SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many large
    388
    armoured ships have been laid down or provided for by Italy since July of last year; whether, since that date, Austria has adopted a new programme providing for three battleships; and whether, in view of the fact that the British programmes announced in July last were framed with a view to Germany alone, he will state what additional steps it is proposed to take to meet the increased shipbuilding in the Mediterranean and thus carry out the policy announced in July?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): So far as the Admiralty are aware no large armoured ships have been laid down by Italy since July, 1912, but, owing to the form in which the Italian Estimates are published it cannot be said whether any provision was made for so doing. Although during the period referred to there have been several reports to the effect that Austria-Hungary contemplates replacing the three ships of the "Monarch" class at an early date, no official announcement has been made that this programme has been approved.

    NAVAL AIR STATIONS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many naval air stations have now been created; and what is the number of efficient hydro-aeroplanes stationed at each of them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend has no, wish to add anything to his previous statements on this subject at the present time.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a foreigner has offered to supply me with the information which the Admiralty here refuse me?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is the first I have heard of it. The hon. Member did not tell me that before.

    ARMOURED SHIPS ON FOREIGN STATIONS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many armoured ships, cruisers and destroyers, were serving on foreign stations on the 1st June, 1904, and on the 1st June, 1913; and how many armoured ships there will be on those stations during the period of the naval manœuvres?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Taking "Armoured ships" as including armoured cruisers, the

    389
    numbers of the different classes mentioned were:—

    1st June, 1904.

    1st June, 1913.

    Armoured ships

    25

    …

    11*

    Cruisers

    47

    …

    20*

    Destroyers

    33

    …

    29

    * Six armoured ships and two cruisers were also temporarily in the Mediterranean on this date. The number of armoured ships on foreign stations during manœuvres will be nine.

    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many will be in the Mediterranean—will there be more than one?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will only be one in the Mediterranean during October?

    ROYAL INDIAN MARINE (ARMING OF VESSELS).
    Colonel YATEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the recommendations of Admiral Slade's committee have now been fully considered; and, if so, whether the time has now come when it is possible for him to consider the question of giving permission to the Government of India to arm the vessels of the Royal Indian Marine, so as to enable the Royal Indian Marine to take their share in the police and patrol work of the Persian Gulf and Indian Seas, and to afford the people of India an opportunity of helping to strengthen the Imperial naval forces in Eastern waters?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The opinion of the Government of India on the recommendations of Admiral Slade's Committee has not yet been received, the second part of the question therefore does not yet arise.
    Colonel YATE: When does the hon. Member expect to receive that Report?
    Mr. MONTAGU: We hope to receive the Report soon, but I cannot say exactly when. After it does come it will have to be considered by the Admiralty.

    ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH (WORKMEN'S WAGES).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that contractors to the Admiralty for metal cases are busy on Admiralty orders while the workmen in the department responsible for such work in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, are working only four days a
    390
    week; and whether he will arrange to place such orders in the nation's workshops as will enable the workmen in Government employment to earn a decent wage?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: On every occasion when orders are placed the most careful consideration is given to all the circum stances of the case prior to the allocation of those orders as between the Ordnance factories and the outside trade. Beyond that I cannot go, except to say that, so far as I am aware, firms are by no means busy on metal case work; in fact, representations have been made to the Admiralty that they are unusually short of work at the present time.

    "DREADNOUGHTS" (NUMBER IN 1915).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the position of the British Empire, the United States, Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary, respectively, as to "Dreadnoughts" in commission and "Dreadnoughts" completing afloat or under construction, respectively, in the spring of 1915?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I must refer the hon. Member to the full information given in the Dickinson Return, Parliamentary Paper No. 537 of 6th March, 1913. It is not possible to give information which is contingent upon prospective programmes.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that- the Dickinson Return does not give the information I have asked for?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of that.

    SHIPWRIGHTS' MESS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the desire on the part of the shipwrights in the Royal Navy that all shipwrights in the same ship should mess together; and whether, seeing that boy artificers on joining the fleet are allowed to mess with the engine-room artificers, he will consider the advisability of making such arrangements as will allow of naval shipwright apprentices on joining the Navy being placed in the Shipwrights' mess?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No representations have been received on the subject. The

    391
    arrangements for messing of the ship's company are at the discretion of the commanding officer subject to the rules laid down in Article 838, King's Regulations Addenda. In most ships the numbers of shipwrights are not sufficient to form a separate mess, and it is not proposed to alter the present rules.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that the Government do not intend to alter the rule on the ground that there are not sufficient shipwrights?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have just said that we do not propose to alter the rule.

    FRESH MEAT CONTRACT.
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that delay has been experienced by His Majesty's ships when visiting Great Yarmouth in obtaining supplies of fresh meat owing to the fact that the contract for such supply has been made with a firm in Essex which has no efficient means of supplying meat at Great Yarmouth; and whether he will state what action he will take to prevent such delay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A report has just been received that one of His Majesty's ships visiting Great Yarmouth last week failed to obtain 100 lbs. of fresh meat which had been ordered under the contract, owing apparently to the local agents of the contractors failing to take the necessary steps. The matter is being investigated, and any necessary measures to prevent a recurrence will be taken.
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, having regard to the fact that the Admiralty makes it a condition of contracts for the supply of fresh meat that the contractor must either reside on the spot where the supplies are to be made or must have an agent residing there who must himself carry on business as a butcher, if he will state whether these provisions were complied with when the Admiralty made the contract for the supply of meat at Great Yarmouth?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply is in the affirmative.
    Mr. FELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into this contract?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.

    MOTOR PINNACE CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of J. W. Brooke and Company, Lowestoft, contractors to the Admiralty for motor pinnaces, are paying boat builders in their employ 7d. per hour and two or three leading men 7½d. per hour, whereas the district rate for such work is 8d. per hour; and whether he will have inquiry made with a view to securing observance of the Fair-Wages Clause?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am having inquiry made into the matter.

    SHEERNESS NAVAL STORE DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that since the 20th January, 1913, extra attendance amounting to 1,994 hours has been given by the clerical staff of the Naval Store Department, Sheerness dockyard, out of which total payment for ninety-five hours only has been made; whether he will say when authority for the payment of the remaining hours will be given; and, in view of the inadequacy of the clerical staff to cope with the work of the department, the necessary increase in the numbers borne will be sanctioned?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is known that there has been great pressure of work in the Naval Store Department at Sheerness of late, and for this reason three writers were added to the staff temporarily at the beginning of May. Three hundred and eighty-five hours' overtime has been paid for since 20th January last, and a report has now been received detailing the further overtime worked by the clerical staff since that date. The question of making payment for the further overtime is being considered. The question of staff is already under consideration.

    CHIEF YEOMAN Or SIGNALS.
    Mr. FALLEasked if the extra pay of 6d. per day promised under the Admiralty letter of 19th December last to chief yeoman of signals has not yet been paid; when it is intended to make such payment; and if the payment will be retrospective from 1st December?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is hoped to issue orders on the

    393
    subject in the course of next week. Payment will be retrospective to 1st December, 1912.

    Egyptian Prisons (Treatment of Women).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received replies to his inquiries as to the treatment to which a British woman would be subjected in Egyptian prisons; and, if so, what was the nature thereof?
    Mr. MONTAGU: My right hon. Friend has as yet received no reply to his inquiries regarding the conditions with regard to the treatment of women in Egyptian prisons. My right hon. Friend has, however, received from Lord Kitchener a report which satisfies him that Madame Tripet's allegations are wholly baseless and that so far from being treated with indignity, she received exceptional consideration.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to my question. I am asking to know what is going to happen if British women are arrested and taken to Egyptian prisons?
    Mr. MONTAGU: That is the only answer I can give the hon. Member.

    Armenia.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the result has been of the inquiries he promised to make at Constantinople regarding massacres in Armenia?
    Mr. MONTAGU: His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Constantinople has reported that he has no news that massacres have taken place in the Eastern Provinces of Asia Minor.

    Colonial Service (Appointments).
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of appointments within the last three years to the post of Governor or Colonial Secretary which have been given to gentlemen who have not entered the Colonial service through the ordinary channel of competitive examination; whether the appointments are due to a lack of officers in the Colonial service who are fit for promotion; and, if not, whether he has any compensation to offer to officers who have entered by examination and who now find themselves, through no fault of their own, superseded by gentlemen from outside who have been imported into the Colonial service?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. With the exception of Ceylon, Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, and Federated Malay States, for which officers are recruited by means of the annual competitive examination for Eastern Cadetships, the Colonial service is not entered by competitive examination. But as a matter of fact, taking the last three years, out of twenty-six appointments to the office of Governor (excluding the military Governments and those of the self-governing Dominions which are in a special category) only two have been conferred upon men who were not already in the Colonial service, and out of nineteen appointments as Colonial Secretary only two were conferred upon officers who had not had long previous service in the Colonies. My desire has always been to establish and maintain an interchangeability between the Colonial and Home Civil Services as exhibited by the appointments of Sir Matthew Nathan to the chairmanship of the Inland Revenue, Sir J. Anderson to the Colonial Office, and Sir Sydney Olivier to the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Selborne, who was only in the Colonial Office, was made Governor of the Cape and Lord High Commissioner of South Africa, at a salary of £12,000 a year?
    Mr. STEWART: May we rest assured that those gentlemen who do enter the service through the ordinary channel of competitive examination are not passed over because their number is small and that they have no means of making their grievances known?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think either of those qualifications especially belongs to these gentlemen.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the question of some compensation to the men who are superseded?

    Wireless Telegraphy.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked whether any decision has yet been reached with regard to the construction or equipment of wireless stations in the West Indies, Mombasa, Penang, Singapore, or Hong Kong?
    Mr. HARCOURT: A low power 5-kilo-watt wireless station is now being erected=
    395
    in the Bahamas, and contracts are being entered into for the erection of similar stations at Barbados, Mombasa, Singapore, Penang, and Hong Kong.
    Mr. F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me what system has been adopted?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The French system, I think.
    Mr. F. HALL: Not the Marconi?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, these are short distances.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister what communications, if any, have been received from the British representatives of the Goldschmidt system of wireless telegraphy since Transatlantic wireless communication was established by means of that system last week?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I received a letter on Monday last from the British representatives of the Goldschmidt system conveying the information which had appeared in the newspapers of the preceding week, and inquiring respecting the contract for the Imperial wireless chain. I at once asked them to be so good as to arrange for representatives of the Post Office and Admiralty to attend a demonstration of the working of the system, and I hope that such a demonstration can be arranged for a very early date. I have as yet received, however, no definite reply from the company.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will the demonstrations be given before any contract is made with the Marconi Company?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Demonstrastrations were given by the Marconi Company to the Parker Committee.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether he has formed any estimate of maximum annual royalty which may become payable to the Marconi Company under the terms of the new agreement with that company now under negotiation?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The amount of royalty which would be payable to the Marconi Company would depend upon the rates fixed for the transmission of telegrams, and upon the amount of traffic
    396
    obtained. Any estimate would be speculative and it would not be advisable to quote a figure.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is it not possible to arrive at some estimate based on the earning capacity of an Atlantic cable?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, I do not think that comparison would be a very suitable one.
    Mr. F. HALLasked what steps will be taken in the event of a contract being entered into with Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company to safeguard the interests of this country thereunder in the event of the failure of the American Marconi Company or any other associated company, or by the action of any foreign country adversely affecting such other company?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No such steps are necessary.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the Marconi Company in entering into contracts with some of the other countries in which installations have been carried out have utilised the services of some of these subsidiary companies?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not how that may be, but the American Marconi Company would not be utilised in any way to assist the Imperial chain. They have nothing whatever to do with it.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the fact that the expression of opinion concerning the Goldschmidt system of wireless telegraphy, embodied in paragraph 20 of the Advisory Committee's Report, has been justified by the establishment of communication between Tuckerton, Atlantic City, and Hanover, a distance of 3,600 geographical miles, he will at once consult Lord Parker, and the members of the Committee of which he was
    chairman, and ascertain from them further details of the
    Goldschmidt system, and its merits or demerits as compared with other systems?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to questions on this subject yesterday.
    Mr. F. HALL: The last part of the question has not been answered.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot say what steps may be necessary until I have

    397
    ascertained from the investigations of my own officers what has actually been achieved by the Goldschmidt Company.

    South Africa (Strike of miners).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked what cost has been incurred through the Imperial forces having been used in connection with the recent trade dispute in the Transvaal; and whether this will fall upon the South African Government or the British Exchequer?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot say what cost was incurred, but I understand that the Army Council will reclaim from the Union Government any extra expense entailed by the employment of the troops.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Including the damage to honour?
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received information from South Africa as to the origin of the trouble which led to the use of Imperial troops; whether this was the prohibition of a public meeting at a time when there was no disorder; whether he was asked to sanction the use of the Imperial troops, and whether he gave or wihheld his authorisation; and whether the troops have now been withdrawn?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot add anything to what I said on Monday and to what has appeared in the Press with, regard to the origin of the trouble. With regard to the use of Imperial troops, I think it well that I should give the history of the matter at greater length. On the morning of 1st July I received the following telegram from Lord Gladstone:—
    "Just received following from Smuts:—
    'Owing to sudden very serious development of strike East Rand, I have found necessary ask General Bait send 500 Infantry Benoni to-night protect mine properties and power Stations, and request another 500 should be held in readiness if required. Trust Your Excellency will confirm action.'
    Have sent reply:—
    Presume that you have taken every precaution to avoid collision between military and civilians unless absolutely necessary. Are troops under control of civilians? Telegraph what directions have been given. Shall come myself Pretoria to-morrow morning.'
    Hart telegraphs troops leave Pretoria to-night, accompanied by necessary number of magistrates. Have telegraphed to him, requisition having been made he will no doubt see necessity for sending adequate force.—GLADSTONE."
    I believe that I had no legal, and I am sure that I had no moral, right to interfere with the decision of the Union Ministers who are the responsible Government of the
    398=country, and Of the Governor-General, the principal Imperial officer on the spot. The employment of Imperial troops in such a case can, however, only be justified by extreme necessity, and on Thursday, 3rd July, I telegraphed as follows to Lord Gladstone:—
    "Your Ministers will, I am sure, bear in mind that it is very desirable to employ local South African forces in all matters connected with strike disturbances rather than Imperial troops, which are primarily there for other purposes."
    To this telegram I received the following answer from Lord Gladstone during the night of the 4th of July:—
    "Your telegram of 3rd July. Ministers are duly impressed with the great desirability of employing only local South African forces in connection with strike disturbances on Witwatersrand area. They wish, however, to point out that just prior to these disturbances coming to a head, the old volunteer organisations had been broken up tinder the provisions of the South African Defence Act, and there has not been sufficient time to organise the new active citizen force under that Act. In the meantime, the only local forces available are those volunteers who enrolled for entry in the active citizen force, and they are only some 4,000 in number and scattered throughout the length and breadth of the Union. Those old volunteers who are resident on the Rand are to a large extent either strikers or so mixed up with them that it is futile to contemplate their effective employment for the purpose of suppressing disturbances in connection with the strike.
    Steps are being taken to call out those old volunteers in other parts of the Union, but in the meanwhile a large force is necessary on the Band in view not only of the large numbers and the menacing proceedings of the strikers but also of the quarter of a million of native workers, etc., who are spectators of the proceedings on the part of the white men. It is only extreme necessity that would justify the employment of Imperial troops, but under the circumstances just referred to, such necessity clearly existed, and failure to call in the aid of the Imperial forces might have resulted in great destruction of property and irreparable loss of life.
    Ministers beg to express their appreciation of the readiness of the Imperial authorities to come to their assistance under these circumstances.—GLADSTONE."
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to give notice that I shall hand in a Motion, according to the forms of the House, for the recall of Lord Gladstone, and ask for time for its discussion.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether, in all this correspondence from Lord Gladstone and the South African Government, there has been no word of the breaking up of public meetings held in connection with the strike; and, further, has the right hon. Gentleman in communicating with the South African Colonies mentioned the principal objects taken here to the use of British troops in preventing freedom of meeting? Has that question been raised at all by either side in this controversy?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, no, I think not.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman find out the reason the troops were called for and whether the cause of the disturbance was that the Transvaal Government prevented peaceful miners meeting together in public to discuss their grievances?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have asked for a report generally on the origin of these disturbances.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Government of South Africa appealed for the dispatch of Imperial troops to the East Rand before making any particular endeavour to increase the police force there, he will represent to the Government that Imperial troops are not to be regarded as available under such circumstances?
    Mr. HARCOURT: It will be seen from my answer to the hon. Member's next question that it is not correct that the Union Government made no particular effort to increase the police force on the Rand before applying for the dispatch of Imperial troops.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the date on which the Union Government appealed for the dispatch of Imperial troops to the Rand, and that on which any considerable number of extra police were drafted there?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Union Government applied for the aid of Imperial troops on 30th June. There were then 1,500 police on the Rand, which was. 500 in excess of the normal police strength, and approximately 1,400 more were then being drawn from police posts all over the Union to concentrate on the Rand.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in these disturbances it seems that in the first place the police fired on the strikers and that then the military were called in to deal with the circumstances which arose from their action, and will he see that British troops are not called in to deal with conditions arising out of the action of the Johannesburg police in preventing public meetings?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received a list of the killed and wounded, and whether the names can be published at once?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have not received it yet, but I hope to receive it during the day, and as soon as I get it I will send it out to the Press. I may say that last night I received the following telegram from Lord Gladstone:—
    "The Governor-General of the Union of South Attica to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    (Received Colonial Office, 6.20 p.m., 8th July, 1913.)
    Reports show men hack at work. Some of the natives refused to go down mines, but no serious trouble anticipated.—(Signed) GLADSTONE."

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL REVIEW IN HYDE PARK.
    Major M'CALMONTasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers and how many of other ranks were on parade with the dismounted units at the Territorial Review on 5th July; the total establishment of those units; and their total strength according to the most recent Returns?
    Major HOPEalso asked (1) the total numbers of establishment of London Mounted Brigade, their total present strength, and the numbers actually on parade dismounted in Hyde Park on 5th July; and (2) the total numbers of the establishment of the 1st and 2nd London Territorial Divisions, their total present strength, and the total numbers actually on parade in Hyde Park on 5th July?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The complete figures for the numbers present at the review are not yet available. I will furnish them as soon as they are received. I have been asked a great many other questions on this, as will be seen on reference to the Order Paper; but I have not yet the particulars to enable me to answer them.

    CLYDE RUBBER WORKS, RENFREW.
    Mr. BARNESasked if the Clyde Rubber Works Company, of Renfrew, have any contracts for the War Office; and, if so, a strike is taking place at the works in question on a question of wages?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The firm in question does not at present hold any War Office contract.

    ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in the case of transfers of workmen from one shop to another in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, being necessitated, he will so arrange that men on wages shall not suffer a reduction of pay?
    Mr. H. BAKER: I am afraid that it is impossible to give any guarantee on this point. Transfer is often an alternative to discharge or suspension for want of employment. Reduction in earnings shall be avoided as far as possible, but in some cases it is inevitable.

    ARTILLERY (RECENT CHANGES).
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War, if the total result of the recent changes in the Artillery Will be that the seventy-two batteries of the Expeditionary Force will be placed on a higher establishment than before; if so, if he will give the total number of field batteries serving at Home at present, as well as the number which are on the higher establishment; and if he will also give the number of field batteries which will be present at the forthcoming manœuvres which will be on the higher establishment, with officers, with noncommissioned officers, with men, with horses, and with guns?
    Colonel SEELY: The total number of batteries now serving at Home is ninety-nine, of which the seventy-two allotted to the Expeditionary Force are on the higher establishment. The field batteries attending the forthcoming manœuvres will be on the manoeuvre establishment.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in making a demand for payment of Undeveloped Land Duty, attached thereto should be a statement clearly indicating the land in respect of which such demand is made, and the amount thereon charged with duty?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): So far as I am aware, demands for payment for Undeveloped Land Duty contain a clear reference to the notice of assessment, on which or accompanying which is a full description of the land and the amount of duty payable.
    Mr. GARDNER: Would the right hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that the demands do not include this information?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman will kindly supply me with information I will inquire.
    Mr. WEIGALLasked how many of the provisional valuations, amounting to 4,500,000, already served are for agricultural land; and to how many of these objections have been lodged by owners?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The information desired by the hon. Member is not available, and cannot be obtained except at an excessive cost of time and labour.
    Mr. WEIGALLasked whether the value of tenant right has been included in the total site value of the provisional valuations already served; and whether valuers in future valuations have received any instructions as to inclusion or exclusion of tenant right values in view of the recent decision of the referee in the Norton Malreward case?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No specific sum has been included, either in the total value or the site value of provisional valuations of agricultural land for seeds sown, unexhausted manurial values or acts of husbandry performed in anticipation of an ensuing crop, in respect of which an outgoing tenant would be entitled to claim compensation. Pending an authoritative decision of the Courts, which will be obtained as soon as possible, the referee's decision, which governs only the case to which it is directed, does not call for the issue of fresh instructions.
    Mr. WEIGALL: Is it desirable to proceed with these valuations until the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in obtaining a decided opinion from the highest Court? Is it not almost fallacious to assume that that opinion will be in his favour?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not assuming anything of the kind. I am only following the usual practice when cases are sub judice.
    Mr. WEIGALL: If the decision of the highest Court is the same as that of the referee, will not the valuations now being carried out be invalid?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot say that without investigation.
    Mr. WEIGALL: Will they not be invalid for the purposes of the State?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot say that.
    Mr. WEIGALLasked when the capital expenditure on the National Land Valuation will cease and the cost of the valuation department be deemed an income expenditure?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Capital expenditure on the National Land Valuation as now being undertaken should cease in the course of the financial year 1915–16. It is hoped that the cost of the valuation department will then approximate that to its permanent annual level.
    Mr. WEIGALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the annual cost will be?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I certainly cannot, without notice.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the inconvenience and uncertainty occasioned to all agricultural landowners by doubt as to the validity of the deduction of tenant right from the total value, and the inclusion of grass in assessments of the full site value of agricultural land pending the hearing by the High Court of the appeal of the Crown from the referee in the Norton Malreward case, he will take steps to accelerate the hearing of such appeal before the Courts rise for the long vacation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will endeavour to accelerate the hearing of this appeal as far as possible.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does that mean the right hon. Gentleman will have application made on his behalf to the Court to have the case taken before the Long Vacation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is a good deal to be said for that.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: That is the meaning of my question.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what security there is, seeing that no further payments can, under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, be made by the Treasury into the Development Fund, and that it is proposed not to capitalise any part of the unexpended residue of the fund, that the
    404
    whole cost of upkeep of farm institutes and other like projects which are being embarked upon on the strength of the assurance that half the cost of their annual maintenance will be provided by Grants from the fund will not fall ultimately upon the ratepayers?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no security, in the sense in which the hon. Member apparently uses the term, for any of the charges ordinarily borne from Votes of Parliament being met in future years, as it is a principle of the national financial system that the expenditure of each year is met by Parliamentary provision in that year.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: How is it possible for the Treasury to promise a Grant out of the Development Fund for the maintenance of farm institutes when in fact there is nothing further corning from the fund, and nothing further can come without further legislation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is a sum voted out of the Estimates every year, and that amount is fixed to meet the necessities of the year.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: But was it not stated that the Grants for these institutes should be made out of the fund and not out of the Treasury?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is nothing to prevent Parliament voting the money.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked if the first periodical valuation of agricultural and other=undeveloped land will be made in the year 1914, although the original valuation will not then have been
    completed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope to deal with this question in the Revenue Bill shortly to be introduced.
    Mr. FITZROYasked whether an estimate could be given of the number of owners of land in the United Kingdom and the annual cost to them of the national land valuation apart from the annual cost of £680,000 to the State?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue originally served a provisional valuation in respect of grazing land situated in Killiney, county Dublin, belonging to

    405
    George Bower, placing the agricultural value at £720, and subsequently reduced this amount to £37 on the ground that a statutory fee farm grant subject to a rent and tithe rent-charge should be deducted; and whether he will state under what Section of the Finance Act the Commissioners claim to deduct the capital value of these fixed charges from the agricultural value?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The provisional valuation was reduced on its being found that there were certain fixed charges which the owner had not disclosed, although he was served with Form IV. As regards the second portion of the question, I beg to refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Enfield on the 1st instant.
    Mr. ROYDSasked if the referee in the ease of Smyth v. the Commissioners of Inland Revenue reduced the site value of Norton Malreward farm from £8,909, as given in the official valuation, to £4,143, which latter sum includes the value attributable to stone walls, water supply, and agricultural drains; and whether the Revenue Bill will contain provisions requiring the exclusion from site value of all owners' and tenants' improvements?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Commissioners amended estimate of assessable site value of the land was £7,534. Although the Referee in fixing the assessable site value at £4,143 included therein, as did the Commissioners in their valuation, the value attributable to the factors mentioned, he assumed the land to be divested of a road and of the grass, the values attributable to which were comprised in the official estimate. I am considering the point raised in the last part of the question.
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Board of Inland Revenue is prepared to recognise fellows of the Faculty of Surveyors of Scotland on an equal footing for appointments in the Valuation Department with Fellows of the Surveyors' Institution (England); and, if not, is there any reason why this should not be done?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Board of Inland Revenue have under their con-consideration the question raised by my hon. Friend.

    Consols.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in
    406
    view of the low record price of Consols at present prevailing, he will consider the desirability and necessity of fixing a date of maturity to the annuities, it being the opinion of bankers and others that Consols bearing a fixed date of redemption, even though distant, would be more stable in price than under present conditions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general opinion in the City is that some fixed period of redemption is desirable?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I went into the matter with a number of bankers a short time ago, and I was surprised at the diversity of opinion. I have had suggestions on these lines, but I have found that other bankers have criticised them very severely.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    SPEAKER OF IRISH HOUSE OF COMMONS.
    Mr. COOPERasked the Prime Minister whether, if a separate Parliament is set up for Ireland under the Government of Ireland Bill, the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons will be a member of the Board of Trade, as was the case with Speaker of the last Irish Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As stated by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, in reply to a question asked on the 17th April, 1912, it is not intended that the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons should be a member of the Board of Trade. Whether it will be necessary to alter or revoke the Order in Council of 1786, which regulates the legal constitution of that body, is a matter for further consideration.

    Marconi Committee.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the hearing of a Motion for the reappointment of the Marconi Committee to take the evidence of Lord Murray; and whether he will give a day for the discussion of the Committee's Report presented upon Wednesday last?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Are we to understand that there is to be no further inquiry into this matter and that it is to be hushed up?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not a question of hushing up. I have answered the question in the negative.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a permanent Royal Commission so that this subject may always be considered from year to year?

    Poet Laureateship.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether, in making a new appointment to the Laureateship, he will consider the advisability of limiting the appointment to a definite number of years instead of for life; and whether he will, at the same time, consider the advisability of appointing separate Laureates for the separate countries in order to stimulate the cultivation of national literature?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The question has been considered in all its aspects. I am afraid I do not see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestions.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the impossibility of any one poet representing all the nationalities in the United Kingdom, that it would be very much better either to agree to some such suggestion as I make or to use the money available for that post for the Civil List in appreciation generally of literary achievements?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so, but I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. JOYCE: When this matter comes to be inquired into, will consideration be given to the undoubted poetic ability of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore)?
    The PRIME MINISTER:I shall be glad if the hon. Member will furnish me with a copy of the poems of the hon. and learned Member.

    Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill.
    Mr. SHERWELLasked the Prime Minister if it is still the intention of the Government to proceed with the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill during the present Session; and, if not, whether, in view of the inconvenience and hardships caused to thousands of members of such societies by the existing provisions as to nomination, he
    408
    will give facilities for passing Clause 6 of the Bill into law during the present Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sympathetic in this matter, but I can at present only refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 30th June last to the hon. Member for Norwich. I will consider the matter.
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Trade, if it is the intention of the Government to carry the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) this Session; and is he aware of the unrest and anxiety this subject is causing among industrious workmen?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which has just been given to the hon. Member for Huddersfield by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

    Traffic in Worn-out Horses.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will personally make investigations into the traffic to the Continent of worn-out horses?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I will gladly investigate any complaints which may be made to me, if sufficient particulars are given.
    Captain MURRAY: Is it not a fact that the majority of these animals are slaughtered for food on the other side, and, if that be the case, would it not be infinitely better to have them slaughtered on this side?

    Canals and Waterways (Royal Commission).
    Mr. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if any steps have been taken since the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Waterways to ascertain whether the local authorities, which would presumably be directly benefited by the construction of a main system of waterways in this country, would be prepared to consider the possibility of contributing in some way to the cost of such an undertaking; and, if so, what were the steps taken, and with what result?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The Royal Commission reported in 1909 that

    409
    their efforts to ascertain whether local authorities and traders would be willing to share the burden of waterway improvement had met with no encouragement or success. I have not thought it necessary, therefore, to renew the inquiries they made in this direction. But the question of local contributions is one on which I should look to those who advocate the acquisition and improvement of canals to supply me with further information.

    Isle of Man (Constitution).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any decision has yet been come to regarding the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the constitution of the Isle of Man; and, if so, whether he can state what the decision is?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Government have accepted the greater part of the Committee's recommendations, including the proposal to reconstitute the Legislative Council partly on an elective basis. Their decision has been communicated to the Lieutenant-Governor, who has been requested to have the various reforms—except so far as they can be put into operation by executive action on his part—embodied in a Bill or Bills and submitted to the Manx Legislature at an early date.

    Vivisection.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, for the better protection of animals and in view of their greater experience and knowledge of animals which qualify them better than medical men to detect the symptoms of pain, he will appoint qualified veterinary surgeons to be the two additional inspectors of vivisectional experiments; and whether, as the object of inspection is to prevent cruelty, he will see that no person is appointed to these posts who is known to sympathise with the practice of vivisection?
    Mr. McKENNA: With regard to the first part of the question, I cannot add anything to the replies which I gave on the 12th. February and 18th March last. With regard to the second part, I shall hope to obtain inspectors who are in sympathy with the objects of the Act they are called on to enforce.

    Women Workers (Fines and Deductions).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has had his attention called to the report of the chief lady inspector of factories and to the numerous instances of unfair and capricious fines and deductions from wages inflicted on women workers; and whether he intends to introduce a Bill to strengthen the powers given by existing legislation to remedy this hardship?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have seen the report referred to in the question. The Amendment of the Truck Acts is one of the industrial questions with which I hope to be able to deal in the near future, but I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at the present moment.

    Army and Navy Clothing Stores (Women's Deputation).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a deputation of women workers from the Pimlico Army and Navy Clothing Stores marched to the War Office on Wednesday, 2nd July, and that, whilst standing outside the War Office, one of the young women was badly kicked by a man, who was arrested by Inspector Nevill and was taken to the Cannon Row Police Station, and that it was then found out that it was a plain-clothes policeman; if he is aware that the young woman that had been badly kicked was told that she had better not make a charge against Collins because he would be punished by the superior officer; and if he intends taking any action to punish Policeman Collins for committing such an unwarranted and unprovoked assault?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have made inquiry and cannot find that any such incident as is described in the question occurred near the War Office. There is no foundation of any sort for the statement that a plain clothes officer was arrested, and that a woman was advised not to prosecute him. What, as I am informed, actually happened, was that on the afternoon in question the police, acting under the Sessional Order of this House, prevented a number of women from passing in procession through Millbank Street, and subsequently a young woman who had, with a number of others, endeavoured to force her way through the police lines, complained that

    411
    she had been hurt. A medical examination, however, discovered no sign of injury. If the young woman was in fact hurt it is much to be regretted, but the police were only discharging a necessary duty without using any unnecessary force.

    Underground Workrooms.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the report of Miss Meiklejohn, in the annual report of the chief inspector of factories and workshops for 1912, on the unsatisfactory character of underground workrooms, the only means of ventilation in which consisting of a grating to the street, more or less stopped up, the worst ones being near Bond Street, in Sloane Street, and Shaftesbury Avenue; also to the statement in the report of Miss Whitworth that one cellar, about 80 feet long, built under and in the middle of very large premises used by provision merchants, was just being fitted up for a workroom for the employment of several girls, and that there was no natural light, and the nearest point at each end from the external air was quite 40 feet; and whether, in view of these facts, he will adopt as a Government measure, and pass into law this Session, the Underground Workrooms Bill, which has already passed the House of Lords?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have seen the reports referred to in the question. I should be glad to see the Underground Workrooms Bill pass into law this Session, and if it is found that there is general agreement in favour of the Bill, I will certainly do my best to assist its passage.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    VIVISECTION.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the public feeling against vivisection, he can give an assurance that experiments on living animals shall not be allowed to form part of any scheme of research to be financed by the moneys provided for research under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: All research work that may be undertaken under the auspices of the Medical Research
    412
    Committee, under the National Insurance Act, will be carried out under precisely the same restrictions that obtain under the Act of 1876 and the Regulations of the Home Office thereunder in other cases of research work.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Report of this Committee is laid in due time this Session, so that the House may have an opportunity of discussing it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no doubt that the Committee will report in the usual way.
    Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that nothing is done to hamper the useful labours of this Committee?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that is all-important.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. COOPERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of insured persons suffering from tuberculosis who have applied for treatment in the borough of Walsall and the number who have received treatment, distinguishing between those who have received treatment in sanatoria or other institutions and in their homes?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: The number of applicants for sanatorium benefit in Walsall from the 15th July, 1912, to the 30th April last was ninety-four, of whom three were ineligible for benefit. The number who received treatment was eighty-six, of whom forty-four were treated in sanatoria and forty-two at home.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (SCOTLAND).
    Major HOPEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the Circular X 124 recently issued by the English Insurance Commissioners providing that, in cases where some services are ordinarily required on Sunday, the insured persons will receive sick benefit on a seven day basis, this provision will be extended to Scotland; and whether he will take steps to amplify it so that all Scottish agricultural labourers might have the option of being paid sick benefit on a seven day basis instead of on a six day basis?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The circular has no relation to the question to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but deals entirely with the calculation of the rate of remuneration of insured persons in order to determine what share of the weekly contribution is payable by employer and employé, respectively. As I have previously stated in reply to similar questions, it depends upon the rules of each particular approved society whether sickness benefit is paid on a six or a seven days' basis.
    Major HOPE: Could it not be arranged that agricultural labourers should have the option of receiving the benefit on either a six or a seven days' basis?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They have the option of joining a society which pays on a seven days' basis, but is very doubtful under which system they really get the advantage.
    Major HOPE: If they have a choice, is there any society that pays on a seven days' basis to agricultural labourers, which they can join?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think there are societies which are paying on both bases.
    Major HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the name of a society which agricultural labourers can join?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will certainly make inquiries.

    PROSECUTIONS.
    Mr. F. HALLasked how many prosecutions have been brought against persons for failure to comply with the provisions of Part I. of the National Insurance Act; the number of successful cases; and the total cost of the same?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The total number of prosecutions brought in England up to the present time is 134, of which 116 have been successful. Ten of the remainder have been withdrawn with the consent of the magistrates on the defendants agreeing to comply with the Act. The total cost to the Commissioners of these proceedings amounts to £782 10s. 6d. The costs recovered amount to £429 17s. 3d., making the net cost £352 13s. 3d. I may add that of the total cost £499 16s. 11d. represents the cost of cases which were taken by the defendants to the High Court on appeal, and which were all decided in
    414
    favour of the Commissioners. I am obtaining similar particulars from Scotland, Irleand, and Wales, which I will communicate to the hon. Member.

    NORWICH FRIENDLY SOCIETIES MEDICAL INSTITUTE.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked if, although at the end of the first quarter of the payment of benefits under the National Insurance Act of £676 18s. 3d. due to the Norwich Friendly Societies Medical Institute for medical treatment and drugs, it was not till the beginning of May that £370 was paid on account, and that though another quarter is ended nothing further has been paid; whether the local insurance committee is thus acting on instructions from the Health Insurance Commissioners; and whether any action is contemplated to prevent a recurrence of delay so that medical institutes are treated in the same manner as doctors and chemises under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed by the Norwich Insurance Committee that an advance payment of £370 was made to the institute on 2nd May last, on an undertaking given by the trustees for the due application of the money, although the rules of the institute had not at the time been approved by the Commissioners, or by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. The committee have offered to make a. further advance, and, acting on the instructions of the Commissioners, are prepared to do so on a liberal basis, but inasmuch as they arc only empowered by the Act to make a contribution towards the expenditure incurred by the institution on the medical attendance and treatment of insured persons, they must be satisfied that such expenditure has in fact been incurred. I am not aware that there has been any avoidable delay on the part of the Committee. I may, perhaps, add that an agreement is being arrived at between the Commissioners and the representatives of approved institutions as to the basis on which contributions towards their expenditure may be properly made by insurance committees.

    Bangalore.
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can state the reasons why the taxes in the Bangalore civil and military station are nearly double those of the adjoining city under the government of His Highness the

    415
    Maharaja of Mysore; and whether he is aware that the district of the civil and military station is suffering from bad drainage, imperfect public latrines, out-of-date public market, and an antiquated hospital situated in the centre of the bazaars, that there is also a limited water supply, that two large tanks are waiting to be repaired owing to lack of sufficient funds, and that the population is accordingly restricted in the amount of water they are able to use for purposes other than for drinking?
    Mr. MONTAGU: No such complaints have reached the Secretary of State, but if my hon. Friend will forward me the complaints he presumably has received they shall receive attention. As regards his statements as to the rate of taxation they are not borne out by the most recent administration report, from which it appears that in the civil and military station it works out at Rs. 3 per head, as against Rs. 2¾ Per head in Bangalore City.
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the desirability of appointing a European district judge in Bangalore of the status of a district judge in the Madras presidency; and whether he will consider the desirability of placing the civil and criminal courts of Bangalore under the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court?
    Mr. MONTAGU: I am not aware of any necessity for altering the present system and have received no such suggestion.
    Dr. ADDISONasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he is aware that the civil and military station of Bangalore, containing a population of about 1,000,000, is not represented on the Legislative Council; and whether he will delay the refunding to the Government of Mysore of the unexpended balance derived from the assigned tract revenue until the urgent needs of the civil and military station have received proper attention?
    Mr. MONTAGU: The civil and military station of Bangalore and fifteen villages—the population of which is 100,834 and not 1,000,000, as stated by my hon. Friend—were in 1881 assigned to the British Government, the Maharaja renouncing all jurisdiction in the lands so assigned. There can therefore be no question of representation on the Mysore Legislative
    416
    Council. The administration of the area being British, the latter part of the question does not arise.

    Criminal Law Amendment Act.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a case in the Police Court taken under the White Slave Act, in which a woman purporting to be a nurse by being dressed in nurse's uniform was concerned; and whether, in view of the growing frequency of this abuse, he will, pending the extension of the franchise to women, take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to protect the nursing profession in this respect?
    Mr. McKENNA: The matter is receiving attention, but it presents very serious difficulties, and I cannot at present add anything to the answer given to a question by my hon. Friend on 13th March last.

    Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-health) Act has failed in its object of making women serve their sentences, he intends introducing legislation for that purpose?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the Act has failed in its purpose.

    Irish Lambs (Detention in Port).
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any tests have recently been made as to the increase or decrease in the weight of Irish lambs while undergoing the period of detention at British ports; if so, will he state the results; whether the owners of the animals were notified of the intention of the Board's officials to perform the test, and that they might be present; and whether, in future, if the exporters of lambs intimate to the Board their desire to have their lambs weighed at the beginning and the termination of the detention period, their wish will be complied with and in their presence?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Several tests were made during the month of May to ascertain whether Irish lambs increased or

    417
    decreased in weight during detention at the landing places in Great Britain. With few exceptions, a substantial increase of weight was recorded. I understand that the owners of the lambs were not specially notified beforehand, but in some cases at any rate they were present when the test was carried out. There is no objection on the part of the Board to their presence, and I have more than once invited Irish farmers to visit the landing places and see for themselves, with the result that when they acted on the invitation they have been satisfied that the detention does not cause deterioration. The weighing tests necessarily interfere to some extent with the ordinary work of the Board's inspectors at the ports, and the number must, therefore, be kept within reasonable limits, but subject to that condition I will gladly do my best to meet the wishes of any Irish exporter who wishes to see his lambs weighed before and after their detention.

    Elementary School Teachers (Pensions).
    Mr. GARDNERasked the President of the Board of Education whether, looking to the anxiety of those teachers who retired owing to age limit before April, 1912, in regard to their pensions, he will urge upon those engaged in the actuarial calculations in connection therewith the necessity to the retired teachers concerned of a speedy Report of the result of those calculations?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of 'EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The Board are in constant communication with the actuaries engaged on the calculations, which are being proceeded with as expeditiously as possible.

    Post Office (Contracts).
    Dr. ADDISONasked whether Messrs. Pickford and Company, Limited, have any contracts with any department of the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In London the firm do not hold any Post Office contract, but they are occasionally employed for the conveyance of certain stores. As regards the provinces, I am unable at so short a notice to say whether or not any small contracts have been placed with them by my local officers.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General whether the Clyde Rubber Works Company, Limited, Renfrew, hold any contracts for the supply of goods to the Post Office or telephone
    418
    departments; and, if so, what is the amount of such contract and how long is such contract likely to run before its completion?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The company holds no such contract.

    Telephone Service.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why he insists upon ten subscribers and an annual donation of £33 for taking the telephone five and a half miles to Blair Atholl, when four subscribers and a donation suffice for six and three-quarter miles in Dunning, and three subscribers and a guarantee of £22 suffice for a distance of five and a half miles for Kinrossie; whether he will give the same terms amounting to the same total subscription to the inhabitants of Blair Atholl as to those of Kinrossie; and, if not, will he say why this cannot be done?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the case of the proposed extension to Killiecrankie and Blair Atholl, new poles will have to be provided for 5½ miles out of a total route length of 7 miles, whereas in the Dunning case new poles will only have to be erected for 1½ miles, and in the case of Kinrossie for ¾ of a mile. The additional annual expenses involved in the Killiecrankie and Blair Atholl extension are nearly three times as much as those arising from the Dunning or Kinrossie extension. Moreover, in those two cases the same circuits will be used for the telegraph and telephone services, thus reducing the expenses chargeable to the telephone scheme, but in the Killiecrankie and Blair Atholl case the amount of telegraph traffic precludes such an arrangement. I would add that the amount of the annual subscriptions at Dunning, which I was unable to furnish in my reply to the Noble Lord's question of the 7th instant, is £40 1s., including a special payment of £4 15s. by one of the subscribers.

    Temporary Postmen (Theft of Letters).
    Mr. STANIERasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to statements made at the Warwickshire Assizes during the trials of two temporary postmen for stealing a large number of letters, including jewellery and cheques, that these men had been engaged at the Labour Exchanges and that the postmasters were not allowed to make inquiries as to their characters, and that it

    419
    was even known that these men had been convicted before; and whether he will now withdraw the circular instructing postmasters to get their temporary postmen through the Labour Exchanges where they cannot get characters?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention has been called to the statements referred to. One of the men was temporarily employed by the postmaster of Coventry in September last, and the usual inquiries respecting his character were made by the Post Office; on his re-employment in January further inquiries were made by the postmaster as to his character during the interval. There was nothing in the replies to any of the inquiries to suggest that the man had been previously convicted. The other man was obtained for Christmas work through the local Labour Exchange. I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as to the circumstances of this case.
    Mr. STANIER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether these men have been in Borstal institutions or not, because one man was there, if not both?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, inquiries are made by local officers, as was done in the case of the first man. It was not disclosed that he had been previously convicted. I need not say how much I regret that the inquiries were insufficient in this case.

    Charity Bazaars (Scotland).
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Lord Advocate whether there is any intention of altering the enactment prohibiting children and others from selling lottery tickets at charity bazaars in Scotland?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand from that answer that the Government approve of the punishment of children for selling tickets for the purpose of helping people in distress, whilst Ministers are not even reprimanded—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what progress has been made with the acquisition of the Fuller
    420
    estate, near Cahirciveen, by the Congested Districts Board; and when an inspection is likely to be made?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Congested Districts Board have purchased this estate.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Chief Secretary when he will be in a position to give an approximate indication of the date when he will be able to introduce the promised Land Purchase Bill?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Subject to revision by the Prime Minister, I think that the Bill can be introduced on Monday, the 21st instant.

    Peamount Sanatorium.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that, in the appointment of a resident medical superintendent for Peamount Sanatorium, it has been decided that no candidate for the post will be considered who is not a Roman Catholic; and if the determination to conduct this institution, which has been provided out of public funds, upon sectarian lines has the sanction of the Local Government Board?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to both paragraphs of the question is in the negative.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lady Aberdeen has stated that the senior medical superintendent Must be a Roman Catholic?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, I am not aware that anybody has made that statement. Anyhow, it is not one of the qualifications for the post as stated in the advertisement.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the committee of managers of the sanatorium, who are representatives of county councils, actually elected Dr. M'Grath to the position of medical superintendent, and, if that is not so, on what grounds was his election not approved of?
    Mr. BIRRELL: That does not arise out of the question.

    Scientific Research.
    Mr. ASTORasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will give the names of the investigators, employed on scientific research, to whom

    421
    Grants have been made during the past three years other than out of the sum of £1,900 voted by Parliament for auxiliary scientific investigation; and if he will give the subjects investigated and the amount paid in each of these years to each investigator?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I will send the hon. Member a statement giving the particulars for which he asks.

    IMPERIAL WIRELESS CHAIN.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister when we shall have an opportunity of discussing the statement made the other day about the Imperial wireless chain?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope very soon. Any suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman makes as to the date we shall be prepared to consider.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to Sunday employment, and to regulate the conditions of labour upon the basis of six working days in the week with Sunday as the normal rest-day, and for other purposes connected therewith."
  The Bill is framed on the assumption that one day in every seven should be allowed for rest and for recuperation—both mentally and bodily. It declares that Sunday is the normal day of rest, but, if it is not possible, some other day should be set aside. Clause 6 provides that if it is necessary to work on Sunday, no two successive Sundays shall be worked—in other words, no person shall work on more than twenty-six Sundays in the whole of the year. The promoters of the Bill, entertaining strong opinions as to the necessity of having Sunday as the normal day of rest on moral and religious grounds, and in order to preserve the health and strength of the nation, recognise that there are certain works of necessity and mercy which must be performed on Sunday, and in the First Schedule there are set out a number of exemptions—for instance, the serving, sale or delivery of medicines, bread, fresh milk, newspapers and periodicals for a period not exceeding two hours, the receiving and transmitting of telegraph and telephone messages, and the doing of any work essential to any industry, or absolutely necessary branches of work or industrial process of such a continuous nature that it cannot be stopped without serious injury to such industry. The exemptions also include the conveyance and delivery of milk and other perishable dairy produce, and the conveyance by railway and omnibus of passengers and travellers, and the hiring, letting, and repairing of motor cars. If I went through the whole list of exemptions I should exceed the time limit allowed for introducing the Bill. Suffice it to say that the measure is not framed in the spirit of the pedant or the Puritan, or for the purpose of enforcing a dreary Sabbatarianism on the people of this country.
  If there are objections to the proposals in the Bill they can be discussed in Committee. There is a strong body of public opinion in favour of the Bill, and the
  432
  greater the strain of modern industry and the keener the competition the stronger does public opinion become. Two Parliamentary Committees have already sat on the subject—one in 1905 and the other in 1906. The evidence given before the Committees showed that there was an overwhelming mass of opinion favourable to the proposals contained in this Bill. All the shopkeepers' associations, with one exception, embracing nearly the whole of the trades of the country, gave evidence in favour of the principle of Sunday rest. The Trade Union Congress at Nottingham passed a resolution in favour of restricting Sunday labour within the smallest possible limits. The Imperial Sunday Alliance conducted an investigation among trade unions, and found that there were 600 organisations, representing 2,000,000 workpeople and employers, who were enthusiastically in favour of the principle that the working week should consist of six days. I would remind the House that about a year ago there was a long and, unfortunately, unsuccessful strike among the spelter men in South Wales in favour of Sunday rest. It may be urged that to give workmen one day's rest in seven would be very detrimental to several industries, and that it would be almost ruinous to dividends, but it has been the business of social reformers and philanthropists, from Lord Shaftesbury downwards, to break down the necessitarian plea, and, after all, they have been most successful in doing it. Social reformers and philanthropists have proved to be better business men than either they or anybody else imagined. In the 'forties Nassau Gineot said it was absolutely necessary that factory workers should work twelve hours a clay, because it was only in the eleventh and twelfth hour that a profit was made by the manufacturers. However, now, thanks to the instruction of meddlesome social reformers, enlightened employers of labour have come round to the idea that the most economical method of working is only to employ the workman when at his best. But this is not entirely a question of dividends and money-making. The senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) said that not all the international Commissions in the world could fix a unit of happiness. That may be so. "One cannot draw nectar with a sieve." But, at all events, this country should be able to fix a standard above which it should be

  433
  possible to rise, and below which they should not be degraded—their bodies tired out and brains dulled. Matthew Arnold said that it was in ceaseless expansion of its powers, and ceaseless growth in wisdom and beauty that the spirit of the human race found its ideal. What unit of happiness or welfare has the State fixed for the spelter men who work ten hours a day for seven days in the week? And what chance of expansion of mind or growth in wisdom have the steel workers who often work twenty-four hours on a Sunday? It is in the hope that this Bill may do something to limit man's inhumanity to man, and smooth away some of the injustices of our industrial system that I beg leave to introduce it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Noel Buxton, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. W. Hudson, Mr. W. Redmond, Mr. P. Morrell, Mr. Harold Smith, and Colonel Williams. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 17th July, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]

  NATIONALISATION OF COAL MINES AND MINERALS.
  Mr. S. WALSH: I beg, to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to Nationalise the Coal Mines and Minerals of the United Kingdom and to provide for the national distribution and sale of coal."
  The Bill which I desire the leave of the House to introduce is one entitled a "Bill to Nationalise the Coal Mines and Minerals of the United Kingdom and to provide for the national distribution and sale of coal." It is a Bill of about seventeen or eighteen Clauses. It is hardly possible for me to do justice to them within the limits of the time allowed. There are, however, about half a dozen provisions that I think the House would like to hear very briefly, in order to judge as to whether they ought to give leave for the Bill to be introduced. First of all, we propose on an appointed day, to take over the whole coal mines of the country. We cannot quite give the date at the moment, but we propose that, in order to bring that condition about, there shall be appointed a Minister for Mines, who shall have Com-
  434
  missioners appointed by Parliament under him to give him the necessary information, and he shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure. The Minister is to be empowered to purchase the coal mines on an appointed day, and there is to be value given to those who own the mines, that is to say, who are actually working the mines and who have actually invested their capital in the process. We want to make it quite clear that in the Bill there is no suggestion of any compensation to or recognition of any right on the part of the royalty owners. That might seem what is sometimes described as a tough proposition. I do not intend to press that point further, except to let the House know with perfect clearness what we are pressing forward in this Bill. We do not introduce it in a hole and corner manner. We say that those who have invested their money in these large undertakings are entitled to definite and unmistakable compensation. The other point is quite a debatable one, and in the Bill as proposed we do not recognise the rights of royalty owners.
  The Mines Commissioners are to be composed of ten people, one of them the chairman to be appointed by His Majesty or His Majesty's Government, the other nine to be composed of three representatives of the Mining Associations of Great Britain, three representatives of the Miners' Federation, and three representatives of the Trades Union Congress. That, you will perceive is a combination of practical experts with political control that does not always exist at the present time. The valuation which is suggested in the Bill is to be based upon the output in the previous five years, dating from the appointed day. Pits that have an output of 100,000 tons per year are to be paid on a maximum of 12s. per ton. Pits exceeding 100,000 tons per year are to be paid on a maximum of 10s. per ton. To raise the necessary revenue, it is proposed that there shall be a Coal Mines 3 per cent. Stock issued, and that the owners of mines, those who can prove their title, are to receive dividends payable out of the coal mines fund. The Ministry may compulsorily acquire land and carry on the business of coal mining and vending in all its branches. The business proposition we commend to the House is one that I think can really be proved. We are not asking the House to take over any proposition in a decaying industry. A Commission that reported eight years ago stated that in the

  435
  proved and known coalfields there were still 100,000,000,000 tons of coal, and in the coalfields that were known to exist, but which had not been tapped, it was stated that there were 45,000,000,000 tons still remaining, and that this coal was to be found not only at workable depth but in workable quantities. 80 per cent. of the 100,000,000,000 tons was of two feet thickness and over in measures that are well within the competent working of skilled mining engineers. So we say that we are not asking the House to consider a proposition that will not pay. It will pay in the very near future, but it will pay still more in the years that are to come.
  4.0 P.M.
  It does seem a large proposition to lay before this House, but propositions not so great in extent have been laid before similar Houses. Prussia owns its own mines; New Zealand has an extensive business in State-owned mines; Belgium has State-owned mines, and what can be done in the localities to which I have referred need not, baffle the power of the British Parliament. We submit that it is time that this House should consider very seriously the question as to whether it ought not in the interests of the nation at large take over the coal supplies of the nation. We say that we should do it; first of all, because often as we have been told to think Imperially, this is the true line of Imperial thought. This island nation is dependant both in war and in peace upon its coal supplies. The coal supplies are available for five hundred years at the present rate of consumption, and therefore, we are not asking the House to consider the taking over of an exhausted concern. Coal mining is" really in its infancy, and when Members consider the vastness of the figures I have laid before them, they will see that it will really pay the nation, both in the near and also in the distant future, to deal with the proposition on the lines that we state. But we do it on other lines. We submit that the coal supplies of the nation, being vital to the life of the nation and being the result of no man's energy, but as we say fundamental to the life and continued existence of the nation, should become the property of the whole nation.
  In war an in peace, wherever we extend our vision, we are
  bound to see that the safety, the progress, the prosperity of this nation is dependent almost entirely upon the proper utilisation of its coal supply. It
  436
  has been proved by evidence repeatedly given that great waste has taken place under private ownership. The waste we could prevent. We could give a greater social justice to the poor who stand most in need. It is disgraceful to us that in times of industrial crisis the burden should fall with heaviest weight upon those least able to bear it, and that in our great cities particularly, London, Liverpool, Manchester, where the needs of the poorest are the keenest, there, because of private profit and the conditions appertaining thereto, we should make the burdens press most heavily upon them. There is one more point I would like to refer to—the point that while the conservation of our national resources is very important, the conservation of human life is even more important. It cannot be denied—it has been given in evidence repeatedly and constantly substantiated—that the terrible loss of human life and the awful rate of disablement of limb in our mines is largely due, I will not say wholly, but certainly largely due to the conditions under which private profit compels the working of the mines. When it is considered that during the last five years there have been killed in our coal mines on the average nearly 1,400 each year, and that 160,000 have been injured, it certainly does seem time that the House, not with ill-concealed humour or derision, should take up this question as to whether they are doing right to the vast army of workers below ground, and whether, in the highest interests of the nation, both in the present and the future, they ought not to do their best to pass this Bill into law.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This Bill would seem to involve some slight charge upon the taxpayers. I am not at all sure that the hon. Member ought not to bring it in in Committee of the Whole House. I have not had an opportunity of seeing it, and it may be that money is not the chief part of it. I will, however, give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt and allow him to bring it in, subject to the caution that I may subsequently have to rule it out on the ground mentioned.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: It is with very great regret that I feel bound to oppose this Bill. I feel all the more regret because I am greatly impressed with many of the arguments which the hon. Member on the other side of the House, with his usual ability, has submitted in support of this Bill. If anything could be done to sub-

  437
  stantially reduce the cost of living the increase in which is largely due to the increase in the cost of coal, and if anything could be done by the Government; to reduce the number of casualties occurring in the mines, I for my part would support such proposals. Apart from the enormous cost to the nation which it would involve; I feel bound on principle and as a matter of justice and equity to oppose the Bill. In the first place, I oppose it frankly for the reason that the hon. Gentleman makes no provision for any sort of compensation being given to those who actually own the coal. A great deal of land has changed hands during the last thirty or forty years, and in the purchase of that land full value has been given by the purchaser for the land, including the coal under it. That being the case, the suggestion of the hon. Member amounts to this, that he proposes to entirely confiscate property for which its owners have fully paid. That, however, is not the main reason why I object to this proposal, and I think that if there were a Labour Member in this House representing the miners of the Forest of Dean, the hon. Gentleman would never have risen in his place to ask the House to accept this Bill. I myself live in the Forest of Dean, and I can testify to the fact that practically the whole of the coal in the Forest of Dean, with the exception of a very small portion of it, which belongs to myself, is subject to the rights of the Crown, the property of the free miners themselves, who are working in the mines. If you propose to give no value whatever to the royalty owner when the coal of the country is taken over by the nation, you are going to deprive poor men, who are themselves at work in the mines of a large amount of property for which they have paid full value, and in order to earn which they are working hard and strenously every day of their lives. It is mainly in the interests of my poor neighbours in the Forest of Dean that I rise in my place to oppose the introduction of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephen Walsh, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. William Edwin Harvey, Mr. James Parker, Mr. Pointer, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Thomas Richardson, Mr. Sutton, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Goldstone, and Mr. Hancock. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 30th July, and to be printed. [Bill 244.]

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  Further considered in Committee. — [Progress 4th July.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.— (Expiration of the Act.)
    Unless Parliament shall otherwise determine this Act shall not continue in force for a longer period than five years from the date of the passing thereof.
    Motion made [4th July], and Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. CASSEL: On the adjournment of the House on Friday I was submitting to the Committee certain considerations why they should embody in this Bill a new Clause that provides that the Act shall remain in operation for the period of five years only. As I have already submitted some of the reasons which lead me to think it advisable to embody this proposal in the Bill, I do not think it is necessary to detain the Committee at any great length; but before recapitulating the reasons and developing my further arguments, I should like to call attention to the words at the beginning of the Clause, "Unless Parliament shall otherwise determine." During the adjournment it has been suggested to me that these words are really unnecessary, and that they ought not to have found their way into the Clause. It is said that whatever legislation finds its way on to the Statute Book it is always within the power of a subsequent Parliament to alter it and fix another period. If subsequently Parliament prefers sonic other period to five years, it will always be in its power, without any express words in the Act, to make that change. I fully recognise that there is some force in that objection, because the only limitation to the omnipotence of Parliament is that it cannot limit the omnipotence of its successor. At the same time, I wish to refer to one or two precedents which I think have been adopted. The first is in the Government of Ireland Bill, of which Clause 13 deals with the number of Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament, after the establishment of Home Rule. The Committee will find the words appearing at the beginning of the Clause," Unless and until the Parliament of the United Kingdom otherwise determine," following very closely the lines of the words which I have adopted in my Clause, and following them for the reason that the Legislature wishes to mark the fact that it is

    439
    within their contemplation that at some future date it may have reason to alter the determination to which it now has come. A more closely corresponding parallel even than that is to be found in the Bill of last Session entitled, "The Railways and Canal Traffic Bill," in which this House introduced a Clause containing almost precisely similar words to those appearing in the Clause which I now propose. That Clause was introduced in this House, but the House of Lords struck it out, and when the Lords Amendment came to be considered in this House, it adhered to the view taken by the House of Lords. I wish to call attention to the actual wording in that particular Bill:—
    "This Act shall continue in force for five years after the passing thereof and no longer, unless continued by Parliament."
    That is a precisely similar form of words to that adopted in my Clause. These two precedents justify me, notwithstanding the criticisms that have been offered, and offered with some reason, to the particular form I have adopted, in retaining these words in the Clause. Let me put what. I consider the main reasons for desiring to insert it. I am bound to accept that the Committee have decided in favour of plural voting, but I submit that this Bill is obviously framed as a temporary expedient. It is framed in a way which is not the best to deal with this problem, nor yet in a way which the Government themselves consider the best; it is dealt with simply in a way which enables the Government to produce a one-Clause Bill, so that there may be the minimum opportunity for Parliamentary discussion. I submit that when the Government frames its legislation in such a manner, when, dealing with the problem which confronts it, and not in the ordinary way, it makes it clear that it is a temporary expedient, and nothing more than a temporary expedient. I could imagine their having said to their draftsman not, "How can you best frame a measure which will deal with this question? "but," How can you frame us a measure which will be the shortest, which will be in one Clause, and which will afford the minimum opportunity to an Opposition for the criticising and for discussion?" This Bill is framed with one eye on the Bill and the other eye on the country. That is perfectly obvious from the frantic efforts that the Government are making to try to get all the Parliament Act Bills through in the present week.
    440
    They used to taunt us with wishing to end the Session on the 1st August. Has it occurred to them that they are trying to get these Bills through by the 11th August.
    The Parliament Act provides that a month should elapse after the Bill is sent up to the House of Lords, so that the Government are straining the rights of government and interfering with the rights of the Opposition in order to be able to prorogue Parliament by the 12th of August. I may say that this Bill was framed with one eye on the Bill and the other on the grouse, and I submit that a Bill framed under such conditions deserves to be made a temporary Bill. I would ask the Government, do they not admit that this is not the way that this problem ought to be dealt with? I am quite prepared to give way to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education if he will say that this Bill deals with the problem in the way he thinks best. If there is no reply, I think I am entitled to assume that my proposition has the assent of the Government, namely, that this Bill does not deal with the problem in the way in which the Government itself considers the right way. I can prove that by referring to the statements of two Members whose names appear on the back of this Bill, that is the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Baker) and the President of the Board of Education. Last Session we had under discussion a Bill introduced by the Financial Secretary to the War Office which provided in the case of persons who had a number of qualifications, that the voter should be entitled to choose one place where he could be registered as a voter, and that he would be only entitled to exercise the vote in that one place. This Bill proceeds on a basis which the Government itself declared to be a worse basis, namely, that of allowing persons to be registered in the different places, and then imposing heavy penalties for using those rights in more than one place. Speaking on the 1st of March, 1912, the Financial Secretary said:—
    "There are certain differences between the Bill we are dealing with to-day and the measure introduced in 1906. The Bill of 1906 proceeded on the principle of penalising the plural voter if he exercised the plural vote. It allowed him to he registered freely wherever he had the qualification, but it compelled him to star himself in the register of the particular constituency in which he wished to exercise his single vote, and if he voted elsewhere, he was subjected to very severe penalties. Those penalties, which were thought by some too severe, were considered carefully in Committee and reduced to appropriate dimensions. This Bill, without any disrespect to its predecessor, offers an alternative suggestion. It destroys no qualification; it inflicts no penalty beyond the ordinary penalties that

    441
    attach to any false, statutory declaration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1912, cols. 16913–4, Vol. XXXIV.]
    The President of the Board of Education, speaking on 1st March, 1912, said:—
    "This measure in some respects, I agree, has advantages over the measure which was introduced by the Colonial Secretary when he was at the Office of Works. It is an improvement in the fact that the names on the register in his Bill did not correspond with the right to vote, whilst they would do so under the provision of this Bill. No new questions whatever under the provisions of this Bill would be put to the voter. Under the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend in 1906, certain additional questions might be put to any elector who came to the polling booth, which cannot be asked under the provisions of this Bill. Another advantage is that no new offence is created under the provisions of this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1912, col 1747, Vol. XXXIV.]
    If' the right hon. Gentleman thought that those were advantages, why has he not reproduced them in the present Bill? The present Bill provides for additional questions, and introduces a new penalty. Why has he reverted to that old principle unless his object merely is to burke Parliamentary discussion and get a one-Clause Bill, and force it through in such a way as to give the Opposition the minimum opportunity of considering this problem. I say that the Government have chosen to deal with this matter in a way
    which, on their own confession by the statements of Ministers, is not the proper way to deal with it. That being so, I think we have got the right to say, even if the principle be accepted, that it is right to make out clearly on the face of the Bill that it is a temporary provision. There is one other reason, and a very strong one, why I would urge this Clause on the Committee, and it is that I believe that this time limit introduced in this Bill will operate as an inducement to the Government to deal within a reasonable time with those other problems with which they have promised to deal. I quite agree it is only a very small inducement, because they can always continue this Bill in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and alter the five years. At the same time, it is something in the nature of a guarantee that within some fixed period the Government shall deal with those other problems, such as Redistribution and the rectifying of those electoral anomalies which have been so constantly pointed out. It will be something also to keep the subject constantly in their mind and to induce them to deal with those problems in a reasonable time. Whether this Clause will have the effect which it is desired to produce in that way, I cannot say. I do not see how any hon. Member opposite can object if the Government mean, as they
    442
    say, to deal with this question on a more comprehensive basis than this Bill does. If it is really their intention that this question of Redistribution is to be dealt with, and that the whole electoral law is to be put on a sounder basis—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. and learned Member that he is repeating what he said at the outset of his speech, and again in the middle.
    Mr. CASSEL: I think it is the first time I have referred to it to-day, although the other day I made reference to it. 1 only wish to emphasise the point that the main object of the new Clause is to ensure that the Government shall be forced to carry out what they themselves have stated they would carry out. I do not see how the Clause will do any possible harm, from the point of view of the Government, and I submit on both considerations which I have urged that the Clause should be accepted.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I do not propose to follow the hon. and learned Member into some qi the reasons which he put forward in support of this new Clause. Perhaps the fault is mine, but I do not see what the date of the prorogation of Parliament or many of the other points which he has made have really got to do with the main arguments that can be put forward legitimately in connection with the proposed Clause. The last argument which the hon. and learned Member put forward, and the one upon which he dwelt when the Clause was previously under discussion, was that the object he had in view was to ensure that the Government would deal effectively with electoral reform and with Redistribution within the period of five years. I submit to the Committee that that object is really not going to be promoted by the passage of this Clause. We have already expressed our intention as a, Government to introduce Redistribution, electoral reform, and registration reform, before the normal period of this Parliament expires and in the event of our having the opportunity to carry out that intention. In that event this Clause is certainly unnecessary. In the event of the unforeseen circumstances and an appeal being made to the country, and our coming back, as I believe we would to power, it would be the duty and intention of the Government during the period of that Parliament to carry out those reforms to which they have been so long pledged in con-

    443
    nection with the reduction of the period of qualification and other electoral reforms. The third alternative is that possibly hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite might themselves come back to power. In that event, what would they do, having regard to their attitude towards this Bill. Instead of it being a guarantee that those reforms which we believe in would be carried out, we believe that it would be an excuse for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to allow the plural voter, and by not receiving the Bill permit him to remain permanently on the Statute Book. We do not intend to be parties to any proposal which under any conceivable circumstances would place the Opposition or any other party in a position to revive the antiquated and to us absurd and anomalous system of plural voting. This is not a temporary proposal, as the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to argue. In the event of our getting rid of the innumerable qualifications in connection with Parliamentary votes we would undoubtedly retain for all time if we had our way the system of the single vote, based on the principle of one man one vote. We do not think that anybody ought to have two votes for Parliamentary purposes. Even if a simple residential qualification were secured and an individual had two or three residences, we should still believe that that individual should only be allowed to exercise one of those residential qualifications. While I admit that the principle of this Bill is different from that of the Bill introduced by the Financial Secretary to the War Office and also from that of the proposal of last year in connection with franchise and registration reform, yet we believe that the principle is effectively carried out and will be able to be adapted whether other measures of electoral reform are passed or not. In other words, this measure will neither accelerate nor delay other reforms. We believe that this principle of one man one vote ought to be placed permanently upon the Statute Book, and ought not to be contingent upon any possible event. In no conceivable circumstances would we feel ourselves justified,—after having got rid of an anomaly which we regard as unfair to the poorer classes and absurd in itself,—in reviving a system of voting which is not
    accepted by any other civilised country—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that this line of argument may lead to a Debate on the merits of the Bill instead of the Clause.
    Mr. PEASE: I wish to point out that having once placed this measure on the Statute Book, we could not be parties to allowing it at the end of five years to be taken off. Therefore, we cannot accept this Clause.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: The right hon. Gentleman says that he believes in. one man one vote. I do not know whether he believes in one vote one value.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is just what I feared. We cannot discuss that question over again.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: That is really the basis of the opposition to this Bill at the present moment. The object of this proposed Clause is to make the Bill a temporary measure, and the right hon. Gentleman was at great pains to prove that it was not a temporary measure. The word "temporary" is obviously written over the whole Bill. The measure is only a pis aller, because the previous Franchise Bill met with an untimely fate. Had the larger Bill got through, there would have been no occasion to introduce this Bill at all. My hon. Friend was obviously right when he said that this measure was drawn up by the Government simply to make it as difficult as possible for the Opposition to deal with the injustice of the conduct of the Government in dealing with one question at a time. The Government are deliberately dealing with the one question which suits themselves, and leaving unredressed all the greater anomalies which affect the political position and political value of every Bill at present before the House. I think it is in order to draw attention to the fact that the Government, whilst attempting to take away the plural vote, because they think it helps the Opposition, are passing every Bill they have, and maintaining their position in the House, by the plural votes of the Irish. Every elector in Ireland has twice the electoral value of any elector in Great Britain.
    The CHAIRMAN: Wo cannot discuss that question on this Amendment.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think we ought to take note of the somewhat remarkable character of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to this proposal. My hon. Friend suggested that at the end of five years there ought, at all events, to be an opportunity for a review of the decision arrived at by this House. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was

    445
    unnecessary, and he gave a remarkable reason for his opinion. He said: "In the first place, if the Government is returned to power, it is unnecessary, because we intend to proceed with the whole scheme. In the second place, we do not think that this reform ought to be contingent on any possible event." As to the first suggestion, these expressions of intention on the part of the Government are somewhat discredited currency on this side of the House; therefore, I forbear to make any comment upon it. But I must draw the attention of the Committee to the remarkable pass to which the right hon. Gentleman's view of democracy has now come. His view is that what the Government consider to be right is to become law "without being contingent on any possible event." He does not care in the slightest degree what value the country may attach to the proposal. It is to become law without being contingent on any possible event. Sic volo sic jubeo. Because they think it is right, it is at once to become the law of the land. That is a most remarkable theory to come from anyone professing the principles of democracy. All I say, in reply, is that if this possibility of review is given, there will be an opportunity for the country to pronounce judgment on this Bill, as on all the other work of the Government, and we on this side have no doubt as to what the verdict of the country will be.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I confess that. I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment, but my difficulty is to find out how far those responsible for it are prepared, in the event of their being returned to power at the next election, to give effect to what is underlying the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what are the intentions of the Government with which he is connected, if they continue in office. We, on these benches, are very much dissatisfied with the limited character of the measure; but before we vote for an Amendment such as this, we ought to have some assurance that at the end of five years the Friends of the hon. and learned Member opposite, should they be occupying the Treasury Bench, will really be prepared to tackle the problem, and to give us a much more extended measure. Or is this merely a device which, should they be returned to power, they will forget all about, and leave us in such a position that we shall revert to the old condition of things of allowing
    446
    people to use their five, ten, fifteen, twenty, or more votes? I am sorry that when we are discussing this very important Amendment the Leaders of the Opposition are not present to back up the hon. and learned Member.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is relevant to ask for a declaration of policy from the Opposition on an Amendment of this kind. Such questions cannot be answered; therefore, it is distinctly out of order to ask them.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Without disputing your ruling, have we not a right to be told what those who are responsible for this limiting Amendment propose to do at the end of the suggested period? However, as the Leaders of the Opposition are not present, I cannot put my point to them; therefore, I shall have to content myself with voting against the Amendment.
    Mr. M EYSEY-THOMPSON:I can assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that if we get into office we certainly shall not forget our pledges. We shall bring in not a partial Bill, but a proper Redistribution Bill which will deal fairly for all time. The hon. Member has suggested that we should continue to allow people to exercise five or ten votes, when other people have only one. That is not our position. We shall not continue to allow constituencies of 2,000 electors or less to return one Member while other constituencies of 30,000 electors have only one Member. We want equality of voting power, and the first thing we should do is to secure that, not by a.
    jerrymandering party Bill—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is clearly out of order.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I desire to support the proposed new Clause. In the first place, this measure is evidently piecemeal legislation. It is a limiting Bill, and in no sense an enabling Bill. It deprives persons who possess certain electoral powers of the powers they possess, but it does nothing to enable a very large body of British citizens, particularly soldiers and sailors, who are practically disfranchised—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is out of order on this proposal.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Then may I put my second point, which is even stronger. The sole power of voting, that an individual possesses, is derived under the Ballot Act of 1872. That Act comes every

    447
    year into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. The result of the passage of this Bill, as a permanent Act of Parliament, would be that you deprive a person permanently of the right of exercising his one vote, whereas Parliament is not able, under the existing law, to deprive that person of the right to vote unless during the Session the power is reconstituted. It is a farce upon the face of it. If you are going to make this a permanent Act, you must at the same time make the Ballot Act a permanent Act, for this alone gives the electors of this country the power to vote at all. That is a very strong reason why this should be limited in its period of operation. Personally I should prefer to see the Act limited to one year, like the Ballot Act; also, owing to its piecemeal character, but failing that let us, at any rate, decide that it shall not exist beyond the five years.
    Mr. PEASE Mr. PEASE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, as he was of opinion that the Committee were prepared to come to a decision, very shortly without that Motion. Debate resumed.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: When I spoke a little while ago I was drawn away from what I originally wanted to say by the
    right hon. Gentleman. The reason I think this Clause should be added to the Bill is because it will obviously make it of a temporary character as an Act. If this Clause is added to the Bill in the year 1913 the Bill will be limited in its scope to the year 1918. Supposing the Government carry on till 1915, that very likely may mean that the Opposition will be in power, and "going strong," in the year 1918. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh!"] I could argue equally well the other way, but it suits my purpose to argue the way I have, and that we shall be on the Government Benches. In 1918, with this Clause added to the Bill, there will be a constant reminder to those in charge of the Government policy that this Bill, the Plural Voting Bill, comes up for reconsideration. I, do not care which party is in power; it is obvious that in 1918 you cannot consider a Bill of this sort—when it comes up for reconsideration—without dealing with the larger question. That is why it is well, after all, to add this Clause to the Bill, and to bring it up for reconsideration, or, at all events, to have it hanging over our heads with a view to reconsideration.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 291.

    Division No. 184.]

    AYES.

    [4.49 p.m

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynto

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Clay, Captain H. H, Spender

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Clyde, J. Avon

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

    Ashley, W. W.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Astor, Waldorf

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Baird, J. L.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hills, John Waller

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

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hohler, G. F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Croft, Henry Page

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Doughty, Sir George

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Benn, A. S. (Plymouth)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Falle, B. G.

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Fell, Arthur

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Kerry, Earl of

    Blair, Reginald

    Gardner, Ernest

    Keswick, Henry

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

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

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Boyton, James

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Bull, Sir William James

    Grant, J. A.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Greene, W. R.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Butcher, John George

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Haddock, George Bahr

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

    Campion, W. R.

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Lonsdale, Sir J. Brownlee

    Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Cassel, Felix

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Mackinder, Halford J

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    M'Mordie, Robert James

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Malcolm, Ian

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Touche, George Alexander

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Royds, Edmund

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Valentla, Viscount

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.(Honiton)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Weigall, Capt. A. G.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

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

    Stanier, Beville

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

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Starkey, John R.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Sykes, Alan J. (Ches., Knutsford)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Randles, Sir John S.

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Gastrell and Mr. Barnston.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

    NOES

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    De Forest, Baron

    Holt, Richard Doming

    Adamson, William

    Delany, William

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    Alden, Percy

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Isaacs, Rt. H on. Sir Rufus

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

    Dillon, John

    John, Edward Thomas

    Armitage, R.

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Arnold, Sydney

    Doris, William

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcilffe)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Barnes, George N.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Keating, Matthew

    Barton, William

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Esslemont, George Birnle

    Kelly, Edward

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Falconer, James

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Bentham, George Jackson.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Field, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Leach, Charles

    Boland, John Plus

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Gelder, Sir Wiliam Alfred

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Ginnell, L.

    London, T.

    Brady, P. J.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Goldstone, Frank

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    McGhee, Richard

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Maclean, Donald

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

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

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Guest, Major Hon, C. H. C. Pembroke)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    Hackett, J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Hancock, John George

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Chapple, Dr, William Allen

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Clough, William

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Manfield, Harry

    Clynes, John R.

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

    Martin, J.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J

    Havelock Allan, Sir Henry

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hayward, Evan

    Menzles, Sir Walter

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hazleton, Richard

    Middlebrook, William

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Millar, James Duncan

    Crooks, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Molloy, Michael

    Crumley, Patrick

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Molteno, Percy Alpert

    Cullinan, John

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfton)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Money, L. G. Chlozza

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hinds, John

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Mooney, John J.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morgan, George Hay

    450

    451

    Morison, Hector

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Muldoon, John

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Munro, R.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Radford, G. H.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Thorne, G R. (Wolverhampton)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Needham, Christopher Thomas

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Reddy, M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Nolan, Joseph

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Nugent, Sir Waiter Richard

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Nuttall, Harry

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wardle, George J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Webb, H.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    O'Dowd, John

    Robinson, Sidney

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    O'Malley, William

    Rowlands, James

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    O'Shee, James John

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W,

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Winfrey, Richard

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Sheehy, David

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Pointer, Joseph

    Snowden, Philip

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    The CHAIRMAN: The next new Clause, standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Mr. Hume Williams)—(Provision as to Qualification in more than One Country of the United Kingdom)—is not in order, as it is quite inconsistent with what the Committee has already decided on Clause 1 of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Copy of Act to be Exhibited in Polling Stations.)
    It shall be the duty of the returning officer to see that a copy of this Act is exhibited in a conspicuous part of every polling station, but failure to comply with this requirement shall not avoid an election?
    New Clause brought up and read a first time.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, "That this Clause be read a second time."
    This Clause does not, I think, interfere in any way with the principle of the Bill. I put it forward merely in order, as far as possible, to give to the electors notice of the change in the law. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in London, where there is no plural voting in connection, say, with the London County Council, it is astonishing what a number of voters
    452
    do not know how the law has stood in relation to this matter for so long. If this change is made in. the law, at the next General Election there will be really a large number of persons who are absolutely unaware of the change. The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that the offence under the Bill is of asking for a voting paper. The mere fact of asking for a voting paper already constitutes a most serious criminal offence, and disqualifies a man from voting or sitting as a Member of Parliament for seven years. I do think it is fair to give notice to the electors in every way that you can. There are many Statutes in which there is an expressed provision that that Statute shall be put up in a conspicuous place to call the attention of those who are affected by it to it. For instance, I might name the Innkeepers Act and a whole number of other Acts. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment, which I think is of a perfectly reasonable character and which in no way contravenes the Bill.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: I view this Clause very differently from the last Clause brought forward by the hon.. and learned Gentleman. I see no objection to it in principle, and I agree that it is important that everyone should have a knowledge of

    453
    the law, and that no one should have any excuse for not knowing the law. I think it is a suggested expedient which might, in the first elections at any rate, possibly be of real service to ignorant plural electors. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he should put down this Clause on the Report stage, and, with that object, should withdraw it now. It was only put on the Paper this morning, and there are one or two points in connection with the wording of it which I am not satisfied with. If he will put the Clause down for the Report stage, I shall be prepared to consider it with my Friends with a view to possible amendment in the wording of the Clause. I feel there is nothing in principle against the Clause.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman not only sees no objection in principle, but that he really means to insert some Clause on the Report stage which will actually carry out these proposals?
    Mr. PEASE: That is my intention.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: It is most important to have some provision in the Bill requiring the returning officer to explain to every voter who goes to the poll that if he votes more than once at a General Election he will be committing an offence. A large number of people never read the Debates in this House, and the sole knowledge of many people of our proceedings is derived from one or two snippets in the "Daily Mirror," the "Daily Mail," or the "Daily News," and there are some who do not even know that much. One of the reasons why we should have this provision is that it will be to the advantage of Radical agents to encourage Tory voters to vote more than once if they can. It will also be the object of Tory agents to encourage Radical plural voters to vote more than once. Therefore I am quite certain that the agents of various parties will probably not take any steps to inform the plural voter that he is likely to commit a crime, and it is essential there should be some prominent notice displayed at the entrance to every polling booth rather than in the polling stations. [HON MEMBER "Agreed."] I am very glad to hear that the Members of the House are agreed.
    Mr. STUAR'T-WORTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has said that on the Report stage he would consider this
    454
    Clause with his Friends. At the same time he used an expression which rather raised my suspicions. He said that it would be useful in the first election. Does that mean that he would limit it to the one time? If so, I think it is obvious there will be no sense in that.
    Mr. PEASE: I had no such idea. What I had in mind was that it would be more valuable at the first General Election than in the others.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is another consideration which the Government have to bear in mind in framing the Clause if they are going to accept the spirit of the Clause. For instance, there is the case of the universities. This Clause takes no account of universities. Would it not be necessary to insert some corollary provision in the case of universities? In that case something would have to be printed upon the voting paper. All these are matters which I recognise may require "some consideration. I am only a little surprised that this valuable idea should not have occurred to the Government earlier.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill whether he would not accept the Clause now? All the hon. Members on that side, as well as en this, are in favour of the new Clause. They have been calling out "Agreed." I will give some reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should accept it now. First of all, it would stop the discussion; secondly, we do not quite know how far we shall be able to get on the Report stage. It is quite true that new Clauses come first on the Report stage, and we may have it put down again on Report, but as we are only going to have one day we may not get very far on that stage. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman accept the Clause now? It will save time on the Report stage, when we may not have very much time to discuss other matters, and it will save time now, because the acceptance of the Clause finishes the discussion. It may require amendment, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot amend it now he can surely amend it on the Report stage. That would take up less time and save us discussing the matter over again.
    Mr. PEASE: I am prepared to put a new Clause down myself in these or some similar words, but I cannot commit myself to any particular words until the Report stage.
    Mr. CASSEL: The usual course is for the Government to accept the Clause and then to introduce the Amendment on the Report stage. I think that was what they did on the earlier part of the Bill. That is the course I ask the Government to adopt now.
    Mr. PEASE: I think the usual course is, that when the Government does not accept the words of any proposal, they undertake to carry out the object by introducing words of their own at a later stage. That is what I propose to do as we are not prepared at this moment to accept the new Clause in the words proposed by the hon. Member.
    Mr. CASSEL: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Proposed new Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The proposed Schedules are covered by the Bill as it stands. There are two proposals to amend the Preamble. As there is no Preamble the Committee cannot amend it.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: On a point of Order. If there is no Preamble, is it not possible to move to insert one?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. That would be a new practice, and in any case it could not be done without an Order from the House. If the hon. Gentleman thinks of what it leads to he will understand why I cannot allow such a novel practice as that.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I rather gathered when I first put down the proposed Preamble without 'the words, "which cannot at once be brought into operation," that it was not in order, but I gathered that if I -was willing to include these eight words at the end you would allow it to be brought forward. I understood you to say it would be in order if I added those eight words, and, therefore, I put it down in that form.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member came to me on Tuesday last week, before, I confess, my careful consideration of the Amendment had gone so far as the Preamble. I am sorry if I misled the hon. Member. It is not competent for the Committee to introduce a Preamble where it does not exist in the Bill as introduced.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it not a fact that the result would be that the Preamble would become the prerogative of the Government
    456
    and it would be for them to decide whether their will would be expressed in that form in the Bill or not. It would be possible for the Government to absolutely debar private Members from moving a Preamble to a Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman introduces a Bill he may insert a Preamble or not, but it is not competent for the Committee to insert one where one does not exist.
    Mr. SANDYS: The title of the Bill states that it is "a Bill to impose a penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency at a General Election." My Amendment would make it read to impose a penalty on any elector who votes or asks for a ballot or voting paper in more than one constituency at a General Election. I think it will be obvious to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this Amendment is certainly desirable and absolutely necessary, following on the discussion which we had in connection with this particular point on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir William Bull). It is a question of the penalties to be imposed upon a person for asking for a ballot paper in more than one constituency. The point occurred to my mind immediately I had an opportunity of perusing the terms of the Bill, and, owing to the extremely unsatisfactory way in which the Bill was drafted, it was my intention to have moved to amend it. I had an opportunity of drawing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the matter in a speech which I made on the Second Reading of the Bill. My objection was taken to the whole Bill on the ground that it exceeded its title, and I think the subsequent Debate in Committee has completely justified that contention. I might have raised the point even before the Second Reading, but at that time two or three objections of a similar character were raised by two other Members, and Mr. Speaker's ruling on those objections was in effect that possibly there was something in the objections, but so long as the Bill was in general conformity with its title Amendments could subsequently be moved to the title, and that was the proper course to pursue, rather than uphold an objection to the whole Bill on the Second Reading. Having regard to, that decision by Mr. Speaker on the objections, which were raised before I had an opportunity of dealing with the particular point I had in my mind, I thought it was, on the whole, better to leave the matter then for the time and to

    457
    put down an Amendment for discussion in the Committee stage, which would deal with that particular point. Unfortunately, Mr. Whitley, you decided that that Amendment was not one which could be dealt with, and I now desire, in order that the Bill may be brought into accord with the title, that the alteration I suggest in this Amendment should be submitted for the approval of the Committee. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that we had a rather long but, as it turned out, a rather unsatisfactory discussion upon this particular Amendment at an earlier stage in the Committee, and the result was in my view that, although the right hon. Gentleman was willing to accept an Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Shropshire, it did not in the opinion of a large number of hon. Members on these benches, including myself, in the least degree satisfy many of the objections which we very rightly took to the very loose way in which the Bill was drafted. It was pointed out in the course of that discussion that university voters would be placed—
    —The CHAIRMAN: All this is very wide of the question. The hon. Member must understand that any opportunity for debating or moving Amendments to the title must be confined to the very small point whether the alteration is necessary to bring it into conformity with the Bill. This is not a question of the merits of the title or of what happened in Committee.
    Mr. SANDYS: I was trying to meet the possible objection that this point had already been dealt with in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. What I desire to emphasise for the purpose of bringing forward this Amendment is the fact that in the opinion of a great many of as, although we admit that the position is not so bad as it was in the original drafting, we are satisfied that cases of hardship and injustice can still arise, and that it is desirable, in the interests of everybody concerned, that they should know that they are liable to penalties, not merely for voting in more than one constituency at a General Election, but also they are equally liable to the same penalty if they ask for a ballot paper in more than one constituency at a General Parliamentary Election. The question of the university voter was dealt with—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into the merits of the Bill, and he is taking much too wide a flight.
    Mr. SANDYS: I am only anticipating difficulties—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not anticipate arguments which I have ruled out of order.
    Mr. SANDYS: To justify this alteration I have to show that there are two distinct offences, otherwise there is no point in snaking this alteration. If it was merely an attempt it would be included in the penalty with regard to actual voting, and there would be no necessity to change the title. To justify the alteration I have to show that there are two offences under the Bill, and not merely one. I will allude very briefly to the case of the university voter, because it was clearly shown by the hon. Member for Cambridge University that that difficulty was not met by the hon. Member's Amendment. Let us take another case which was not dealt with. I am trying to show that there are two separate offences under this Bill which are not indicated in the title unless the change I suggest is made. Take the case of the voter who goes into the polling booth with the intention of registering his vote in that constituency. Suppose that after asking for his voting paper he is taken ill and is unable to register his
    vote—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not justifying his Amendment at all. As I have already pointed out, the opportunity given by our Rules for amending the title is a very small drafting point, simply whether it makes the title conform better to the Bill. Hon. Members will recollect that Mr. Speaker himself said that it is impossible to put the whole Bill into the title, and it is equally impossible to put the discussion on the whole Bill into a discussion on the title.
    Mr. SANDYS: I think there are a large number of hardships and injustices—
    The CHAIRMAN: I call upon Sir Frederick Banbury.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in the title of the Bill, after the word "votes"["a Bill to impose a penalty on an elector who votes "], to insert the words "or asks for a ballot or voting paper."
    I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept this Amendment or not. It is clear that in order to make the Bill comply with the title it is necessary that those words should be put in. Without this Amend-

    459
    ment the title would indicate that there was only one offence, and I think it is necessary to see that this Bill does not go beyond the scope of the title. In late years there has been many attempts to introduce into the body of a Bill Amendments or Clauses which go beyond the scope of the title. There was a case in point in the Coal Mines Regulation Bill upon which I raised this point, and the Attorney-General admitted that I was right, and at the last moment he altered the title. I appeal to the Solicitor-General to accept an Amendment which cannot possibly interfere with the working of the Bill. I think that the title ought to be made to correspond with the contents of the Bill.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): I agree with the hon. Member that the label ought to be accurate and that it should describe as near as possible the precise contents contained within the four corners of the Bill. The point is whether this alteraton will make the label better or worse. It is not true that this Bill imposes a penalty on every elector who asks for a ballot or voting paper in more than one constituency, because it is necessary that the elector should do it for the purpose of so voting. That is effectively described by the present label which imposes the penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency, and the title is none the worse for being short.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the Solicitor-General has been disregarding the ruling of the Chair, because he has been arguing this point on the merits of the Bill. He has been arguing that the Bill does not, as a matter of fact, impose a penalty on persons who ask for a ballot paper in more than one constituency, and that was the point which my hon. Friend was arguing when he was called to order by the Chairman.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry if I was negligent enough to allow that argument to pass. Had I observed it I should certainly have stopped the Solicitor-General.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: If that is the Solicitor-General's defence of the title as it stands, then it is an unsound one. We have not now to consider whether the Bill does or does not impose a penalty on everyone who asks for a voting paper. It is enough that it is general and happens in
    460
    a certain number of cases. Why is the title not to be made to correspond with the Bill? The Solicitor-General says it must be a short title. A short title is already provided and the long title is intended to describe the Bill with accuracy. This Bill is supposed to be scrutinised in this House and the other House, and the title is intended to indicate generally the contents of the Bill. I do not think the defence which has been offered is at all an adequate one, and it would only be adequate if the Solicitor-General was entitled to enter into an elaborate examination of the Bill in order to show that the words of the Bill did not have their apparent significance. The Bill as drafted does contain a second offence, and unless you can examine the merits of the Clause the case cannot be made out. I hope my hon. Friend will divide the Committee upon this Amendment.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I agree with the Solicitor-General that you ought to have the title accurate and short. No one suggests that you should put on the label a full and detailed description of the Bill, but you should, at any rate, indicate what the Bill contained. Anything more misleading than the title of this Bill it is impossible to conceive. The title is "A Bill to impose a penalty on an elector who votes in more than one constituency at a General Parliamentary Election," but the Bill contains nothing of the kind. This is a Bill which creates an offence, and the imposition of a penalty is merely ancillary to the creation of the offence. If you look at the label, it is quite consistent with the offence already existing. In an Act of Parliament you should define what is going to happen to you if you break the law. This Act creates the offence and imposes the penalty. If the title has to stand in that short form, instead of calling it an Act to deal with the offence of voting in more than one constituency, for goodness sake let us be accurate and state exactly what you are doing. It is not only for voting in more than one constituency, but there is the entirely separate offence of asking for a voting or ballot paper for the purpose of voting, and to anyone hunting for this Bill there is nothing in the title to guide him as to its contents. Surely you should, at any rate, state that the penalty is to be imposed for two offences which the Bill creates for the first time. As the title stands, it is only for one offence, although the Bill imposes it for two. Surely this is an Amendment which the Government ought to accept!
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The Solicitor-General is so anxious for brevity that he is willing to sacrifice the truth. The title of this Bill at present consists of eighteen words, and, with this addition to bring it into conformity with truth, it would still be a great deal shorter than the title of the Parliament Act.
    Sir HARRY SAMUEL: The Solicitor-General, I am sure, desires to be accurate, but the Government are creating two totally new offences. It has always been considered to be a laudable object to endeavour to cast your vote wherever you have the qualification, and one has asked for a ballot paper for that purpose, but under this Bill you turn that into an offence. The very least you can do is to make it perfectly clear on the face of the Bill what you are doing, and, in the interests of all. I do ask the Solicitor-General to accept this Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I appeal once more to the Solicitor-General? I understand him to say that my Amendment is not correct because the penalty is not imposed for asking for a ballot paper, but only for asking for a ballot paper for the purpose of voting. That, of course, is quite correct. The Amendment no doubt was put down in the interests of brevity, and it is perfectly clear and intelligible, but, in order to shorten the discussion, I am prepared to add to my Amendment the words "for the purpose of so voting." That will make it fourteen words instead of eight. Will the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of keeping out fourteen words, allow the title to be misleading, and continue the discussion of what, after all, is suite a minor point. I would almost say
    that I would myself pay the expense of printing the extra words, but the Government are not quite so economical as that. Seriously—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that I am quite sincere —it is really advisable that the title should as far as possible correspond with the contents. That is my argument, and I really do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consent to the insertion of these words.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Baronet puts it so pleasantly that one might easily consent without thinking what it would mean. I am afraid I cannot agree to the hon. Baronet's suggestion, because the next thing that would happen would be that he would point out that unfortunately his new title did not correspond with the contents of the Bill, because it forgot to mention that it authorises a new question to be asked of voters.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No, I agree not to raise any further point.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: If the Government do not accept the words "for the purpose of so voting," I must say that I prefer the present title, because the penalty is not for asking for a ballot or voting paper, but for asking for a ballot or voting paper with the intention of voting. Therefore, unless the Government accept the whole words, I think the present title is more in accordance with the Bill than the words suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 299.

    Division No. 185.]

    AYES.

    [5.38 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Boyton, James

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Bull, Sir William James

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Butcher, John George

    Doughty, Sir George

    Baird, J. L.

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Duncannon, Viscount

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

    Campion, W. R.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Falle, B. G.

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fell, Arthur

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Barnston, H.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gardner, Ernest

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Blair, Reginald

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Grant, J. A.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Greene, W. R.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    M'Mordle, Robert James

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

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

    Mount, William Arthur

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, K)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Newman, John R. P.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Hills, John Waller

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hohler, G. F.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Weigall, Capt. A. G.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Peto, Basil Edward

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Mt'gomy B'ghs)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

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

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Kerry, Earl of

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Keswick, Henry

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rothschild, Lionel de

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

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

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

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Younger, Sir George

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Major M'Calmont.

    Locker-Lampson. G. (Salisbury)

    Stanler, Beville

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

    Starkey, John R.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Adamson, William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cotton, William Francis

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

    Alden, Percy

    Cowan, W. H.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hackett, J.

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

    Crooks, William

    Hancock, John George

    Armltage, R.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Cullinan, John

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Dalzlel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. Kirkcaldy)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

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

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

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

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Barnes, George N.

    Delany, William

    Hayward, Evan

    Bar ran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Barton, W.

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Beale, Sir William Phlpson

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Dillon, John

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Doris, William

    Hinds, John

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Duffy, William J.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Hodge, John

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks., Otley)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Black, Arthur W.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Boland, John Plus

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Esslemont, George Birnle

    Hudson, Walter

    Brady, P. J.

    Falconer, James

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    John, Edward Thomas

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Field, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Joyce, Michael

    Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Keating, Matthew

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Ginnell, L.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Kelly, Edward

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Clough, William

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S. Molton)

    Clynes, John R.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    464

    465

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Scanlan, Thomas

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Leach, Charles

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sheehy, David

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Shortt, Edward

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    O'Dowd, John

    Simon, Rt. Hon. sir John Allsebrook

    Lundon, T.

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

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Lynch, A. A.

    O'Malley, William

    Snowden, Philip

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

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

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    McGhee, Richard

    O'Shee, James John

    Sutton, John E.

    Maclean, Donald

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcilffe)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Tennant, Harold John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Thomas, J. H.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Pointer, Joseph

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Manfield, Harry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Martin, J.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

    Wardle, George J.

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

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Meagher, Michael

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Webb, H.

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Radford, G. H.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Middlebrook, William

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Millar, James Duncan

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Molloy, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Rendall, Atheistan

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

    Mooney, John J.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Morison, Hector

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Muldoon, John

    Robinson, Sidney

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

    Munro, R.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Rowlands, James

    Needham, Christopher Thomas

    Rowntree, Arnold

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Russell, Rt. Hon, Thomas W.

    Question put, "That the Chairman report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
    Lord HUGH CECIL: On a point of Order. The Question, "That the title stand part of the Bill," has not been put.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is under a misapprehension. There is no
    similar question regarding the title as; "That this Clause stand part of the Bill." Simply an opportunity is given to propose. an Amendment to the title to bring it into conformity with the Bill.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 164.

    Division No. 186.]

    AYES.

    [5.47 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Boland, John Pius

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Adamson, William

    Barnes, George N.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Alden, Percy

    Barton, William

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Brunner, John F. L.

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Bryce, John Annan

    Armitage, Robert

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Burke, E. Havlland

    Arnold, Sydney

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Bentham, George Jackson

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

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Hey wood)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hudson, Walter

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

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

    Clough, William

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Phillpps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kelly, Edward

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Crooks, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Radford, George Heynes

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Cullinan, John

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

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

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Reddy, Michael

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    Leach, Charles

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Dillon, John

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Doris, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Duffy, William J.

    McGhee, Richard

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Maclean, Donald

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

    Rowlands, James

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Falconer, James

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Sheehy, David

    Field, William

    Martin, Joseph

    Shortt, Edward

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Menzles, Sir Walter

    Sutherland, John E.

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Middlebrook, William

    Sutton, John E.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Molloy, Michael

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Tennant, Harold John

    Goldstone, Frank

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Thomas, J.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Mooney, John G.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Morgan, George Hay

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Morison, Hector

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Muldoon, John

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Hackett, John

    Munro, Robert

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Hancock, John George

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Webb, H.

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

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nuttall, Harry

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Connor, John (Kildare)

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Dowd, John

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

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

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

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Hinds, John

    O'Malley, William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hobhouse. Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Hodge, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Shee, James John

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Outhwaite, R. L.

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

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    468

    469

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fell, Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Mount, William Arthur

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Grant, James Augustus

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Barnston, Harry

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bigland, Alfred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Blair, Reginald

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bales, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

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

    Stanier, Seville

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Boyton, James

    Hills, John Waller

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Butcher, John George

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

    Carllie, Sir Edward Mildred

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Tuilibardine, Marquess of

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.,E.)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Valentia, Viscount

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kerry, Earl of

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Clyde, James Avon

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Locker-Lampson, 0. (Ramsey)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Colonel A. R.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    MacCaw, Wm. J, MacGeagh

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. c. B. Stuart- '

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    M'Mordie, Robert

    Younger, Sir George

    Doughty, Sir George

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Malcolm, Ian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir H. Samuel and Mr. Newman.

    Eyres-Monsell. Bolton M.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Bill reported; as amended to be considered To-morrow (Thursday), and to be printed. [Bill 240.]

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SUGGESTION STAGE.
  Mr. BARNES: I beg to move,
  That the Commons suggest the following Amendment:—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Certificates to be Insured.)
  No Excise licence for the sale by retail 'of excisable liquor shall be granted by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise except upon the production by the person
  470
  authorised to hold the licence of a receipt for the payment of the premium on a policy of insurance making some provision against loss through the withdrawal of his certificate in pursuance of a Resolution under this Act during the period covered by such receipt. If any person produces for the purposes of this Section a false or fraudulent receipt he shall be guilty of an offence and, on summary conviction, shall be deemed to have committed a breach of his certificate.
  Any association of licence holders constituted as under shall be empowered to issue policies of insurance on such terms and conditions as its members may prescribe, but no association shall be entitled to refuse to issue such policy or policies to

  471
  any licence holder or licencei holders willing to subscribe to its rules and regulations—

  (a) in the case of an association insuring only "on" licences, persons holding in the aggregate not less than one thousand such licences; or

  (b) in the case of an association insuring only "off" licences, persons holding in the aggregate not less than five hundred such licences; or

  (c) in the case of an association insuring both "on" and "off" licences, persons holding in the aggregate not less than one thousand "on" licences and persons holding in the aggregate not less than five hundred "off" licences.

  Mr. HEWKNS: On a point. of Order. As this is the first occasion on which a Suggestion Amendment has appeared on the Paper, I should like to ask whether this particular Amendment is put down in the proper form? In accordance with the Parliament Act, Section 2, Sub-section (4), it is contemplated that suggested Amendments are offered for the consideration of the Lords. I want to ask whether the more correct form of putting the Amendment down on the Paper is not "That the following Amendment be suggested to the Lords"? As the words stand, the suggestion is not made to anybody in particular.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is not much in the point the hon. Member raises, because, supposing that this is accepted by the House, it would, of course, be sent with a message to the other House. If the hon. Member chooses to move to insert the words "to the House of Lords," I should think there will be no objection to putting them in. As the hon. Member says, this is a new form, and, therefore, we have no precedent to act upon.
  Mr. HEWINS: I merely put the point, because it is such a very important stage in our procedure, and it appears to me to be desirable to have the form of words settled for all time. As the form of words stands, it conveys that there is a suggestion to the House of Lords that they should pass the Second Reading. If the form of words be, "That the following Amendment be offered to the Lords," it does carry with it the implication that there is a suggestion that the House of Lords are going to pass the Second Reading of the Bill. I humbly suggest it is not desirable we should convey any such impression to the other House.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It will be open to the hon. Member to move such Amendment to this Motion as he thinks right, after I have proposed it from the Chair.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask you, Sir, in reference to what fell from you just now, a question as to what the procedure would be if this Motion were carried. I understood you to say it would be sent with a message to the House of Lords. Would there be a Motion in this House following on the acceptance of this Amendment, that the Amendment should be communicated to the Lords and that certain Members of the House should be appointed to draw up a message giving the reasons of this House for it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not necessary. What would happen, I think, would be that a formal entry would be made on the Journal that a message be sent to the. Lords acquainting them with the Resolution the House has passed, and it would go up in the ordinary way.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Would it require a Motion?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, it would not require a Motion. It would simply be entered on the Journals.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask you whether a Motion of this kind would be capable of being amended in detail or whether only one Amendment would be allowed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be capable of being amended in detail.
  Mr. BARNES: I rise to move the Suggestion that stands in my name. Before going further, may I say that the Suggestion is put down entirely on my own responsibility? I have not canvassed or consulted any of my colleagues of the Labour party with regard to it, and, of course, they will vote as their consciences dictate. I am glad to say I shall have as a Seconder, if a seconder is necessary, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson). The Suggestion may be briefly described as one in favour of compulsory insurance of. licence holders, and its object is twofold—first, to provide against possible loss on the part of a licence holder under this Bill, and, secondly, to make it easier for the Bill to come into operation after it becomes law. I know there are many sincere and active temperance reformers who are very

  473
  much against any proposal of this character, who think—I believe quite wrongly—that anything of this sort is the thin end of the wedge of State compensation. So far as I can understand their position, they object to anything of this sort because they hold that a licence to sell liquor is a licence for one year only, and they object to anything in the nature of a vested interest being given to the licence holder beyond a year. I have two answers to that, and I should like to make a few observations upon each of them. First, I submit that the State does recognise a vested interest and taxes that vested interest. When a licence holder dies the estate passes from one person to another, but not all of it, because the tax collector is there and appropriates part of it for the State. Supposing a licence holder has to pay £10,000 for a licence, he does not pay the £10,000 for the right to sell liquor for a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "He does in point of law."] I am speaking from the point of view of common sense. It is perfectly true that he buys the licence, so far as the law is concerned, to sell liquor for the unexpired term of a year, but the £10,000 he has paid for his licence is really a sum of money based upon the reasonable expectation that he will be allowed to sell liquor beyond the year which is then current, and will, in fact, be allowed to sell liquor so long as he conducts his business properly and keeps himself out of the clutches of the police.
  I know that is not a statement of the law, but it is a statement of common sense, and I want to approach this question not in the legal sense, but from the point of view of common sense and fellow feeling. I remember that when we were discussing this matter, either the last time or the time before, there was a gentleman here, Provost Keith—a very reasonably-minded sort of man—who happened to have an interest in the liquor trade, but who was none the less entitled to consideration because of that. He told me he had been in the liquor trade all his life; that he had been reared in the liquor trade; that his father before him sold liquor in the same Shop in which he was then selling it; and, if my memory serves me aright, that his grandfather was also in the same business. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] At all events, his father was. In the light of facts like those we are not justified in taking a strictly legal view of the situation, and ought to have some regard to the fact that a man, once he
  474
  starts selling liquor, is going to be allowed to sell liquor so long as he conducts his business decently and in order—in other words, that the interest grows up around that natural expectation which we have allowed to grow up under a process of law. My second answer to the objection, so far as I can understand it, is that my proposal does not involve any further recognition by the State than we have at the present time. I accept entirely the legal position as to a licence lasting only for one year, so far as it applies to the State paying compensation. In view of the fact that the State only grants a licence for a year, the State cannot possibly be called upon to pay compensation. I accept that quite frankly, although, by the way, I see no reason why, if a landlord gets compensation for the loss of his land, a publican should not get compensation for the loss of his licence. A publican has just as much right to compensation for his licence, and even more so, than the landlord has for the loss of his land. I accept the principle for the time being that there is no claim to State compensation, and, therefore, it is out of the question altogether. There is no State fund, nor is there any State guarantee. We are not asking the State to do anything in the way of guaranteeing the fund or controlling or managing it. We are not even asking, what is a feature of the English law, that the publican should subscribe to a fund and that the operation of the Bill should be determined by the sufficiency or otherwise of that fund.
  All that my proposal means is that the State, through its properly accredited agents, should see that the man in future protects himself against the possible operation of this Bill, and that he shall subscribe to a fund to which his fellows in the trade will also subscribe. I know that I shall be told he can do that now, and that nobody can stop him. Although that is true, I would suggest to the Secretary for Scotland that we are altering the conditions by this Bill, and so altering them that in the view of a great many people, not myself, you are going to increase the risks. Inasmuch as you are dealing in this Bill with the trade as a. whole, I suggest you are morally bound to provide that those risks should be pooled by the whole trade. It may still further be said that a man can insure now, and that no obstacle is placed in his way in regard to that. But there is the safe man, or the man who considers himself safe—a man who, like one who is young and strong, thinks he will

  475
  always be so, and refuses to insure himself. Even after this Bill becomes law there will be men in Scotland in places where there is no teetotal sentiment, who may think there will be no demand for the Bill, and who will refuse to insure themselves. The acceptance of my Suggestion would mean that these men, quite rightly, I think, will be compelled, in conjunction with their fellows, to subscribe to the fund, thereby equalising the risk all round, no matter where a man may be placed. It is said that the hotel-keepers should not be compelled to subscribe to this fund, inasmuch as they keep premises for the sale of food and other things. I do not see there is anything in that. As a matter of fact, if you close a public-house which is adjacent to an hotel, the bar of that hotel will be put in a position to do very much more business. I am told by those who know that the hotel-keeper is just the man who is now insured, therefore compulsory insurance will make little difference to him; except that it will make others do what he himself has done.
  I want the House to consider for a moment what will happen in the event of this Bill passing into law without some provision of this sort being made. There are some very sanguine hon. Friends of mine upon this side of the House who seem to think that when this Bill is passed the public-houses will vanish like snow in the summer sun. That opinion is based upon an altogether wrong idea of human nature. What does this Bill do? It only transfers to the people as a whole the right to do in bulk what magistrates now can do in detail. That is all. That being so, we have to consider what are likely to be the sentiments which will sway the people when called upon to bring this Bill into operation. If I understand them aright, the people are no harder-hearted than the magistrates. On the contrary, I should say that the people are much more likely to be a good deal softer-hearted than the magistrates, because they are not accustomed to the wiles of this wicked world, and are more likely to be influenced by tales that may be pitched into them than the magistrates on the bench. What is going to happen in these circumstances, supposing a requisition is got up, and the Bill is about to become operative? The publican is not going to take it lying down, and I do not suppose anybody expects him to do anything of the sort. The licence holder will be up and
  476
  doing, and will use the very best weapons in his armoury to defeat the vote about to be taken. In the absence of compulsory insurance, or of some provision whereby the ordinary voter can know that provision is to be made for the displaced publican, there is a very poor chance of this Bill ever becoming operative at all. What will happen will be that the licence holder will go round, as he has a perfect right to do, or, if he does not, his friends will go for him, and say, "John Smith has been in so-and-so public-house for about twenty years. He has not insured. He has brought his family up. His family are still young. Are you going to deprive this man of his licence and thereby of his living?" I am not saying whether that is just or not, but it is the sort of thing which will happen under the Bill, and unless provision is made for that man you will defeat the very object that you have in view by pedantic adherence to a legal fiction which does not correspond with the facts of life. These are, briefly, the reasons why, on the principle of the thing, I move this Suggestion. I believe, if it were adopted, it would not only make provision for the man who may be displaced, but it will also get this Bill into operation, and I do not believe otherwise it ever will get into operation.
  I want to say a word or two about the form in which this Resolution is put down. Upstairs I moved two schemes, and the principle of compulsory insurance was defeated largely on the details of those schemes. We got involved with opinions as to whether or not the funds would be sufficient to meet the actuarial requirements and as to whether or not they will be adequate for what was expected of them. Therefore I thought I would not get involved in any scheme at all, but that I would simply put down on the Paper a suggestion that the granting of a licence by the proper authorities would be dependent upon the holding by the man who was to get the licence of a certificate that he was insured. Therefore I put down a simple form of words. When I got talking about it with a certain right hon. Gentleman, whom I need not name, there were certain objections to that. It was defeated upstairs by too much complication, and I was told we were likely to be defeated downstairs because there was too much simplicity. It was pointed out that it would be quite open, with a simple suggestion of that sort, for half a dozen men to get together and issue bogus certificates

  477
  of insurance. Obviously it would be so. I quite see the force of their objections. Therefore I hurriedly got up last night, when I found that this Bill was to be unexpectedly brought forward to-day, and put down this supplementary matter in addition to the Suggestion I had first put down, which provides against the objection at all events which was raised to the simple form of Suggestion first put down, because I suggest here that there shall be no bogus certificate issued and that there shall be a sufficient number of licence holders to spread the risk so as to ensure that a man will actually have the money when the time of need comes. I take a thousand as a sufficient number to spread that risk over the publicans pure and simple, and I am told the grocers form about one half of the licence holders, and therefore I think 500 is sufficient to cover the risk of the grocer losing his licence. In that form it meets the objection raised from the Front Bench as to the Suggestion in its bald form. Then it was suggested that there would be a still further provision necessary and that we ought to provide for registration of the companies which would issue these insurance policies. I began to inquire under what Act they should be registered. I was told there is the Companies Act of 1908, which is appropriate to those companies making profits, and there are, on the other hand, the Friendly Societies Acts which are more appropriate to those associations of a mutual character which do not want to make profits. I am not a lawyer and I do not want to get muddled up with that consideration at all. It is far better that I should submit the matter in its simple form, only providing that a man shall not have a bogus certificate but that he shall be a member of an association with sufficient members and therefore sufficient money to meet the man's claim. I submit it in that form in the certain opinion that it will have the effect not only of providing for the displaced publican, but will have the further effect of making this Bill a real Bill in the interests of temperance reform in Scotland.
  Mr. F. WHYTE: I beg to second the suggested new Clause.
  The remark which the hon. Member made in explanation of the form in which it appears on the Paper, namely, that it is much simpler than the previous attempts to introduce this question, aroused some amusement on the Front Bench. But surely it is for the House to
  478
  decide the simple question, first of all, whether in a measure of this kind it is desirable that those most closely affected by it should be insured against the risks involved in it. That is the question which the House ought to have decided at the very beginning, and which it never really has decided, for in all the earlier discussions we have had on this question the issue has been complicated by questions of machinery. I do not say that it is not difficult to draw up a scheme but it was, and is, desirable for the House to give a clear expression of opinion that some safeguard should be introduced into the Bill against the risks which it imposes. As we have heard over and over again in the Debates which have taken place on this Bill, that Members favour the question of licence insurance, but had this difficulty and that difficulty about the particular scheme which is before the House, I think my hon. Friend was quite wise in placing the issue simply before the House. It can therefore be decided on the question of principle, and if the House were to resolve that it is necessary to attach these provisions to the Bill as it stands, or to make the Suggestion to the other place, it surely-does not pass the wit of experts to draw up a scheme which would be satisfactory.
  We have been told that the Government, if it supported the proposal and admitted it into the Bill, would have to offer some kind of guarantee for the water-tightness of the scheme. We have had an insurance scheme before this House in very recent times, upon which the Government explicitly and vehemently, and over and over again denied its liability to give any guarantee, and why the Government spokesman should argue it on this much smaller question that it ought to give a guarantee, and not on the larger and far more vital question, that it did not admit the necessity of giving a Government guarantee, I am quite unable to see. Therefore I do not see the foundation for the argument that the Government must necessarily guarantee the insurance scheme if it is inserted in this measure. I think the House generally, and I certainly, have always been considerably impressed by the argument that the wideness of the operation of this measure depends very largely upon the degree to which the idea of hardship is removed, and I see no other way, the provisions of the Bill being what they are, but the insertion of some form of insurance against the risks of the Bill for removing that doubt and that impress-

  479
  sion from the minds of the electors. I second this new Clause, therefore, first,' because I want a clear expression of opinion from this House upon what is an important question, and, secondly, because I believe the insertion of the scheme in the Bill would greatly facilitate both its passage into law and its wider operation in Scotland after it passes into law.
  Mr. HEWINS Mr. HEWINS rose to move an Amendment—
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Will the moving of an Amendment stop discussion of the general Resolution?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes; I think the hon. Member had better move that, and then we can get it in the right form. What the hon. Member proposes to move is not a matter of substance, but really a matter, of form before we approach the substance. We might get that settled.
  Mr. HEWINS: I beg to move, after the word "suggest" ["That the Commons suggest "], to insert the words "to the Lords."
  The insertion of these words would bring the form in which the Amendment is placed on the Paper into conformity with the terms of the Parliament Act, and both sides of the House will agree that it is eminently desirable that we should know and express, in the form of the words employed, precisely what the House is doing. As we are, under the name of the Suggestion stage, sending up to the other House a Bill which we know to be imperfect, but which we hope the Lords will amend by adopting some suggested Amendment, I think it very much better that we should have these terms clearly expressed. The Section I have in mind of the Parliament Act is Section 2, Subsection (4), which deals with this Suggestion stage.
  Words "to the Lords" inserted accordingly.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is it possible to have a general discussion on the whole Clause? Some of my hon. Friends are anxious for a general discussion, while I am anxious to move an Amendment to the Clause—not against it—with the idea of making it explicable in some way or other.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It was for that reason that I called on the Noble Lord.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Would it be possible for me now to discuss the general question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, I think not. The only practicable way of dealing with this question is to treat it as though it were a new Clause, which had been read a second time, and is then, before being added to the Bill, the subject of discussion. Amendments will then be moved upon it, and when I put the Question as a whole there will be an opportunity for a general discussion of the Clause before we send it to the other House.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: beg to move, as an Amendment, after the word "insurance" ["premium on a policy of insurance making some provision "], to insert the words" to the satisfaction of the licensing magistrates."
  For the information of the House, I should state that this is not the only Amendment I am going to move, because, if this one is accepted, I have a second Amendment to delete everything after the end of the first paragraph of the new Clause. My reasons for moving this Amendment can only be stated by dealing with the second Amendment when speaking in support of the first, because the one depends upon the other. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) spoke just now about lawyer-made law, and probably from the legal point of view he is correct; but I would observe that Labour-made law is sometimes not quite correct. I think he will find that a good deal in the new Clause, after the first paragraph, is very difficult to follow and does not fit in with what goes before. I understand what his intention is, and if he will accept my Amendment to insert the words "to the satisfaction of the licensing magistrates," that will be a sufficient instruction to the people concerned to see that the insurance premium is really in order. I do not think that we ought to lay down exactly and precisely the number of licence holders there should be in an association. I suggest that in any case the House might accept the first Amendment, in view of the second Amendment I am going to move. I am not taking this course in any hostile spirit to the hon. Member who moved the new Clause, but rather to make the proposal clearer, and, if I may say without offence, less verbose, and to enable us to get straight to the point at once. I think it would also stop

  481
  a good deal of opposition—I do not mean here, but outside—to the hon. Member's Motion.
  Sir JOHN DEWAR: I beg to second the Amendment. If the hon. Member for Blackfriars does not accept this, I do not know what use there is in making suggestions with respect to the Bill at all. This Suggestion does not interfere with the principle of the Bill, but, if accepted, it will increase very much the efficiency of the measure. I think it would be infinitely easier to get the Act into operation, if it was known that the licence holders were insured. When this was going through Committee—
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: As a matter of practice, when an Amendment is moved, the discussion is confined to one particular point, and there cannot be a discussion of the whole general principle. Would it not have been better to have the general discussion before going into these points of detail? If we are going into these points, are we to have a general discussion on each of them?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the proper course to pursue is to discuss each Amendment as it comes up. Then when the House has gone through the whole of them, it will consider whether it will send the Suggestion to the Lords in its amended form if it be amended. If we take the general discussion first, one of two things happens, either we shall spend a great deal of time on the general discussion before we approach the Amendments at all, or, supposing a Division were taken and the Resolution rejected, no opportunity at all would be given for Amendments. I do not see any other way out of the difficulty than to discuss on its merits each Amendment as it is proposed.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: In dealing with the principle of the Clause, would it not be better to have a general discussion before we discussed the Amendments— I mean such a general discussion as we could have on the question that the Clause be read a second time? We may waste a great deal of time if we go into the Amendments first of all, whereas the principle might be negatived by the House. Would it not be better to have a vote upon the Question that the Clause be read a second time.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is impossible. If the Resolution be passed it is passed, and there is no opportunity for amending it. Therefore, those who wish to make
  482
  Amendments would be shut out. It is quite conceivable that this proposal may receive certain Amendments which will convert it from one not at present acceptable to one that may be accepted. Therefore, it is only right that those who have Amendments should propose them now, and that, after the Resolution has been amended, the House should have the opportunity of saying whether it will adopt the Resolution as amended
  Sir J. DEWAR: I think this Amendment will make it more acceptable to the House because it simplifies the proposal very much indeed. The proposal is that every licence should be compulsorily insured. If it is a good thing that some licences should be insured, it is also a good thing that the whole of the licences should be insured, because it reduces the liability by spreading it over the whole of the licence holders. If a small proportion of licences are taken away, the trade is thrown into the hands of those who still hold their licences. All we do here is to throw on the magistrates the duty of seeing that a licence is properly insured. At present the magistrates have to see, first of all, that a man who applies for a licence is of good character, and they have also to see that his premises are suitable. They very often ask to see the arrangements made with brewers and others as to how the business is to be carried on. I do not think that it would add seriously to their duties if they were asked to see that licences are insured. I believe the new Clause, as amended, would enormously increase the efficiency of the Bill, if it is going to be efficient at all. It would reduce to a minimum the chance of hard-slip among licence holders. I see no objection to it from the teetotal point of view. I cannot see how it could not be accepted by the Government, because it will provide that no injustice will be inflicted on people who have done nothing to deserve it. Holding the opinion very strongly that this does not affect the principle of the Bill, but will remove the possibility of injustice, I hope it will be accepted.
  Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: Before we go into the general merits of the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes) it is perfectly clear that, if it were adopted it would have to be considerably amended in some form or other. The proposal is that there should be some provision against loss, but there is no indication of the amount of the provision,

  483
  or whether it would be adequate or not. The insured person should know these particulars. It is obvious that if you are to give effect to this proposal, something must be done. As to the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord opposite, it seems to me that it puts upon the licensing magistrates responsibility for the financial soundness of the whole scheme. If they are to be satisfied that a licence is satisfactorily insured, then they must be satisfied that the persons insuring the licence will be able to meet the demand made upon them, but they will have no control. The licence is to be insured with some association, company, or society, of some kind or other, and the magistrates are to be satisfied that the insurance is satisfactory. Supposing a man loses his licence, and the concern in which he is insured cannot pay, I think he would go to the magistrates and say, "You said this insurance was satisfactory, but I cannot get my money." By endorsing the satisfactoriness of the insurance, it seems to me that practically they would involve themselves in moral responsibility for its financial soundness. I do not think that Amendment would do. You cannot have the licensing justices involved in practically guaranteeing the soundness of a scheme of this kind unless they have the management of the whole thing. Here they have not the management, and I think we ought not to accept the Amendment.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Open Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker) has put his finger upon the weak spot of the proposal. There is a great deal of truth in what he said as to the responsibility of the licensing magistrates. We are in a very difficult position. The minority in this House has over and over again proposed schemes of compulsory insurance of a partial nature—it could not be otherwise than of a partial nature—to relieve, as far as possible, any hardship to those who lose their licences under the veto provisions of the Bill. These schemes in principle have been supported by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Lord Advocate especially, over and over again, but the moment they were reduced to words and to specific proposals the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary for Scotland invariably found that the machinery was unsuitable. That it an obvious Parliamentary trick to get rid of anything in-
  484
  convenient. In the first place, the principle is good, and, in the second place, the machinery is bad. We have discussed this over and over again. I have always thought that a principle of this kind should be embodied in the Bill in the interest of the Bill, if it is possible to carry it out by some decent machinery. I have always thought that those who propose machinery which is not suitable have a right to ask the Government to introduce machinery to carry out the principle of the Bill in a way satisfactory to themselves. I do not think there is anything in the statement that the Government would necessarily have to guarantee the scheme.
  Colonel GREIG: Is not the hon. Baronet now discussing the general principle on this Amendment?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I think the question is whether the justices are to have responsibility for the scheme or whether the responsibility is to rest in some other quarter. I am pointing out that the wording of the Clause is not at present satisfactory, because 'the justices would be put in the position of carrying out the instruction as to insurance, though they had no real direction what to do. There is no statement as to the amount to be insured nor as to the premium to be paid by these people. The difficulty is a very serious one. The real point we want to settle is: Is this House going to accept any sort of scheme of compulsory insurance attached to this Bill or is it not? It is impossible to discuss this Amendment without putting that specific point to the House. The Amendment is no use unless this House is going to suggest that that principle ought to be adopted.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: As I understood your ruling, it was that we could not discuss that simple question. I agree entirely with the hon. Baronet that. it would be much simpler if we could discuss it, but I also understood that you had said that that was precisely the course which the House could not take.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think we must assume for present purposes that some system of insurance is to be established. That being so, the question arises, Which is the best system? That is what we are now discussing—the two alternatives, one suggested by the Noble Lord and one moved by the hon. Member for Blackfriars. After we have settled that, we shall then revert to the original question whether there is to

  485
  be any system of insurance at all or not. But we must assume for present purposes that there is to be a system of insurance.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I think it is a very wild assumption, at all events if the Secretary for Scotland is in the same mind in dealing with this matter, that the majority of this House is going to send up a suggestion of the kind, and it is almost a waste of time if that be so to discuss whether the justices shall be placed in this position or whether they shall not. We have had various conundrums put to us in the carrying out of the scheme of legislation under the Parliament Act. I do not think that we have ever had a more difficult one than this. Though I desire very much to keep within the limits of order, I do not see precisely how I am to do it. I do not think that the proposal as it stands is one that could be carried out. If the justices are put into it, they would not find it possible to suggest machinery in the various districts. The whole object of insurance is to get as big an average as possible. The individual justices or bodies of justices, therefore, could only adumbrate a scheme for their own particular jurisdiction. The average would be small and it would be almost useless for the purposes of insurance, because if a Resolution were carried the whole burden would have to be borne by the small number of people in the district itself, and not shared by the larger number outside. So, while I wish to support an Amendment which would improve this scheme, I honestly cannot see very much difference in the scheme as it stands and this proposal, except this, that you get very nearly down to a statement of principle by accepting this Amendment, should you or should you not have compulsory insurance, and if you pass the Clause as it stands, with the Noble Lord's Amendment, it is for the House of Lords to so amend that as to produce machinery which this House could no doubt accept.
  Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I think that my right hon. Friend on this side has shown, with his undoubted experience in the direction of insurance and licences, how impossible it would be to work the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord opposite. The hon. Baronet opposite said that he did not see how the Clause as amended would work. I have never seen any proposal yet for insurance of which you could be at all sure as to how it would work. I am not at all sure of it now, and if I support the proposal in the
  486
  form in which it is moved it will be for this reason, that the ways in which I think the difficulty should have been met, either by compensation or a somewhat longer time interest, having been rejected by the powers that be, in charge of this Bill, I think we have to fall back upon this Suggestion in order to secure equitable treatment so far as we are able to do so. It is upon that ground that I support this proposal, and not because I have any perfect faith either in this or any other form of insurance.
  Mr. BARNES: I merely rise to say that I cannot accept this Amendment, and for two reasons, either one of which I think is fatal. The first, as pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, is that a proposal of this sort involves imposing upon the magistrates the duty of seeing that the scheme is watertight. That, so far as I understand, is coming back to the principle to which so much objection is taken on this side of the House. Therefore, that seems to me sufficient to condemn the proposal. Then, I understand the further proposal is made that it is necessary that something should be done in the way of giving magistrates or somebody else a power of overlooking a scheme as otherwise you may have, as is suggested, licence holders insuring up to a shilling or something of that sort. My simple answer to that is, that if they insure up to a shilling, a shilling is better than nothing. At present there is nothing in the Bill to provide that a licence holder should make any provision, and therefore I am not at all concerned with that argument. Neither do I accept for one moment the suggestion that 1,000 licence holders could he got together to fix up a bogus insurance of that character. I have sufficient faith even in licence holders to believe that if an association is formed and given leave to issue policies in connection with this matter, that association would lee sufficiently bonâ fide not to insure for a shilling, but to insure, if not up to twenty shillings in the £, at all events so to insure that the man shall have something saved to him out of the wreckage of his business.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I wish to correct the statement that this would throw upon magistrates the responsibility of guaranteeing the insurance companies. In the Law Courts the insurance companies guarantee liquidators, trustees, and surveyors, and these persons have to produce a certificate from some insurance company, but that does not render the Courts of Law

  487
  responsible for the insurance company. The magistrates would have, as the Law Courts have, a list of the companies whose policies they would accept. So long as one of the insurance companies mentioned was selected, it would not be suggested that the Law Courts or the judge would be responsible for accepting that company. The magistrates would be in the same position. That meets the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: The hon. Member for Blackfriars is unable to accept this Amendment because it might make this scheme a. watertight scheme.
  Mr. BAR N ES: I am not aware of having used any such words. If I did, then I did not say what I intended to say. I object to the Amendment because it associates magistrates once more with the licence, and also because I think it is quite unnecessary. I do not want to make it a condition that any man shall insure up to 20s. in the £, but I want to save something for him.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. COLLINS: I think that the board of licensing magistrates, having this scheme placed before them by Parliament, would always look to the amount of money which they might have to raise in the coming year to pay the licence holders the value of the licences. In other words, they would fix a premium in comparison to the risk run by the insurer, and I think there is no doubt that we could have a sound, compulsory insurance scheme if the trade would only face the risks attendant on the trade when this Bill passes into law. Because the trade are unable or unwilling to pay a 2 or a 5 per cent. a year premium on the value of the licence, we are unable to get any sound scheme to place before them. I hope that the Government will stand firm and resist any sort of scheme like this, which cannot be sound in practice and sound in financial matters.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Of course, as the hon. Baronet said, it is extremely difficult to discuss the Amendment without discussing the scheme, but I shall do my best to avoid that breach of order. The Amendment is one upon which there appears to be a, great deal of difference of opinion, but the point which I particularly wish to impress upon the House is the extraordinary nature of our present procedure.
  488
  Here we are engaged in one of the most complicated schemes, a scheme not only to insure publicans, but to insure them compulsorily, and which shall not only be just but acceptable to the licence holder. it is an extremely difficult thing to do—in fact, a scheme which was brought out with great deliberation and thought by the representatives of the trade itself went to another place and was rejected in that other place. After having had various schemes before us, we are now asked to proceed to draw up a scheme by means of an impromptu Amendment which is not even on the Paper, but casually brought forward by the Noble Lord, and which is immediately repudiated by the hon. Baronet opposite, who, with all respect to the Noble Lord, knows 'ten times as much as the Noble Lord about this subject. Here we are attempting, by a proposal which nobody except the Mover of it defends, to contrive that most complicated thing, a scheme for compulsory insurance. That of itself condemns the whole thing. We have had six of these schemes which have been considered by the House and Committees of the House, and have also been considered in another place, and not one of them wound stand examination. And now we have this scheme which nobody defends except the Mover, and you are seeking to make it watertight by an impromptu Amendment of the Noble Lord and by other Amendments. Was there ever a more ridiculous attempt? The very phraseology of the Amendment itself does not follow the ordinary phraseology. As the hon. Baronet behind me has said, with perfect truth, the magistrates are asked to take the responsibility of saying whether the insurance is satisfactory or not. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division said, "I do not want to do anything of the kind, and I do not think there is any force in the criticism that this Clause will allow anybody to escape the obligation." Of course that part of the Clause which the Amendment proposes to put right merely says that a receipt is to be produced for the payment of a premium on a policy of insurance to make some provision. But the provision may be anything from £5 up to £5,000, or it might be up to a shilling, as someone has said. The very people to whom the compulsory scheme would apply are the people who do not want it. The magistrate would have no guidance at all as to what they were to do, yet they would have the obligation placed upon them of seeing whether the

  489
  thing was satisfactory or not. I think the criticism of the right hon. Baronet is very well founded, that the magistrates would be required to take a responsibility which they repudiate. This is not a voluntary scheme. This is a scheme which would compel the trade to come into it.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman object to compulsory insurance?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes; I always have, and so does a great section of the trade.
  An HON. MEMBER: Does the Lord Advocate object
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot commit myself to this Amendment, and I would urge upon the House to consider whether it is worth while discussing this proposal. We have got this proposal before us on paper, but I am bound to say that two-thirds of it did not appear on the Paper last night.
  Mr. BARNES: We had only notice yesterday that the Bill was coming on to-day.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Does my hon. Friend suggest that all the notice he had was that given yesterday? Of course not. The Bill passed the Second Reading long ago, and there has been plenty of time to put down Amendments.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: How could I possibly put down Amendments to a proposal, the whole of which was not on the Paper yesterday?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is irrelevant to my argument. My point is whether a complicated subject of this kind can be dealt with in this way. If you are going to ask the House of Commons to deal with a scheme of insurance under the Act, and you put down a scheme which everybody admits is inadequate, and then endeavour to improve it by impromptu Amendments, that is not the way to deal with a subject so complicated. Not only has there been plenty of time to put down Amendments, but we have had six or seven of these schemes, not one of which has been approved of as a whole. Under these circumstances I cannot vote for this Amendment.
  Mr. CLYDE: I hope the House will take note, and not only the House but the
  490
  public, of what has happened on this occasion, when for the first time we are making use of what is known as the Suggestion stage. This is the first Bill and this is the first Suggestion stage that has come under the new procedure, after a day's notice. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes; the House having been told for the first time yesterday that this stage of the Bill was to be taken to-day. Not only that, but the Bill which passed its Second Reading within the last ten days passed sub silentio the Committee stage, and so far as the discussions which took place at that time were concerned, they were treated by the same right hon. Gentleman, whom I am criticising to-day, from the point of view that he would listen to no Amendment and that, so far as he was concerned, the House was to swallow the Bill without the alteration of a comma.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I based myself entirely upon the Amendment, and upon the method in which the question is being dealt with by Amendments.
  Mr. CLYDE: I am basing my remarks upon the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman thinks fit to use the Suggestion stage. Now that there is a Suggestion stage, what is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman?—this has only dropped out incidentally—it is that he will have no Suggestion at all. He says what, with great respect to him, he has not always said, that he was always opposed to any scheme of compulsory insurance. If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read some of his own speeches made in the discussion of this Bill, without going back to last year, he will find that he succeeded remarkably well in disguising his meaning. It was the right hon. Gentleman himself who dealt at considerable length with what he considered to be the fact, that there was a very strong demand for some form of compulsory insurance.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I did not say a word about compulsory insurance. I said there was a strong demand for insurance, and I followed up the remark by pointing out that a large proportion of the licence holders in Glasgow were insured. I was talking about voluntary insurance.
  Mr. CLYDE: If the. right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read his speeches he will find out from the context that what I state is well justified; much more than that, with regard to a scheme of compulsory insurance, the right hon.

  491
  Gentleman promised a full and open discussion in Committee. Instead of that, the right hon. Gentleman in Committee upstairs did just what he has done to-day—he will listen to no scheme, and he restricts his attitude to picking holes in any scheme presented to him; but, as to applying his own mind to the problem with a view to a practical Bill which would settle the matter, he will not move his little finger. I suppose the net result of it all is—
  Mr. PONSONBY: May I ask, Sir, whether hon. Members on the Front Benches are to be allowed a larger field of discussion than private Members, who have very carefully observed your ruling?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not wish to apportion blame to those who are responsible for having led the discussion rather further afield than I intended. It certainly has gone further than I intended, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come a little closer to the subject now.
  Mr. CLYDE: I very willingly and very loyally accept the hint, Sir, but. I do not think I was wholly to blame. I wish to content myself with saying that I should very much like to know whether the Government, when they framed the Parliament. Act, projected their minds into such a ridiculous position as the Parliament Act has brought the present Session. The hon. Baronet the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker), in his criticism of the Amendment, depended upon the proposition that it was a very awkward position in which to put the publican to be told that lie must insure to the satisfaction of the magistrate. He remarked what a responsibility it would put upon the shoulders of the magistrate, how difficult it would be to exercise, and, above all, how unfair it would be to compel the trade to accept an insurance which was to be regarded as satisfactory according to the discretion of the magistrate. We all respect the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, but I think he could hardly have had in his mind the scheme of which he himself has been a loyal supporter in the course of the last few years. He had no objection to the scheme of the Insurance Act by which verybody who is compulsorily insured is to insure in a society approved, not by the person himself, not indeed by magistrates, but by certain Commissioners. Would his objection have been removed if the Commissioners of Excise had been the persons who approved the insurance?
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: In regard to the plan under the Insurance Act, there was provision made for an actuarial investigation of those societies to ascertain whether they were sound and solvent.
  Mr. CLYDE: The hon. Baronet is perfectly right, of course, in saying that under the Insurance Act there is provision for an actuarial investigation and that there is nothing of that kind in the scheme of the hon. Member for Blackfriars. But if that be so, and if that be the only point on which the right hon. Baronet relies, then I have misconceived his objection. I thought his objection was to the approval of the magistrate. Apparently the right hon. Baronet's objection is that there should be some form of actuarial investigation. If that be so, we could easily amend the Clause, but I rather fear that his objection goes deeper and belongs to the class which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for. Scotland always welcomes, namely, criticisms which are not of a helpful character. If the only objection is that some form of investigation or check upon the soundness of the companies which issue policies is required, there will be no great difficulty in amending this scheme any more than there was in providing for an actuarial investigation into the affairs of approved societies. It has been also suggested that people might insure up to a shilling. I think, if the hon. Members recollected, that we are dealing here with a piece of business, a very serious business, in regard to those whose property and whose ordinary livelihood are going to be interfered with, we should hear less of gibes of that kind. It is not a case in which people are going to carry on an extended scale of fraud on the scheme. If they do, it shows that the scheme is not wanted. All that the hon. Member for Blackfriars has in his mind is that if people are minded to insure at all, they should at least have the opportunity under this system of compulsion to do so. That, is what he wants to achieve. With regard to the merits of the actual Amendment, what strikes me is this. I am personally and I am sure many of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House are very anxious, to see this problem of insurance solved in some practical form. The best chance of seeing it solved under the present unfavourable conditions is to get some form of suggestion into the Bill by way of suggestion at this stage. I agree that something can be done afterwards as

  493
  to the difficulties which affect our procedure, but at this moment I would rather appeal to the Noble Lord for that reason not to press.his Amendment on the hon. Member for Blackfriars, if he does not see his way to accept it, because we want in this matter as far as he can, though I know it is useless to appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, to enlist on the side of fair and just terms as large a body of Members of the House as we can.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to a Clause which I know the Secretary for Scotland has already thrown over in his mind.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to propose in the first paragraph after the word "insurance ["a policy of insurance"], to insert the words "in accordance with the terms of this Clause."
  This Amendment is aimed at the same difficulty as the last Amendment. It seeks to cure that difficulty by throwing the judgment as to the adequacy of the insurance not on the magistrates but on the association itself. If this Amendment were carried, I should then propose to omit the word "some" and the effect would be that the Clause would run "a receipt for the payment of the premium on a policy of insurance in accordance with the terms of this Clause making provision against loss." The terms of the Clause we find in the words "empowered to issue policies of insurance on such terms and conditions as its members may prescribe." The effect would be, as it seems to me, to make the proposed. Clause watertight. The adequacy of the provision would be guaranteed by the association. The members of the association would have every motive for securing that no one shirked his responsibility, and merely insured for a shilling. He would be compelled by the rules of the association itself to take his fair share in the risk run by the whole trade of the country. I suggest, therefore, the difficulty would be met by the proposal I am making. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause can see his way to accepting these words, out it does seem to me that there is a very real difficulty involved in the Clause as it now stands. By common consent, or almost common consent, I think we have agreed that we should be throwing a very difficult and undesirable
  494
  burden on the magistrates. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if we made them the judges as to sufficiency, would object to the State being brought into guarantee the adequacy, but by this proposal we throw that burden upon the association of the trade itself. That there must be some judgment as to the adequacy, I submit the discussion has shown very clearly. The hon. Baronet, and other hon. Gentlemen have made that evident. I beg to move.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so because this Amendment brings the two portions of the Clause together. It is impossible, of course, under the Clause as it stands to amend it to the full extent that perhaps the machinery requires, but this proposal is a distinct improvement in the linking up of the two portions of the Clause. I think if we adopted the suggestion in this form, it would come back to us in a form which would provide the necessary machinery. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that there have been certain sections of the trade who objected, but there are also certain people who think their licences quite safe, and who would not insure unless compelled to do so. It is surely reasonable that the House should look with reasonable generosity on a proposal of this kind in order to relieve the situation. After all, no insurance can be anything but a solatium. Under the present system of heavy Licence Duties they could not afford to pay a sufficiently large amount to make certain of 20s. in the I am pretty sure of this, that no Scotsman is going to ruin his fellow man and neighbour without seeing that sufficient provision is being made to prevent that. It is not possible to conceive that this measure would be very effective unless some proposal of this kind is introduced. I myself believe that the Scottish elector would be very much more generous and more sympathetic, very much more than—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet is now dealing with the whole of the Resolution and not with the Amendment.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I believe that, if sent to the House of Lords as a Suggestion and embodied in the Bill, something of this kind is likely to improve the measure.
  Mr. BARNES: I cannot accept this Amendment and for the very obvious reason that it is quite evident that the Mover has something quite different in his

  495
  mind from what I have in my mind. The lion. Member used the word "watertight." I do not, know in what connection he used that word, but I do not feel that the Clause should get the character of watertightness if it means that a man is to be insured against loss. That would be the effect of the words of the hon. Member. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise would have to satisfy themselves, upon the production of a receipt, of a policy of insurance making provision against Toss. That would impose on them the duty of seeing that the scheme would produce 20s. in the £ and it might also be interpreted to mean that it, would be actuarily sound. I do not want to impose any such condition upon any Government official, and therefore I cannot accept.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I do not think that follows from what I said or from the words I put forward. It would entirely depend on the terms prescribed for the members of the association by the association.
  Mr. BARNES: I am only taking the words in their common-sense meaning. The Clause would read that the man must insure against loss, and that necessarily means that, he must insure for the full value of his licence. I do not want to impose that condition on him.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: Either insurance against loss means insurance for the total amount that will be lost or it means that the amount is to be left to the
  voluntary decision of the person insured. If it means insurance to the extent of the total loss, then I think we are back in the old position of throwing the responsibility on the Customs. If it means that they are to insure to such an amount as they individually decide will be sufficient, then it practically means that it is voluntary insurance and that, they can fix the amount at what they like. If they can fix the amount at what they like, it brings us back to the point referred to by the hon. and learned Member on the. previous Amendment. He ridiculed the idea that they would insure for a shilling or one pound. I think he overlooked the fact that this is a compulsory Clause. You are going to compel men to insure who otherwise would not, do so. If the amount for which they are to insure is to be left to their decision they can settle it by voluntary arrangement, and these men, who would not insure unless they were compelled, will want to insure for as little as possible; therefore they will go in for a shilling or a pound, or some other nominal sum. On this Amendment I cannot express my general views as to insurance. They are not quite what the hon. and learned Member thinks. We have not here, however, a practical working scheme.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 264.

  Division No. 187.]

  AYES.

  [7.32 p.m.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Astor, Waldorf

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rod K.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fell, Arthur

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Kinloch Cooke. Sir Clement

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Bird, Alfred

  Goldsmith, Frank

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Blair, Reginald

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Boyton, James

  Grant, James Augustus

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Newman, John R. P.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gretton, John

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Butcher, John George

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

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pete, Basil Edward

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones. Colonel E.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Croft, Henry Page

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peer

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Royds, Edmund

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

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Winterton, Earl

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Weimer, Viscount

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Stanier, Beville

  Valentia, Viscount

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Younger, Sir George

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Swift, Rigby

  Weigell, Captain A. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mackinder and Major Hope.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, Thomas

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Field, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Alden, Percy

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

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

  Arnold, Sydney

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Done al, South)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Glanville, Harold James

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barton, William

  Greig, Colonel James William

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

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

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

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

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Bentham, George J.

  Gulland, John William

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hackett, John

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Boland, John Pus

  Hancock, John George

  Middlebrook, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Molloy, Michael

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Molten, Percy Alpert

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mooney, John J.

  Bryce, John Annan

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, George Hay

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayward, Evan

  Morison, Hector

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Muldoon, John

  Bytes, Sir William Pollard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Munro, Robert

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

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

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hinds, John

  Needham, Christopher T

  Clough, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Clynes, John R.

  Hodge, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hegge, James Myles

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Compton Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nuttall, Harry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Cowan, William Henry

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Crooks, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Crumley, Patrick

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Grady, James

  Cullinan, John

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

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

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

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

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

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  De Forest, Baron

  Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Shee, James John

  Delany, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvenshire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dickinson, W. H,

  Joyce, Michael

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Dillon, John

  Keating, Matthew

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Doris, William

  Kelly, Edward

  Pointer, Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devbn, S. Melton)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Edwards, Sir Frances (Radnor)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Leach, Charles

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Reddy, Michael

  Falconer, James

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.),

  498

  499

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Snowden, Philip

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Sutton, John E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rowlands, James

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Runciman, Rt. Hbn. Walter

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Scanian, Thomas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Sheehy, David

  Watt, Henry A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Barnes and Mr. Adamson.

  Shortt, Edward

  Webb, H.

  Mr. GRETTON: I desire to move, to leave out the word "some," in order to ascertain what is meant by that limitation upon the word "provision." Shall I be in order in so doing?
  Mr. BARNES: May I suggest that that involves exactly the same principle as the last Amendment?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow, when moving his last Amendment, said that he proposed to move, as a consequential Amendment, to leave out the word "some," and he discussed the two Amendments together. Therefore, I think that the decision the House has just come to disposes of that point.
  Mr. GRETTON: Is it necessarily consequential? Shall I not be in order in moving it as a separate proposition? It is practically a different question, although the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division referred to it in his argument.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can proceed.
  Mr. GRETTON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "some" ["making some provision against loss "]—
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTE Mr. FREDERICK WHYTE rose in hi; place, and claimed to move, "That the main Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put the Question.
  Mr. GRETTON: I propose to leave out the word "some," in order to ascertain what exactly is meant by the proposal of the hon. Member opposite. The policy of insurance must be against the loss possible upon the withdrawal of the certificate. The word "some" may mean anything, and unless there is a definite statement as to
  500
  what provision is to be made, whether 50 per cent., or 75 per cent., or 10 per cent., or whatever is intended, the whole Suggestion appears to me to be absolutely useless. It is certainly not a practicable Suggestion in the form in which it now stands. If there is to be compensation, it should clearly be for the loss, and the proportion of loss to be paid should be stated. Otherwise this is merely a window dressing Suggestion. I submit, therefore, that this word ought to be omitted, and that some clear definition should be given as to what is intended by subsequent words.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: I beg to second the Amendment. The inclusion of this word "some" really does reduce the general proposal to a farce. It makes a sham insurance take the place of a real insurance. You should include some provision to make certain that the insurance which you desire to have effected shall be a real one. Unless some more definite words are put in the whole thing falls to the ground.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it makes any difference whether or not the word is in. I do not think there is anything in the Amendment.
  Earl WINTERTON: I think we ought to have some explanation as to the meaning of the word "some" from the Government.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is the point we have been discussing, and I would remind the Noble Lord that we cannot go over the same ground again.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am not aware that that takes away from me my right to speak to this Amendment. If you rule so, I shall sit down.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I only rule that the 1 Noble Lord must not go over the ground=
  501
  which has been already gone over, or he will be sinning against the Standing Order in regard to repetition.
  Earl WINTERTON: I had not commenced my speech when you rose to call attention to that fact. I wish to ask the Government what meaning exactly they attach to this word "some." I am the director of an insurance company, and I believe the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) also is, and I never yet knew of an insurance company where such a phrase comes into play as to "some" provision. In no insurance premium that I ever saw was there ever such a term. It is a most absurd business. There is no meaning in the words making "some" provision. Does it mean provision in the case of a licence worth hundreds to the extent of one shilling or to the extent of hundreds of pounds? I hope the Lord Advocate will explain. [Laughter.] The subject seems to be one of great amusement to hon. Gentlemen opposite. All I can say is that such a suggestion should go up from this House will make even more ridiculous this Suggestion stage, and render the whole Bill more ridiculous, inoperative, and futile than even its authors intended.
  Mr. BARNES Mr. BARNES rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that Motion is necessary.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Main Question again proposed.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I think we are entitled to suggest to the House, in view of the arguments which have been put forward, and the opportunity for discussion that it is perfectly clear that there has been no case at all made out for compulsory insurance in any shape or form. I do not desire to say more than this; that on this particular occasion we have reached the seventh separate scheme which has been put before the House. The hon. Member for Blackfriars who has suggested this scheme to the House to-day has not succeeded in impressing the House with the fact that his scheme would be workable in any shape or form. I do not think he expected to do it.
  Mr. BARNES: No, not you!
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: And the hon. Gentleman has not succeeded. He has
  502
  not made out a case to justify him in supervening with a suggestion such as he proposes to the House of Lords. I feel that the Government has taken a very wise course in refusing to look at this Suggestion. I feel satisfied when the Bill goes to the House of Lords for consideration that that House will take into account the fact that the House of Commons has already given its opinion on many different occasions upon this question of compulsory insurance. I hope that in the Division which is now taking place that the House will again, by a very large and overwhelming majority, indicate to the House of Lords that on this subject there can be no further Amendment considered. I am glad that the Government are firm in their determination to adhere to the form of the Bill as passed last Session. I feel sure that the people of Scotland will appreciate the view they have taken. On this occasion they are only expressing the view that there has been no change of opinion in Scotland, rather the other way, that the people of Scotland are determined to get the Bill they originally asked for.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I am not by any means astonished that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken should have made the speech that he has done. Of course, we know the driving power behind the Government in this flatter. It is a very unfortunate thing in my opinion that the Government has throughout the discussions on this Bill paid so much attention to extreme opinion and so little to moderate opinion. I can tell the hon. Member that if he thinks he is doing a service to the trade by objecting to compulsory insurance, that he will find that he is mistaken. The various schemes put forward up till now are practically all one scheme. Financially, in all the schemes of compulsory insurance the basis has always been the same. The scheme never pretended to be anything more than a solatium for possible loss in the case of the adoption of the options under this Bill. At no time has it ever been proposed to attempt to insure the full value of the licence, because it is quite impossible to licence holders to pay the premium to entitle them to expect payment of that. But, as the hon. Member for Blaekfriars has said more than once, if a man loses his licence it is much better that he should have half the value with which to go out and start a new business, than that he

  503
  should have nothing at all. It is in order to give the licence holder the advantage of the general average over the whole of Scotland, and to enable him to secure something or other out of the wreck, that these schemes have been proposed, not at all with the view or with the expectation of providing him for all the money he will lose, but, as I have said before, to provide some kind of solatium to start afresh in life when his licence has been taken away. To suppose that the six or seven different schemes put before the House have really differed in essence is a mistake. In essence they have been the same throughout. I think I proposed the first of them, and I have proposed others since. Every one of them will be found to be exactly on the same foundation, differing only in the machinery, and only attempting partial and not full insurance. One of the objections that the Lord Advocate made to one of the schemes was that it did not provide full assurance. I always agreed. I think he will agree with me that I never intended that the scheme did it.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I quite agree.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: The scheme is not a final or full provision, and that is why the word "some" is no doubt put in. There is no attempt to be made to evade responsibility by under insurance any more than to gain an unfair advantage by over-insurance. If this House thinks the Bill should pass with some solution in the way of compulsory insurance, it would be a very simple matter to suggest what is just, honest, and fair. I cannot say myself that I expect the Secretary for Scotland will agree to any such suggestion as this being sent to the other House. He has all along taken a very decided attitude against com-
  pulsory insurance, just as the extreme teetotalers have done. Why they should deny to these unfortunate people an opportunity to protect themselves as far as they can, I have never been able to understand, except that they seem to have a most vindictive feeling towards them. Through no fault of their own, these people have possibly been born into the business, as I was born into mine, and have carried on their business, as I have carried on mine, without ever thinking that we were doing other than that which was perfectly legitimate, fair, and proper. A change of opinion of some kind has arisen, or appears to have arisen, in respect to the system under which these licences have been granted. It is proposed to change it. The consistent, reasonable, judicial consideration and decision is to be entirely abrogated and a popular vote is to be substituted. Not content with that, and with having placed the businesses of these people in jeopardy—for everybody knows you can never tell how a popular vote may go, and it may change from time to time—notwithstanding that, they come down here, like hon. Members opposite, in a pure vindictive, spirit and say, "We will not only ruin them, but we will not give them a chance to protect themselves."It is a miserable spirit. It is necessary that someone should speak for these people. If the Bill passes to-morrow, it will do my business no harm, but I do resent—bitterly and strongly resent—the feeling shown by many people in dealing with this matter. I do think it is not a credit to the House of Commons that, when we get the opportunity of doing something which will relieve the tension in carrying out this policy, that it is not done.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 233.

  Division No. 188.]

  AYES

  [8.0 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Cassel, Felix

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Astor, Waldor

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Goldstone. Frank

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Clyde, James Avon

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Clynes, John R.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Grant, J. A.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Bigland, Alfred

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Gretton, John

  Bird, Alfred

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Blair, Reginald

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Boyton, James

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Fell, Arthur

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Butcher, John George

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Hills, John Waller

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Hogge, James Myles

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  O'Grady, James

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sutton, John E.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Swift, Rigby

  Hunt, Rowland

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutstord)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk,

  Pointer, Joseph

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Pollock, Ernest Muray

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Touche, George Alexander

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

  Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Winterton, Earl

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Younger, Sir George

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Snowden, Philip

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Barnes and Mr. F. Whyte.

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Stanier, Beville

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Falconer, James

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lundon, Thomas

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Alden, Percy

  Field, William

  McGhee, Richard

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barton, William

  Glanville, Harold James

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

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Manfield, Harry

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

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Greig, Colonel James William

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

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Meagher, Michael

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Boland, John Plus

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hackett, John

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hancock, John George

  Middlebrook, William

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Molloy, Michael

  Brunner, John F. L.

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bryce, John Annan

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mooney, John J.

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

  Hayward, Evan

  Morgan, George Hay

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morison, Hector

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Muldoon, John

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Munro, Robert

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Clough, William

  Hinds, John

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hodge, John

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Horne, C, Silvester (Ipswich)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Cotton, William Francis

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nuttall, Harry

  Crooks, William

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N,)

  Cullinan, John

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

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

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  O'Dowd, John

  De Forest, Baron

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Delany, William

  Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Malley, William

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Deviln, Joseph

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dillon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Doris, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kelly, Edward

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

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

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Leach Charles

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Levy Sir Maurice

  Radford, G. H.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  506

  507

  Reddy, Michael

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Sheehy, David

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Shortt, Edward

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Roberts. Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, Rt. H on. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughtan)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Winfrey, Richard

  Robinson, Sidney

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Roche. Augustine (Louth)

  Touimin, Sir George

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Rowlands, James

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Webb, H.

  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. Ure ]
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to propose, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
  It is no part of my duty in beginning the Debate on the Third Reading of this Bill to review the varied details of and arguments concerning this system or that system, or our varied experience with regard to these systems. We are now dealing with the Bill in its broad and general aspect. Personally, I am glad that it is with the principles of the Bill that we can now deal, and that we are no longer concerned with its details. Speaking for myself, I make bold to say, as I have said before, that to these principles in their fundamental meaning I am absolutely opposed, and I have no hesitation in saying so. At the last stage of the Bill I went so far as to show I was ready to compromise; that I was ready to support a reasoned Amendment, which found fault with particular parts of a Bill, and which claimed that certain additions should be made to the Bill. I was prepared to give up my own predilections against these principles, and I was ready for a compromise. We have seen how these attempts at compromise were received. We have seen again to-night how little possibility there is of getting from the Treasury Bench any sort of concession or anything else but the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. My objection is broadly to the whole of the principles upon which this Bill is based. I am not going to attack the motives or objects of hon. Members opposite. I do not think there is a single man in this House who is not prepared, if he is a sane and
  508
  reasonable man, to admit that we are here to-day to do, each of us in the way he thinks best, what we can to advance the cause of temperance. We may differ as to the methods, but I think we can pay each other the ordinary respect of thinking that our ends are the same, and that we all desire to spread temperance; but I object to the method and the principle by which hon. Members who support this Bill seek to gain that end. It is no doubt true that. for a long time we have regulated this trade. We have made rules; we have had Government supervision; we have curtailed hours, and we have done what we could to lower the number of public-houses. We have done what we could to close public-houses at certain hours and on certain occasions. To a certain extent, I am with hon. Members opposite in thinking that is a necessary part of good government; that it is necessary that a trade of this sort, affecting the well being of the great masses of the people, should be under regulation. It is recognised by the State, and. it is the duty of the State, so far, to regulate it. But when you come to these particular regulations, we find that we differ from one another considerably. I am old enough to remember well the first movement towards very strict and prohibitive legislation in Scotland; what were called the Forbes-Mackenzie Acts. They were well known and widely advocated; they were discussed and criticised. They were thought by some people to be the harbinger of a new social regeneration. Public houses were closed on Sundays entirely. They were closed earlier on weekdays; they were made subject to more severe regulation. Some of us in those days did not think that those Forbes-Mackenzie Acts would bring about all that social regeneration which the advocates of temperance prophesied. It turned out to be true. I have spent a large part of my life in Scotland, and I do not think that

  509
  the prohibition regulations made Scotland a very sober country. She went in advance of England in her prohibitive legislation, but not in the temperate habits of her people.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Would the hon. Member like to repeal the Forbes-Mackenzie Acts?
  Sir H. CRAIK: I am not speaking about repealing those Acts. What I say is that experience and common sense teaches me that you should look at the results of prohibitive legislation, in which Scotland went in advance of England, and they did not make Scotland a more temperate country than England. I represent a constituency largely composed of Scotsmen, many of whom are resident in Scotland, and that constituency is so intelligent and fair-minded that I make bold to say that I am speaking sincerely the mind of the bulk of my constituents when I assert that on the whole Scotland has not by that legislation advanced in temperance very materially during the last generation. What are you going to add to your regulations now? The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) asked what is this Bill going to do, and he said that it is simply going to take licensing out of the hands of the bench of magistrates and put it into the hands of the people. Do hon. Members opposite think that that is an adequate, just, and fair description of this Bill? Is it not obvious that, in taking these duties out of the hands of the magistrates, you abolish the judicial element altogether and put it into the hands of those who act not on judicial principles, but according to their wishes, their interests, their personal predilections, or their personal opinions? I say nothing against that. They may be conscientious in holding those opinions, but the great difference is that you are subjecting a great trade to new restrictions; you are taking certain duties out of the hands of those who were bound to act upon judicial principles; and you are placing those duties in the hands of those who will act merely according to their personal opinions or predilections.
  Personally, I would resist a public-house being licensed near to my own house, but if I were the magistrate on the bench I think I should conscientiously hear the evidence and give my judgment in such a case absolutely unbiassed by my own personal interests. I should be bound to do so, and I should be guilty of corruption of
  510
  the worst sort in my position as a judge if I gave way to any ether influence. But if the question came before me as an individual ratepayer, in a particular district, I should certainly vote that a public-house should not be set up there, because I should not feel bound by any judicial considerations, and I should feel that I was free to act according to my own personal opinions. Surely hon. Members see that there is a fundamental difference between that case and the mere transfer of the power from the-hands of the magistrates to the hands of the people. You will probably ask if we are not to restrict this trade and impose these tremendous regulations upon it; if we are not prepared to give to what really may be only an active minority of the population, the power to restrict their neighbours from having conveniences to get drink if they wish those conveniences, and if we are not willing to assent to the course proposed in this Bill, what is our alternative? I have several alternatives, and it is because of my attachment to them, and my desire that they should be tried, and the certainty I feel that sooner or later, perhaps by a slow but a sure process, they would work in the direction of amelioration, that I am opposed to the principles of this Bill.
  I remember the saying of a distinguished prelate that "He preferred England free to England sober." I think that is an exaggerated representation of what the late Bishop of Peterborough really did say, but I make bold to say that l attach equal importance to the freedom of my country as to its sobriety. I think both of them are qualities that we need to prize and build up, and I am not prepared to, set up a chain of slavery simply in order by artificial means to make the country what you call sober. In the first place, I would treat this question with a little more sympathy than some of the extreme teetotallers do. I would try to approach the people by some more sympathetic action, something that will take a little more account of their feelings and the temptations in which they are placed. There are some words which often come into my mind, written by Scott, who was one of the best judges of human nature, which were put into the mouth of one of his characters, Mrs. Mucklebackit, in his novel "The Antiquary," when Monkbarns delivered an injunction as to the necessity of avoiding the use of alcohol. She says:—
  "It's easy for your honour and the like o' you gentle folks to say sae, thae hae stouth and routh and fire and fending, and meat and claith, and sit dry and canny by

  511
  the fireside—but an ye wanted fire and meat and dry claise and had a lair heart, which is warst of ava, wi' just tuppence in your pocket, wadna ye be glad to buy a dram wi' it to be gilding and claise and heart's ease into the bargain."
  With a touch of humour, one can see what it was that Scott made that fisherwoman teach to those about her. He would have tried to bring that comfort and brightness and social help into their lives that might assist you far more than all your Temperance Bills. Do try to make the public-houses places where a man can take his wife and family as they do abroad. You make your public-house as severe and as forbidding as you can, but is that treating your fellow citizens with sympathy and insight into the meaning of their lives? Do not, I ask you, frown upon the public-house if you wish the public-house to be better than it is. Make it a place where a man would lose his self-respect if he indulged in excess. Make it a place where he has his respectable neighbours around him, instead of a place where those around him are only too glad to see him drunk. Make it a place where be can spend his leisure hours with self-respect and with enjoyment. Most hon. Members know something of Stockholm and Copenhagen. Have they not attended the winter gardens and the open air gardens there and heard music playing and seen acting going on all the time men were drinking some light beer or wine, or whatever it might be. There is just as little drunkenness there as there is in this House. I have been there quite often and seen it for myself.
  Do you not trust anything to your vaunted education? I have spent a good deal of my time in educational administration, but if after forty years of educational administration you are going to bring forward legislation to treat your fellow citizens like children, then I say your compulsory education is not worth the money you have spent upon it. If we believe that education is an ameliorative and raising influence then let us be patient and wait until it works its ameliorative effect. Do you not believe that it would inevitably do so, and that it must, if it is any good at all, build up character; and without character what is your temperance worth? Is temperance a virtue in the case of the convict who is shut up in a prison and cannot get access to any alcohol? Temperance, if it means anything, means the power that a man acquires of controlling himself by self-respect, by character, and by respect for his fellow
  512
  creatures. I do not care in the least for that temperance which is enforced and which is not the fruit of self-respect and self-control. I believe, too, that you could do much by attention to the physical training of our youths. That, in my belief, is a thing most wanted in our education. Hon. Members are aghast at any proposal to submit our young men of from fourteen to eighteen or from eighteen to twenty-one—those who are hanging about the street corners, turning into wastrels, after you have spent upon them lavishly for their education—to military training to make them fit to defend their country and proud of themselves as citizens. Hon. Members are angry because we propose to take these young fellows for a few weeks or months, for 4, few years into camp to give them the vast benefit and advantage of feeling what it is to lead a healthy life, to have their sinews trained, their nerves strengthened, and their brains made clear in action. All this would come if we were to adopt that universal military training for which we are working as missionaries. It would do more than all your temperance Acts to build up character and to teach young men what it is to lead a healthy life.
  Do hon. Members think that this craving for drink in unwholesome quantities is a thing natural to man? Is it a thing that comes in the midst of healthy life? Do they not know that if you make a man live a healthy life the craving diminishes, and that the man who leads such a life can regulate with ease the amount of alcohol he thinks good for himself to take? Many of us do habitually take alcohol. I have every respect for those who do not think that any alcohol can be otherwise than detrimental, but really, as sane men and as men of some experience, they must allow us to judge for ourselves if we leave them to judge for themselves. If you give young men proper physical training and they learn to know, what many of them, alas, never know, what it is to have their sinews in good order, their brains clear, their digestion good, and their whole mental and physical activities energised, the craving for drink will in very many cases disappear and in all cases become less. I despair altogether of a thorough treatment of this question, and, if I speak alone, I shall utter my opinion upon it. I despair almost of either political party facing the odium that would be got by adopting the measures that I propose.

  513
  You never will deal with intemperance until one political party or another is bold enough and strong enough to deal with the drunkard as he deserves to be dealt with. What is the use of passing on the crime to the manufacturer or to the dealer in alcohol? Is the man not responsible himself for his conduct? And ought you not to bring it home to him as a disgusting and degrading vice? If he makes himself a nuisance to his neighbour, if he makes himself a danger to his neighbour, and, still more, if he commits crime under the influence of his degrading vice, I would not treat him with greater indulgence. Deal drastically with vice in the sinner, and not merely with those who may be providing alcohol, which many of us want and desire, and have a right to have, simply because other people misuse it and degrade themselves by misusing what is one of the gifts of nature. Do not treat the drunkard like a child.
  I have watched this matter in Scotland, both from inside and outside. You have tried severe regulations, but you have not advanced temperance in that way nearly so much as it has been advanced by the influence of education, of social opinion, and of social respect. I have observed often what I think is a morbid and unwholesome habit of treating drunkenness, when it is seen in the street or in a public conveyance, as a joke rather than as something contemptible and vile. I defy anyone who has moved about in Scotland very much to deny that frequently, when a man is seen to be drunk, he is treated tenderly and greeted with a smile rather than with indignation at his conduct. You will never cure a drunkard by treating him in that way. You will never cure him as he is cured in Montreal or Quebec, where a drunken emigrant is dealt with very drastically. I believe it would be a good lesson to some of our fellow inhabitants, both in England and Scotland, if they were present in one of the emigration halls in Montreal and saw how a drunken emigrant is dealt with by the police of Canada. There is no morbid affectation of treating him as a child and with undue kindliness. There is no suggestion of treating the whole thing as a joke to be laughed at the next day. The emigrant is taught., as soon as he gets to that country, that, if he is to be of any use in Canada, he must learn to control himself, acid that the responsibility of his degradation rests not on other people, but upon himself.
  514
  Let us be sincere. I can easily understand that there are certain hon. Members opposite who honestly believe in full prohibition. They consider that the whole trade—the manufacture and consumption of alcohol—ought to be absolutely prohibited. I would treat those hon. Members as a small minority, to be treated in the same way as one treats any small peculiar section, such as people, for instance, who absolutely consider it a crime and against their conscience to take a weapon in their hands and to serve their country in any shape or form that may involve fighting. The State cannot be regulated by the morbid opinions of small minorities like these, and as bodies regulating State action they must be set aside as a negligible quantity. Take any section of opinion that bulks largely, do we find they really hold that men who are employed in the production of alcohol, in one shape or another, are to be treated as pariahs not entitled to our respect?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: We want the trade treated as a dangerous trade.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Does the hon. Member say that these people should be treated as pariahs, as persons who have lost all sense of duty to their fellows, because they are engaged in a trade which he would like to have absolutely prohibited?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I want to get them into a better trade.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Whatever the opinion of the hon. Member may be, we do not treat in that way in this House our fellow Members who may be engaged in that trade, and whom we may meet in ordinary society. We know perfectly well that those who avoid entirely, in their personal life, the use of alcohol are, after all, a minority in this country. That is an indisputable fact. Why is it, then, that in face of that fact, in face of our ordinary conventional way of treating these men, in face of the fact that we accept charity from and hold in honour those who are engaged in this trade, and that the great mass of us do not avoid the use of alcoholic liquor—why is it we have a measure of this kind now before the House I would remind English Members that, although they may try the experiment on Scotland, once established, it will very soon spread to England. The cheers which greet that statement are confirmation of my words. You propose to try the experiment in Scotland, and in England they merely say

  515
  "this is a Bill for the promotion of temperance; we have not studied its provisions, but we suppose it is all right." They may rely upon it that in due course, once the system is established in Scotland, they themselves will have their liberty restricted in just the same way as this Bill proposes to restrict the liberty of my fellow countrymen in Scotland.
  Why is it that these exaggerated and tyrannical ideas gradually spread their influence, and acquire a strong position in the community? I will tell you why. We know quite well what an enormous amount of influence is possessed by a small and determined section of faddists. They push their cause in season and out of season. They are never asleep. They never allow their attention to be diverted from the one object of accomplishing the triumph of their fad. They are always present to suggest a plan on lines close to their heart. Gradually, they begin to push their way amongst electioneering agents and managers. There is nothing an electioneering agent knows is a better aid to him than to have a small but compact and determined clique fixed upon their own fad, who in return for his support of the fad, will give him a whole hearted support in the election. I am not misrepresenting the facts. This is how these fads spread their influence. What comes a little later? If you oppose if, you are opposing temperance. If you support it, you are told you are in no way committed to the terms of this or that Bill; you need not trouble what the details of the Bill are, but you understand the object is to promote temperance, and, therefore, you are hound to support it. Thus they spread their influence still further, and it grows until they become a most important factor in the work and the whole business of the electioneering agent. That is what explains the fact that a small minority in this country, at first adopting this fad, and setting themselves with undeviating strength of purpose to pursue it, have represented themselves as the sole advocates, pioneers, and missionaries of temperance, and have gradually proved their value to electioneering agents. They have silenced their opponents by telling them that if they showed the least doubt about their special nostrum, they were encouragers of intemperance and found a benefit and some lucrative advantage in the destruction of their fellow creatures. We know that you may have an excellent object in promoting temperance, but as
  516
  soon as you set up a particular nostrum for dealing with it, you will allow no detraction from that particular nostrum; every man who is not entirely with you is against you, and everyone who casts the smallest doubt or even asks for a careful discussion of your particular nostrum is dealt with as anathema, and as a mere obstructor anxious to prevent its advance. You have taken up, by the process I have explained, this kind of local option. Have you ever noticed how absurd it is, looked at from a large constitutional standpoint, that any one section, much more a small minority of one-third of any community, because 30 per cent. is enough, and will give you a majority—
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how a minority can do it?
  Sir H. CRAIK: Thirty per cent. only is necessary for voting purposes; and a half of 30 per cent. is 15.per cent., therefore 16 per cent. is a majority.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I can assure the hon. Gentleman he is entirely wrong in his figures. He cannot have read the Bill.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Thirty per cent. is the number who must vote, and 16 per cent. will be the majority of those who vote.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It must be a majority of 30 per cent,
  Sir H. CRAIK: I mean that it is a minority of the whole community.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD:No. The hon. Member must not misrepresent it like that. It must be a majority of those voting.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Certainly.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If the majority vote against it, they can defeat the minority. There must be a majority in favour of it. The argument is ridiculous.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it ridiculous that members are returned to the school boards by 20 per cent. of the voters? You never get more than 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the voters to go to the poll, and it is an enormous poll if you get 50 per cent. The majority of those voting, providing they are 30 per cent. of the voters, are still a minority of the whole of the inhabitants. A great many people, through indecision or apathy may not vote. Are hon. Members prepared to carry this principle

  517
  of local option to a logical conclusion? Are they prepared to say that a minority who are against other things than alcoholic liquors, may prevent their consumption? I know, and I see a good deal of reason for it, that there are a great many people who say that as much harm is done by the drinking of tea to the nerves and in producing anaemia as the drinking of alcoholic liquors. Doctors themselves have said so. Are hon. Members prepared to give to a 30 per cent. minority the power of refusing the right to drink tea, except in certain quantities? Duncan Forbes of Culloden, one of the soundest Whigs of his day, who was responsible for the fact that the Jacobite rebellion did not succeed, in 1748 or 1749 proposed a Bill making penal the consumption of tea by those who did not possess an income of £500 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who was that?"] Duncan Forbes Of Culloden.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I do not quite see the relevancy of this. I would remind the hon. Member that he has been speaking for three quarters of an hour, and that this is the Third Reading—the final stage of the Bill.
  Sir H. CRAIK:I did not know that there was any rule as to the length of speeches. I am in possession of the House. If I am out of order in speaking for a certain time, no doubt you will tell me.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The speech must be relevant to the question. I thought the hon. Member was led astray by sonic interruption, and might go very wide of the subject.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I was not conscious of being misled by any interruption. An hon. Member opposite asked me for the name, and I gave it him. I would point out that we are now discussing a local option Bill. I am ready to accept your correction if it is irrelevant, in discussing a local option Bill, to point out that the principle of local option may not stop here, but may be applied to other things. Is there anything irrelevant in that? If so, no doubt, you, Sir, will stop me, and also if I err in regard to the length of my speech. If I do not err again on a point of Order, I shall be guided by my own judgment as to my arguments. I say this is a principle which may be applied in a way that may be very hostile and disagreeable to those who do not advocate the consumption of this particular article. I have stated my fundamental objections
  518
  to the Bill. I was prepared to swallow those fundamental objections and to accept a fair compromise on the basis of two conditions, first, that you should give to the community whom you set up as judges in this matter— [Interruption.] When the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) has quite done, I will continue. It would be more convenient if he made his speech afterwards. [An HON. MEMBER: "Give him the next hour."] The two conditions upon which I was prepared to sink my objection to the principle of this Bill were, first, that you should give to these fellow subjects of mine the power of a wide and all-embracing option as to the system of licences that should be established. You denied that, forsooth, in the name of democratic liberty. There was one more condition which would have made me ready to sink my principles, and that was that you carried out this drastic change without unjust injury and robbery of one class of my fellow subjects. You have refused that. You have refused all compromise either as to just and fair conditions for the publican, or as to a wide and all-embracing choice for the constituency, and, therefore, I revert to the position I first took up, and which is my real and personal position in regard to this Bill, that it is built upon a wrong foundation, that it mistakes the course that you ought to take in dealing with your fellow-citizens, and that it will not raise their self-respect or build them up to better habits, but will lower them to the level of children and imbeciles.
  Major HOPE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  9.0 P.M.
  It would give me far greater pleasure to be seconding the Third Reading of a real Temperance Measure for Scotland. I should like to controvert the contention put forward by the Secretary for Scotland, and also by many hon. Members opposite, on the Second Reading, that we on this side of the House are opposed to the principle of local option and that we are not anxious for some measure of real temperance reform. We are not opposed to local option, and we are as anxious for real temperance reform as many hon. Members opposite. I have always declared myself in favour of giving Scotsmen the option of deciding how the liquor traffic should be carried on in their own locality, and I believe that the passing into law of a measure of temperance reform is in the best interests of the Scottish people, and I believe that a large majority of the

  519
  Scottish people demand that a temperance measure should be passed into law. But they do not demand that this measure should be passed into law. Far from it. It is neither in the true interests of Scottish temperance, as it is likely to leave the House now, nor is there a demand amongst the majority of the Scottish people for this Bill. If there is a popular demand for a particular measure in a particular form and that measure is at the moment of a by-election before Parliament, if one of the candidates takes up an unpopular attitude on that question, even though there is a question perhaps of greater importance before the electors, surely his opponents will press him on what should be his weak point. I took part in a by-election just after the Bill had emerged from Committee and before it was considered on Report. I addressed numerous public meetings, and at nearly every one I was subjected to a considerable amount of heckling. At several meetings I was asked my views on the Scottish Temperance Bill. I always replied that I was in favour of the principle of the Bill, provided that the areas in which the poll was to be taken were large, and that some form of machinery should be set up for compensating the displaced licence holders at the sole expense of the licensed trade. I was never asked any supplementary questions on this subject at any meeting, nor was the first question asked me at more than a comparatively few of my meetings. If I had been advocating unpopular views on this point, is it not certain that my opponents would have pressed me constantly and urged me to put forward these unpopular views, and asked supplementary questions on them? My answer, advocating temperance reform in large areas and a measure of compulsory insurance, was in accordance with the opinion not only of my own political supporters, but of many of my, at that time, political opponents. Anyhow, having given these answers, will anyone say that I should be justified in voting for this Bill as it stands now?
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I should think so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said he told the heckler that he was in favour of the principle of the Bill.
  Major HOPE: To make it quite clear, I said I supported the Bill provided there was some machinery set up for compen-
  520
  sating licence holders out of funds provided by the State itself, and also that the areas in which local option was to be decided were large. Even the Lord Advocate himself, on the Second Reading, could not assert that there was a majority in Scotland against some form of compulsory insurance. The best he could put forward was that there was a large body of opinion opposed to compulsory insurance, and that he agreed with them. Surely even the addition of the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland to a large body of public opinion does not convert it into a majority of Scottish opinion. As regards the areas now, surely the Secretary for Scotland will not say they are very large. I acknowledge that my term "large" is vague, but I am quite prepared to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has any objection to that scheme which was put forward in another place by Lord Balfour of Burleigh under which county and town councils would delimit suitable areas for taking a poll containing not less tha 2,000 electors. Would this provide unreasonably large areas? I should like to draw attention to another aspect of the popular demand in Scotland theory. After the House, last February, decided to disagree with the Lords Amendments en bloc we adjourned for a short holiday. Nearly all the Scottish Members held meetings in their constituencies. Was not that a chance for a raging campaign in favour of the Bill and nothing but the Bill; for denouncing on the platform the iniquities of disinterested management and compulsory insurance, and for urging the dangers of extending the time limit beyond the magic period of five years? But did hon. Members opposite take that opportunity? I think not. I have been refreshing my memory by referring to the newspaper reports, and I find that the Secretary for Scotland himself had a somewhat stormy meeting in Glasgow when he explained his own uncompromising attitude on the Bill.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I had no opposition on that subject. I had a few opponents on another subject.
  Major HOPE: I have the newspaper report in which it is stated that there was considerable interruption, and that the Secretary for Scotland was constantly heckled. He was heckled in regard to this very Bill.
  Mr. McKINNON WOODindicated dissent.
  Major HOPE: Anyhow it was not a favourable meeting to him.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. The great body of the meeting was favourable. There may have been one or two interruptions. It is a very common occurrence in Scotland. The hon. Member may have had interruptions at his meetings.
  Major HOPE: We may leave it at that. His meeting was not enthusiastically in favour of the Bill.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It was.
  Major HOPE: I say that the meetings addressed by Scottish Liberal Members were not enthusiastically in favour of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman cannot produce any report in any newspaper which gives the impression that his meetings were in favour of the Bill. The report I have read gave a very different colour. I see that the hon. Members for East and South Edinburgh advocated disinterested management, during the recess. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh wished to have that inserted in a separate Bill. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division advocated compulsory insurance, but hardly any of the other Scottish Liberal Members mentioned the Temperance Bill during the recess. They confined themselves to advocating the advantages of Free Trade. It was more immediately important no doubt than the Scottish Temperance Bill last March. The Scottish Members were also pretty well employed defending the National Insurance Act, and answering complaints by their constituents. That is the picture of the Scottish people demanding the Bill and nothing but the Bill just after this House had disagreed with the Amendments of the House. of Lords. What a chance was thrown away by hon. Members opposite! There is, I believe, a majority of the Scottish people in favour of a settlement of this great question of temperance reform on the lines of compromise, which is a method always acceptable, where it is humanly possible, to the Scottish people. But what is compromise? I believe it is defined as a settlement of differences by mutual concessions and agreements. What mutual concessions are offered by the Secretary for Scotland? I had hoped that on the Second Reading of the Bill last month he would have indicated some golden bridge on which he would have permitted the Scottish Members to walk
  522
  before the passing into law of this Bill. He had another chance this evening, but he did not indicate any form of compromise by which the Bill could be passed into law this year. Does he really look on the House of Lords as a sort of inferior body which must come continually petitioning him in different forms? Is not the real method between parties who are honestly trying to come together to make one step towards each other? Is it not the turn of the Secretary of Scotland now to make a step? The House of Lords made the last step when they put forward their Amendments. The Secretary for Scotland threw them all out. He disagreed with the whole of the Lords Amendments. You cannot mention any Amendment of importance which he allowed this House to accept.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. and gallant Member laid great stress on the matter of the areas. I accepted an Amendment to increase the limit of population from 10,000 to 25,000. That is one Amendment, and there were a great many other Amendments.
  Major HOPE: I should like another one mentioned.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: He will find them in the records of our proceedings.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is not addressing the Chair. I would point out that this is not an occasion for dealing with the Lords Amendments of last Session. We are now discussing the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Major HOPE: I apologise. I was interrupted by the Secretary for Scotland. I think I am justified in saying that the Amendment as to areas did not deal with the county areas. It still left the parishes the areas as regards the counties. It was only a small concession to increase the limit of population from 10,000 to 25,000 as regards the burghs. I sincerely hope that the Secretary for Scotland will yet, even at the eleventh hour, put forward some suggestions for compromise and endeavour to bring about some measure of Scottish temperance reform which shall pass into law this year. By doing so I believe he will be consulting not only the interests and wishes of the large majority of the Scottish people, but consulting also his own political interests in Scotland.
  Sir JOHN M'CALLUM: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow. and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) has

  523
  left, because he stated certain things that one would have liked to reply to. In his absence I think it would be better simply to make some general remarks. The hon. Member is decidedly opposed to the fundamental principle of this Bill, which is "to promote temperance in Scotland by conferring on the electors in prescribed areas control over the grant and renewal of certificates, by securing a later hour of opening for licensed premises, by amending the law relating to clubs, and by other provisions incidental thereto." Minor processes have been tried for a long time in connection with the restriction of licences, and they have utterly failed, and it is because we believe that more drastic measures are needed in various parts of Scotland that we are now anxious that this Bill should be put on the Statute Book at an early date. Few words are needed to support the Bill now before the House. The question is well known in every nook and corner of Scotland. For fifty years we have been discussing this question, and we know it root and branch. Therefore, to talk of any other methods might seem to indicate that Scotland does not know its own mind on the subject of this Bill. We know, by experiences in the past, that there is need for drastic reform, and this reform is introduced in a very simple way by giving the right to manage the traffic and to say whether we shall reduce licences or abolish them, or in certain districts say that, instead of opening at six in the morning, as is done in London, and carrying on until half-past twelve o'clock at night, they must not open until ten in the morning and must close at ten at night. I have great pleasure in stating that the alteration of the hour of closing a few years ago from eleven till ten o'clock has had a most wonderful result. Naturally, we think that if one hour has made such a difference in Scotland, what would the whole twelve hours make? It is simply a question of proportion which anyone can understand. Sunday closing has gone on for a long time in Scotland, and we know the opposition that arose to it. It is fifty-nine years since we introduced that measure, and where the magistrates have power to go still further, and where those powers have been exercised, the result has been most wonderful in certain quarters.
  Social reformers are now anxious for further reform, and those steps that have been made are now the envy of both Eng-
  524
  land and Ireland. It is not education, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow University indicated, that brought about this change, for eight years ago Scotland was drinking £1 a head more than England and now it is drinking 15s. 3d. less. That is a very marked change. We were educated for forty years previous to the last eight years, but certain things have been in operation since then which have been of great advantage. There has been an arousing of the public conscience in Scotland. People are beginning to realise that something must be done which has never been done before. If you visit Edinburgh and Glasgow on Saturday night, the Salt Market in Glasgow and the Grass Market in Edinburgh, you will see scenes of drunkenness there that can only be described by the words "simply hell." While the average is very low in Scotland, because there are so many teetotalers, the drunkenness which goes on in certain quarters can only be dealt with by very drastic measures. That is the reason for this Bill. In the locality which I have the honour to represent we have now reduced drunkenness to a lower proportion of the population than in any other city, town, or village in Scotland. How has it come about? Thirteen years ago we had two clubs. Those clubs created a great amount of drunkenness on Sunday morning. A great many people went and got liquor before their breakfast. The result was that we used to have from thirty to forty drunkards before us on a Monday morning. The magistrates of that day, of whom I had the honour to be one, made up their minds that they would punish these men very severely, as they were simply nuisances in the street, and they were a pain and a disgrace to their families, who were glad that we dealt with them as we did. The policy we adopted was this:
  They were fined £2 or thirty days' imprisonment. In most cases the fine was paid, and in some cases it was paid by the magistrates themselves out of consideration for the men's families. In nine months there was a great improvement, and in another nine months both those clubs were closed. When we tasted the whisky, what did we find That it was like the stuff they sent out to South Africa. Have we no right to protect men from a position such as I have indicated?
  We used to have six or seven hundred men coming from Glasgow on Sunday for the purpose of getting drink, because we were the right number of miles apart. It became a perfect nuisance. We told hotel

  525
  proprietors distinctly that unless they exercised a little more discretion in giving liquor to those people their licences would be taken away. Eventually some of the licences were taken away, and if you went into Paisley on a Sunday and went to an hotel you could not get any drink in it. They have only a six days' licence. Public opinion has backed up the action of the magistrates, and nobody to-day has any desire to return to the old methods. What we effected shows clearly what may be done by this Bill. We used the means at our disposal. We could only use it on one day in the week, but we want to be able to use it every day. In the circumstances, I think that this is a very mild Bill. It will never interfere with the liberty of anyone who wishes to live a noble and straightforward life. Those who desire liquor will have an opportunity of possessing it through the ordinary channels. We are only asking for what has been done in many places throughout the world, particularly in the States and the Colonies, and it has wrought one admirable result. In some of these States, you cannot get liquor under any conditions, and you will And drunkenness there at a lower ebb than in any district which I could mention in the British Isles, except where the principle is now adopted, of which I have been speaking.
  In the circumstances I love this Bill, and because the people want it, I hope that the House of Commons will have the common sense to pass it as they did before, with a right royal majority larger than any of the majorities which we have had on the other Bills. It will gladden the hearts of many who are social reformers in Scotland, and it will take out of the way of temptation others who are weak and unable to resist temptation, and if there is anything noble in the nature of manhood it is that we should be willing to make sacrifices for the sake of others. On that account, when I look round and see our prisons, our poor houses, and our asylums, I wonder that some of those who come from various constituencies in Scotland do not vote straight for a Bill of this kind. This evil is the canker worm that is eating into our public life, because it slays not a few thousands, but fifty or sixty thousand in the year. If then, as we maintain, this Bill can accomplish what we believe by argument and reason has been so clearly shown in Committee and also on the First, Second, and Third Readings of the Bill, I trust that within a measurable time the House of Lords will have their
  526
  eyes opened, and see that it is just, right and wise without any trouble and without waiting for the result of the parliament Act to give us this Bill within the next few weeks.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I am sure we must all have listened to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down with feelings of absolute agreement, so far as concerns the sentiments which he has expressed, but in regard to his arguments, I submit that they were entirely upon our side, though they were not intended to be so. I do not suppose that anything we can say in regard to this measure will divorce him from his love. But he has shown us from his own remarks that in Scotland they do not want this Bill shoved down the people's throats against their will, but rather that they should have solid and sober magistrates like the hon. Gentleman himself, men who are not afraid to do their work, with the result that sobriety follows upon their action. An hon. Member has stated that in Scotland they are now ready for local option. That may be so in regard to Paisley, but Paisley is not Scotland, and I would point out that the rest of Scotland is not ready for local option. I am perfectly well aware that all the prohibitionists in Scotland are asking for it, but that is a very different matter. This Bill is entitled the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, to promote temperance in Scotland, and it is backed by the Secretary for Scotland, and supported by the Lord Advocate. But will it carry out what it professes on the face of it to carry out? I am firmly convinced, for my part, that, though there may be one or two good points in it, such as those relating to clubs and earlier closing, it will actually do more harm than good. Of course, we know what is going to happen. If one prefers one's own opinion, and does not agree with every single word that the Secretary for Scotland or his supporters say, then one is pariah and an outcast. Hon. Members know that as well as I do.
  One of the greatest temperance reformers in this House, a man who probably knows more about the temperance movement than anyone here, suggested a simple Amendment for insertion in the Bill, and, so far as the Liberal party is concerned, he became a Pariah and an outcast. He is not here to-night. He has said all he has got to say, but you have absolutely taken no notice of what he advanced, because he did not happen to

  527
  toe the line as the Secretary for Scotland knows how to toe it. This Bill, of course, will be passed to-night, and, so far as this House is concerned, it will be finished with it, and the measure will go to another place. If there should be a General Election, hon. Members, opposite, when they go to the country, will say on the platform that they have passed this great measure of reform; but if they discover that a good many people in Scotland do not like the interference which the Bill sets up, they will come down and they will say, "Oh, you need not be a bit afraid of it." And that is exactly my own impression of what the effect of the Bill will be. The attitude I have always taken upon this question is that I do not believe in prohibition by law; I do not believe that you can make a man an abstainer by order. I am not going to quarrel with prohibitionists. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland looks upon me, I will not say as an enemy, but as one who takes a directly opposite view to his. I would point out that I have as much right to my opinion as the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) opposite, and I have got a bigger majority behind me in my country than he has in his. I am a Scotsman and he is a Welshman. There are more temperance people in this country than there are prohibitionists. Therefore it is true to say that I have got a bigger body of opinion behind me than he has. The Secretary for Scotland was good enough, for no particular reason this afternoon, to say that the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division knows ten times more about this subject than I do.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I said the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs knows ten times as much as the Noble Lord.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I think that is very likely, but my real point is that I know ten times more about Scotland than the Secretary for Scotland does, and I am perfectly certain that if he thinks this Bill is going to do any good in Scotland, he is only showing his absolute ignorance of that country of his adoption. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland bought a kilt and thought that made him a Scotsman. Apparently I am wrong in that. The right hon. Gentleman did not buy a kilt. I think the right hon. Gentleman is doing very poor service indeed to temperance
  528
  in Scotland by this Bill. I wish to get to the bed-rock points in connection with this measure. We will take, for instance, the Clauses dealing with the areas. Does any hon. Gentleman really think that by simply dividing comparatively small towns into prohibition areas he is any more likely to snake those towns sober? Take a town like Perth, with a population of 30,000. That town has six wards, and if you divided it into six areas you would find that you would have prohibition in one area of Perth and not in another. The dividing line between two areas might run up the middle of the street, and you would have prohibition on one side and not on the other. If a public-house was removed from one area, the result would be to increase the profits of the house in the adjoining area where there was not prohibition. Does the hon. Gentleman think that such a proposal is going to promote temperance? I submit that it is going to double the profits of the men on the other side of the road. Suppose a man is in a dry area, where it is difficult to get drink, he could go to the nearest telephone in order to ring up someone to supply him. He could ask the nearest licensed grocer or publican in some street, which is not in a prohibition area, to send down as many cases of whisky as he required and take it to his house, and quite easily keep within the law.
  Mr. WATT: What takes place in the house?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The sort of thing that would never take place in the hon. Member's house. Working men probably would pool one order for what they wanted, and thus you would really have State-erected shebeens, and hon. Members opposite know that as well as I do. [An HON. MEMBER: "Never."] Why not?
  Mr. BOOTH: Do working men have telephones?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: said go to the nearest telephone, where you could pay a penny or twopence and send a message. There is no law against it.
  Mr. MORTON: Are you to get drink by telephone?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: You talk about prohibition, and you would have a shebeen in that street which you could not touch. I think the result will

  529
  be that you will drive the drinking out of properly controlled licensed houses and you will be putting it into other houses, to the great detriment of the inhabitants. You talk a great deal about what this Bill is going to do. I do not wish to say anything in the least offensive to working men. You are doing nothing to improve their conditions or to remove the reasons, but I think you would find it very difficult to carry any prohibition measure in a working-class area. Does the Secretary for Scotland think he would carry prohibition in working-class areas? He knows perfectly well that he could not carry a measure of this sort, even in a great sober constituency like St. Rollox. I think it would have been far better to have had a proper licensing board of men who would not be afraid to do their work in spite of public opinion. It would be much better to strengthen the licensing bench rather than putting the job in the hands of the people themselves. You only trust the people with your own particular nostrums, so that you really do not trust them. There is nothing in the Bill which is going to improve the quality of the liquor that is drunk. Why should not hon. Member's have done something to secure a better class of liquor? You are not going to stop people getting drink, and you might have done something to secure a better class of spirit. You could have done that by putting a prohibitive tariff on spirits, and have beer and other light drinks sold at different places. The publican does not sell drink because he wants to do so, but because he desires to make a profit, and if there was more profit out of beer than whisky it would encourage him to sell the beer and you will get the people to drink beer instead of whisky, which I believe would have a far better temperance effect. The hon. Member for Paisley (Sir J. M. M'Callum) pointed out how people in this country were gradually becoming more sober. I most thoroughly agree with him and with the hon. Member for Edinburgh University, when they said that what you have got to do is not so much to deal with the existing drinker but rather with the young man to try and prevent him falling into the habits of his older relatives. You could do far more by example. What sort of example do the Liberal party set? Surely if you say that prohibition is a thing to have, and that absolute abstinence is good why do you not act up to your principles. I know the hon. Member opposite is a prohibitionist, but I am not. I believe in moderate temperance.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: This is not a. prohibition Bill.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: What. is it if it is not, although in one sense I do not think it is, nor do I think that you will get much advantage out of it.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Prohibition Bills do net permit a man to have spirits in his house.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Hon. Members want to have prohibition for other people and leave themselves free. Why do not hon. Members practise what they preach? I do not wish to say anything offensive, but take the whole Coalition and what support would prohibition get? You would get strong support from the Labour party, but the Irish party and the others think alike, and would you suggest you are going to have prohibition in this House in the smoking room and in the dining room? If you did you would know the exact sincerity of hon. Members.
  Mr. BOOTH: Local option in the House
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I do not think it would be carried very far. The Secretary for Scotland referring to seine remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Major Hope) said that he had discussed this measure very fully at the election, and I think he gave us to understand that he was returned owing to this Bill to a great extent, or owing to his attitude on the Bill.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member was not talking about elections.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Let. us take the meetings at the right hon. Gentleman's election, and what was the result? He went to a by-election, brought up this Bill as a plank in his programme, and came back with 2,000 less votes. That is probably a sign of what is to come. That is the reason why hon. Members opposite do not wish to bring this Bill before the country. The Secretary for Scotland said that he was not in favour of allowing any kind of insurance. I think hon. Members opposite would have been wise to have allowed some reasonable measure of insurance—whether compulsory or otherwise I cannot discuss now. The Secretary for Scotland himself, who says that he wishes to trust the people, has stated that there is a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of compulsory insurance.
  Mr. McKINNON WOODdissented.
  MARQUESS OF TULLIBARDINE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me who said this? On the 1st April, 1912, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "No doubt there is a demand for compulsory mutual insurance.. … No one objects to the trade insuring itself; no one objects to the most complete system of insurance in the trade.…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1912; cols. 887–8, Vol. X XXVI.]
  One must couple that with the statement of the Lord Advocate. The right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Advocate, of course, always agree on all points. The Lord Advocate in the same Debate said:—
  "The question of compulsory insurance has always presented itself to me under two aspects: Firstly, as an indispensable act of justice to a dispossessed publican: and, secondly, as a method of smoothing the path to proposing a no-licence resolution. It is on the latter aspect, of course, that it appeals to me most strongly."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 1st April, 1912. cols.953–4, Vol. XXXVI.]
  He went on to say that he was in favour of some method of insurance, but the forces of righteousness were too strong for him. He said that was a matter for the Committee; but in Committee it was blocked, and we were practically not allowed to deal with it. Hon. Members opposite will carry this Bill to-night, but they will carry it not by the temperance vote, but by the help of people who are in favour of other things altogether. They will carry it by the help of hon. Members from Ireland, although there is hardly a single Member amongst them who is really in favour of prohibition. I wonder how many of them are in favour of prohibition for Ireland? Yet they are going to vote for it in Scotland. Hon. Members should practice what they preach. How many of them would hold up their hands now to take the pledge as a real good example to 'Scotland? They are much more likely to go and drink toasts to Cabinet Ministers to show their confidence in them, probably in the wine of their own country or in the wine of France. Very seldom will you find at these great Liberal banquets toasts drunk in soda water or ginger beer. I submit that, hon. Members should practice what they preach before they attempt to impose a Bill of this description upon other people.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: The Noble Lord opposite has referred to this measure over and over again as a Prohibition Bill. I do not think that anyone on this side is in favour of prohibition by Act of Parliament. This is not a Prohibition Bill. It is not even a Temperance Bill. It does not say to anyone, "Thou shalt not drink." It makes no pretence of anything of the kind: It is not a "Close-the-bar" Bill.
  532
  It is as much a "Keep-the-bar-open" Bill. It allows the people of Scotland to keep the bars open for all time if they like. There is no reason why the Noble Lord should not carry on a propaganda in his own district to keep the bars open. This is a local option Bill. It proceeds upon the assumption that certain localities are ripe for reform before others.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Can we have more public-houses under this Bill?
  Dr. CHAPPLE: You can have the existing public-houses continued if you like for all time. The Bill is purely and simply a democratic measure under which you say to the people of the different localities, "If you wish to keep the bars open, keep them open; but if you wish to close them, no other people shall say that you shall not." Several Members opposite have asked us to compromise. What do they mean by compromise They mean, "Let us keep what we have, while you keep on conceding." We have been conceding all along the line. They begin by asking that in the contest they may take off the gloves. When we allow them to take off the gloves, they say. "We want you to compromise. Let us put on knuckle-dusters." Their demand is a constant attempt to wreck the Bill. It is not an honest attempt to compromise on the merits of the case. Take the Suggestions of the House of Lords. They were not to improve the Bill, not to make the principle more effective, not to give the people of Scotland a greater right, or to allow the right to be exercised with greater simplicity or fairness. They were simply an attempt to smash the Bill altogether. They proposed to include another option on the ballot paper. There are three under the Bill: Are you in favour of licences being continued; are you in favour of licences being reduced; are you in favour of licences being abolished? They wanted to put in a fourth—in other words, they wanted to split the vote. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I think they did. I believe that all those interested in the liquor traffic who supported the proposal did so from the motive that it would be a vote-splitting option. At any rate, if that was not the motive, it would certainly have that effect. If you ask people to vote for four candidates instead of three, the chances of one of the original three winning are reduced. The late Leader of the Opposition said, "We want to give Scotland a larger choice." Suppose you

  533
  had said that at the Derry election, and had nominated a Roman Catholic Nationalist. What would have been the result? Simply vote-splitting for the majority and a win for the minority. The choice, instead of being larger, would have been less. So it is in Scotland. If you put another option on the ballot paper, you will split the votes of the reformers. So much so is that the case that with the three existing issues there is the provision that in case "no licence" is not carried by a three-fifths majority, all those who vote "no licence" are added to those who vote for reduction. In that way you avoid the vote-splitting influence within the three issues. But to add a fourth option without making a similar provision is to make it impossible ever to get the 60 per cent, necessary to carry "no licence." Having told them that they are making no provision against the vote-splitting influence of that extra option they suggest numbering the options in the order of the voter's choice, but they examine "no licence" votes first and rule it out if they do not reach 60 per cent.
  If disinterested management were perfectly right and a good and wise reform, I would still oppose it because of the wrecking influence that it would have upon the other issues. We were asked to compromise by so weakening the measure that it would be ineffective altogether. Take the other suggestion of a time limit of ten years instead of five. If this were a prohibition, a close-the-bar measure, I would be willing to consider a time limit, but this is a local option measure and I am not going to deny the people of Scotland the opportunity of exercising their judgment for ten years. The insurance Amendment was also on wrecking lines. If an insurance system could be wholly detached from the Temperance Bill I should give it all the support in my power. If the trade wants to insure any of their number against the misfortune of having their licences taken away, I would be quite willing to support a distinct measure of insurance, but it would have to be detached entirely from the temperance measure. It is not part and parcel of a temperance measure and you should not have insurance attached to it. Throughout the whole of this controversy, we are opposed by those who are opposed in principle to the right of the people managing their own affairs in their several localities. In regard to the promise that this Bill holds out to Scotland. The sense of danger in the minds of those who oppose it is this: That if the
  534
  people of Scotland have the right to close the bars they would exercise that right and close them. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Why, then, oppose the Bill? If this is a Local Option Bill, why should you oppose it, if you think they will keep the public-houses open? As a matter of fact, you think they will close them. The evidence—and that evidence is easily got all over the country—is that the people are waking up to the idea that the prevalence of the facilities for getting drink increases the amount consumed. You believe that. The people believe that! If that is true, the chances are that the people of Scotland will wake up to the necessity of diminishing the temptation of young people to drink. An endeavour will be made to put into force this preventive measure. It will not cure drunkenness. It will not make people sober by Act of Parliament. But it will tend to prevent drunkards being made. The evidence that we have been able to accumulate from our Dominions Overseas and other countries shows that if you close the bars, to that extent you diminish the temptation to take drink. If you diminish the temptation to take drink you diminish the number of people who ultimately become addicted to drink. In short, decrease the facilities for getting drink, and you decrease the amount consumed. Decrease the amount consumed, and you decrease the crime, poverty, misery, disease, and premature death associated with the use of it.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. MACKINDERI should like to refer to a speech which was made a short time ago in debate by the hon. Member who sits for Paisley (Sir J. M. McCallum). The hon. Member painted for us heaven and hell in Scotland: Heaven in Paisley, hell at the Salt Market. The Salt Market is not quite in my Constituency, but it is next door to it. In doing that it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman voiced the main objection that many of us on this side have to the principle of local option. Are you quite sure that in making heaven locally you do not also make hell locally? Are you quite sure that Paisley is not to some extent responsible for the Salt Market? The tramway line is not a very long one between the two places. If you refuse to admit to heaven the sinner there is only one place for him to go to, and that is hell.
  Mr. JOYCE: What about purgatory?
  Mr. MACKINDER: You come to the second absurdity involved in this Bill—the voting for "no licence." You may get Paisley when it is cleaned out to vote for "no licence," but how are you going to get the Salt Market as a whole to vote for "no licence?" That is fundamentally our objection to the Bill. I do not think it could have been put more picturesquely than by the hon. Member for Paisley. We believe, to adopt his words, that the result of this Bill will be to give you heaven and hell locally, and in patches in different parts of the country; and in proportion as you shut the sinner out of heaven you shut him out of all prospect of heaven, and he will therefore continue only to have hell. He will then revert, we may feel pretty certain, to the only consolation that hell can give him, and he most certainly will not vote for a removal of that consolation by carrying your "no licence" measure. That is not an exaggerated way to put it! I am simply putting it that way for the purpose of my argument, and in the phraseology of the hon. Gentleman who spoke to us with such eloquence and power, and with such love, as he put it, for this measure. That is fundamentally our objection to the Bill. But we go to deeper matters than that. We object to local tyranny.
  The hon. Gentleman opposite who has just spoken, with many others, said lie wished to leave the decision to the people of the locality. Are they quite sure they mean that? Have they analysed the meaning of their words? By the people of the locality they mean the majority. They do not mean the people as a whole; they are going to leave to the majorities in the district the power of doing—what? In a single parish there may be only a single public-house. The majority will have the power, not to decide a general question of legislation in the way we legislate supremely in this House, but in a subordinate capacity they are to settle the administrative question: a question which contains judicial aspects and which involves consideration of the way in which that particular public-house has been conducted. That is a question which may very easily in a parish of a few hundred inhabitants involve matters of personal spite and personal feeling. Precisely to eliminate all that we have established in our system of justice in this country. If justice and freedom mean anything, it is not justice and freedom for the majority, but for the
  536
  minority. We do not consider that is the position that you are seeking to establish. I believe your Bill, to a large extent, will be a dead letter, and that the position you are seeking to establish is one of local tyranny. You say that your sole object is to enable the people of a locality—and you mean the majority—to say they shall not drink. They will say to those whom this Bill would affect, "Thou shalt not drink, but I shall drink at home or in my club."
  Dr. CHAPPLE: That is not in the Bill.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I cannot help that. The Bill will not remove the fact.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: The Bill says, "Thou shalt not sell."
  Mr. MACKINDER: I think I am quoting the hon. Member's words. He said, "Thou shalt not drink." He said the very object of the Bill was that in a particular district they should say to the people, "Thou shalt not drink."
  Dr. CHAPPLE: No, no. What I said was the Bill did not say, "Thou shalt not drink "; I was not in favour of that. I said this Bill says, "Thou shalt not sell," unless the people will it.
  Mr. MACKINDER: It is a question of splitting hairs. So far as I can see, "Thou shalt not sell" is equivalent to saying, "Thou shalt not drink." The hon. Member's own contention is that by reducing the number of those who buy drink you will reduce the amount of drink consumed. When you say, "Thou shalt not sell," you are effectively saying, "Thou shalt not drink." If that be the case, you are putting it in the hands of the majority to tyrannise over the people of the district not in a legislative, but in an administrative way. There would be included in that majority a considerable number of those who, like himself, are able to drink in their own houses or in their clubs. Simply by being a majority in any particular district they are able to say, "We want a pleasant district; we want to be rid of a nuisance; we want to throw that nuisance into a neighbouring district; we do not care if we make hell of that district if only we make heaven of ours. So long as we have our district free from the public-house we do not care what happens to our neighbour, or what the result will be." You are attempting to establish a system of local tyranny, and I use the word advisedly, because it is.

  537
  tyranny, which is brought to bear upon single individuals, the tenant of a public-house in the parish which has only one public-house, and as a result of an agitation which may involve questions of a personal character, which ought to be subject to judicial investigation. As I ventured to say on a former occasion, you are attempting to convert into Marconi Committees all those parishes of Scotland. You are handing over to a non-judicial popular authority these matters which it is not capable of dealing with. I am totally opposed to the principle of this Bill. The hon. Member for Paisley read out the short title of the Bill. Although it is of considerable length, still it passes for a short title, yet, curiously, it leaves out to a large extent the permanent essential principle around which our contest is waged, namely, that of local option. I thoroughly and profoundly disbelieve in the principle of local option. I know that, for the moment, certain Members from Scotland, who are in the majority, though they do not represent the same majority of electors in Scotland, having been steam-rolled, have agreed to give up their opposition of that Bill of last year, when they prayed that the Whips should be taken off. In order to keep the Government in power, and not to jeopardise their holidays, they will agree to the conditions which are imposed upon them, and go submissively into the Lobby together. Half of them do not believe in the fundamental principles which are involved in this Bill, and I say, unhesitatingly, I am totally and absolutely opposed to it. Apart from that, I contend I am just as much an advocate of temperance as they are. They believe in tyrannical methods. They believe in saying, "No, thou shalt not." I believe in constructive methods. The rose has its thorns. Your idea is to get rid of the thorns. You are thinking of the thorn all the time and destroying the rose.
  It is quite inevitable, human nature being what it is, that human beings shall wish to live, not the dour, sour life that you would impose upon them, but something with social light and warmth in it, and I believe that if you go counter to that natural human propensity for social life and all that makes for the elegance, the leisure, and the beauty of life, you will have a reaction which will sweep your Bill, and you with it, completely away. Throughout history you have the same experience. Wherever you resort to these
  538
  tyrannical methods, and attempt to drill morality into the people, the last state of the people is worse than the first. The only method in my opinion by which you can permanently cure these propensities which you are attempting, as I am, to stop, is by recognising that vice has an aspect which is an exaggeration of virtue. You must recognise the social propensities of men and provide for them. What is the present situation? It is that your magistrates have reduced to the mere condition of drinking hells the public-houses which they licence in the place of permitting them to be what they ought to be, free and open clubs with no entrance fee, similar to what they have in certain countries, which are free from that which has cursed our present system. If you had public-houses with windows right down to the ground, glazed over the whole front, so that the whole of the people might see what was going on within; if you permitted games of an ordinary social character; if you allowed men to go there with their wives and children; if you had family gatherings there; if you allowed some escape from the narrow conditions of the ordinary working man's life, you would do something real and permanent for temperance.
  The curse of the present system is the narrow view which you have managed to impose upon your party. A small element consisting of bigots dictates the policy. This small minority sell their votes now, and impose upon Ministers and upon candidates where there are small majorities, the stern necessity of bringing forward the Bills which they advocate, and which the majority do not believe in. That is the fundamental position under our present electoral system. It is nod the thousand men on one side who have studied the conditions and incline one way, or the one thousand men on the other side who have also studied the condition and incline to the other way who have the power. These two thousand balance one another, but then there come in the bigots, like the small minorities of this teetotal party, and they sell their votes and they decide on which side the majority shall be, and the result is that we are ruled not by the common sense and not by the general feeling of the country we are ruled by extremists and bigots and purblind men. The consequence is that we shall put upon the Statute Book legislation which will become the laughing-stock

  539
  of history. For that reason I oppose the Third Reading and support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
  Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Member who has just sat down has delivered a very eloquent and somewhat violent speech, and has used a good deal of picturesque nomenclature. I do not intend to follow him in that particular direction. Perhaps he will forgive me for saying that the speech which he has delivered would have been more apposite if it had been delivered thirty years ago, on the first occasion when a Bill substantially in the same terms as this was proposed in the House. A good deal of water has flowed under the bridges since that time. The hon. Member has made a speech which shows that he has been both deaf and blind to all recent history in connection with this proposal. He has forgotten that for many years, both in this House and in Scotland, the country and the House have pronounced unhesitatingly in favour of this measure. He has forgotten the very recent history of this Bill in the House. I could not help thinking as I listened that the speech which he was making was in very marked contrast to the very pacific speeches which we listened to only a few weeks ago on the Second Reading of this Bill from that side of the House. On that occasion we were informed that the principle of the Bill at least for the purposes of argument, was being accepted by the Opposition. We were told on that occasion that hon. Members opposite would not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, founded, as we are now told, upon a most vicious principle, and that they would swallow their convictions and swallow the Bill, not as an agreeable draught, but as a nauseous dose to be taken with a wry face.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Hear hear.
  Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Baronet opposite evidently approves of that view, and that position was very clearly taken up and expressed by many hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member silo has just spoken. They declared that they were prepared to vote for the Second Reading of a Bill embodying this vicious principle only a few weeks ago, but to-night the hon. Member for Camlachie has told us that he is thoroughly and profoundly opposed to the principle of this Bill and disbelieves in it entirely. What is the reason of this change of attitude between
  540
  the Second and Third Reading of this Bill? The real secret is that while the Opposition were prepared to accept the principle of this Bill on the Second Reading, they will not vote for the Third Reading because they cannot get their way with regard to the application of that principle as set forth in this measure. Surely that is more political petulance than statesmanship in the case of those who adopted that attitude so short a time ago and have reversed it now What is the real situation with regard to this measure? It is too late to make speeches impugning the principle, because in Scotland for a very long time Bills in substantially the same terms as this measure have been approved of by large majorities of the representative bodies in Scotland and by large majorities in this House as well. Now the hon. Member opposite comes forward at the eleventh hour and says, "We will not have your Bill unless you include in it certain proposals made in another place, which are three in number." We are entitled to ask—what evidence have you that the people in Scotland desire that the Amendments proposed in another place should be embodied in this Bill? I think the answer is that there is no such evidence. We have heard a great deal about disinterested management, but I would like to ask any hon. Member opposite who represents a Scottish constituency how many petitions he has received in favour of that proposal? I would also like to ask in how many constituencies do hon. Members opposite think they could carry a resolution in favour of that particular principle being introduced into this Bill?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Speaking for myself, I have received dozens of such petitions.
  Mr. MUNRO: I think the hon. Baronet opposite has been more fortunate, or perhaps I should say less fortunate, than some of his colleagues.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: fought a teetotaler and a Liberal at the last election on the principle of this Bill, and I beat him handsomely.
  Captain CAMPBELL: May I say that I have had a similar experience in this matter to that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs.
  Mr. MUNRO: I do not want to continue the controversy, but I should like

  541
  very much to know the source of many of these representations. Many of them, no doubt, have been of an official character, but I repeat: Does any hon. Member who represents Scotland on the other side of the House think for a moment that the proposal to import into the Bill the principle of disinterested management would pass his executive committee if it were proposed there to-night or tomorrow? I do not believe that there is one Member sitting on that side of the House any more than there is on this side who could answer that question in the affirmative. In these circumstances, I venture to urge upon the Secretary for Scotland that he will make no concession with regard to the matters which the House of Lords introduced into the Bill last year. If he does so, I am quite certain that he will disappoint enlightened public opinion in Scotland. I am perfectly confident that he will alienate his best friends, and I am equally confident that he will delight some of his bitterest enemies if he does so. He has, so far, remained unmoved, either by coaxing or bullying in the matter, and it is unthinkable on this side of the House that he should retrace his steps and abandon the position which we rejoice that he occupies.
  The alternatives before us are perfectly clear. The one alternative is that we should pass this Bill under the Parliament Act and wait for a year before getting it. The other is that we should accept those Amendments, embody them in the Bill, and pass the Bill so amended. We have no difficulty in making our choice. So far as the first alternative is concerned—I speak perfectly frankly, and speak only for myself—there is the possibility, before the Bill matures under the Parliament Act, of the demise of the present Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I said the "possibility." That is a risk that we are quite willing to undertake. So far as the other alternative is concerned, there is the certainty, not the possibility, that the Bill would prove a quite ineffective weapon of reform and would be a bitter disappointment to those who have been its good arid staunch friends for very many years. So much for our attitude. What of your attitude? May I put this question to any Scottish Member who sits on the other side of the House and who is probably going to vote against the Third Reading to-night. Is he quite certain that he correctly expresses the views of his
  542
  constituents, who for the sake of argument he is prepared to admit favour a Bill founded upon this principle, when he takes action with the full purpose, if possible, of destroying the Bill rather than accepting it in the form in which it is proposed on this side of the House?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Yes, certainly.
  Mr. MUNRO: The Noble Lord is always certain of everything, but I venture to remind him that when the Bill was in another place, a Noble Lord, whose authority and information on this subject he will not dispute, said that it would be a calamity if, even in its present form, the Bill were lost. In these circumstances, our attitude is perfectly clear. It is to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, and, if Scottish Members on the other side decide to vote against it, the consequences are their own affair.
  Mr. CLYDE: We have arrived at the final stage of the discussion of this Bill in its second year. As far as I can gather from the remarks of the hon. Member for Wick Burghs he has learned nothing from these discussions. His attitude is the attitude which best becomes the most uncompromising advocates of the extreme teetotal position—the position that they will have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. They will consider neither what is just and fair to the general public, nor what is indispensable to the fair treatment of the publican. There are two things which, so far as I am concerned, have always been paramount in my mind about the acceptance of this Bill. What do you ask me to do as an ordinary citizen —and I can only judge what you ask of my fellow citizens by considering how it appeals to me—what do you ask me by this Bill to do to my fellow citizens on the one hand and to the persons whose property and interests are engaged in a particular form of trade on the other? The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs addresses this House as if there was a clear issue always between the man who who stood up for the publican and the man who stood up for the temperance reform movement. If that is his opinion he has thoroughly misunderstood his countrymen.
  I am not opposed to temperance reform. But it is your habit on public platforms to say that we are. I have had plenty of experience of that. You represent us always as tied to the trade, as standing up for the publican. The hon. Member for

  543
  the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) is even now inclined to assent to that. But in his mind he knows that there are others beside those who hold extreme views, whose minds have been fully alive to the appalling ravages of the particular evil which he is devoting all his zeal to combat, and I hope I can be fairer to him than he apparently wishes to be to me. Notwithstanding all that—if in his charity he can see his way to make room for it—notwithstanding that many of those who oppose him on this question would lend him a hand in the promotion of temperance reform, there remain two considerations which, so far as I am concerned, I cannot rid either my mind or my conscience of, and these are, my duty to my ordinary fellow citizens, and my duty to that particular class of fellow citizens who happen to be the victims of your particular legislative scheme.
  Just observe what you are asking me to do. You are asking me to exercise this franchise in the particular ward of the burgh in which I live or in the parish of the county in which I reside. You are asking me to help to decide by my vote whether other people, who surely are as much entitled to regulate their own lives as I claim to be to regulate mine—you are asking me to tell these people that they shall not have power over their own lives. The hon. Member for Stirling gets out of it by saying that this is not a Bill to prevent people drinking in an area, but its object is to prevent people selling drink in an area. How do you think they can get drink except by buying it? Yet the object of this scheme is to make it difficult or impossible for them to buy it. If the extremists had their way I suppose the total area of the country that might be covered by the "No Licence" Resolution is as wide as the country itself. Do not let us deceive ourselves. You are asking me to undertake to tell my fellow citizens in the same ward or the same parish that they shall not drink a glass of beer or whisky. If it is not that, what does it mean except that I am to find my place among the moral cowards who know that they can buy their own drink elsewhere and keep it in their cupboards, while the working man can only get his drink at the public-house! Others can do that; I shall not. The only relief from a situation which I tell the House frankly, so far as I am concerned, would be intolerable—the only relief from that situation is, we are told, to be
  544
  found in the direction of that other option, which, we are told, is the split vote. Splitting the vote between what? I thought this was a case where there was to be public freedom of choice. What do you mean by splitting the vote? If you mean splitting the vote between "no drink" and "some drink," I understand you. But you cannot stand up for the Bill on that basis. If you mean splitting the vote in the sense that in place of three options there are four, what do you mean by splitting the vote? The expression "splitting the vote" and the argument against splitting the vote arises where there is a clean vote between black and white, or between "A" and "B," and somebody steps in and says, "Try 'C'; it is a middle course." That is not this Bill. This Bill has three options as it is.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: There is a provision in the Bill in order to prevent those three options splitting the vote. The provision is that if "no licence" is not carried by the 60 per cent., those who voted "no licence" have their votes added to reduction. In that way you prevent confusion of the three issues, and there is no splitting of the vote.
  Mr. HOGGE: Yes, there is.
  Mr. CLYDE: Never was there a more flimsy, and I will say a less intelligent, objection urged to an argument than that. The hon. Member can only make it out by saying that there never was a proposal to treat the votes for disinterested management on the same principle as the votes for reduction are treated in the Bill.
  Mr. HOGGE: That is not so.
  Mr. CLYDE: That is not so, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) says. It is not so at all. Therefore, the last remnant, so far as I understand, of justification for the position which the hon. Member for Stirling took up on this point disappears.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: Does the hon. and learned Member say that there will be a provision or that a provision has been suggested analogous to the one in the Bill for preventing the votes being split, if a fourth option is added?
  Mr. CLYDE: I cannot charge my memory at this moment with the precise proposal.
  Mr. HOGGE: Proportional representation.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: That would not affect "no licence."
  Mr. CLYDE: So far as I am concerned, I cannot charge my mind at this moment with the various forms these proposals have taken, but this I do know, that the form which these proposals have taken certainly did not exclude a provision of that kind, and so far I know anything about them, in my mind, and in the minds of many of those who approved of that option, there was certainly nothing antagonistic to the inclusion of a proposal of that kind. I quite admit that I cannot change my mind upon the matter at the present time. So much for the public and for the attitude of mind which, so far as a great many people who believe like myself are concerned, makes it simply impossible, if one has any regard for the principles of liberty at all, to have anything to do with a proposal which, starkly and without limitation, asks one to take one's part in telling other people how they are to conduct their lives. That is as much their business as it is mine, and, please God, so long as I shall be able to control it, so it shall be mine.
  Look at the other aspect of the question, that aspect which touches not the public but the publican. I know he is a common football for all extreme temperance reformers. I do not want to be unfair about that, but, after all, they very often talk as if it were so. I understand that there is still some difference of view remaining between the Secretary for Scotland and. the Lord Advocate. I have said what I have to say about that before, and I am not going to say anything about it again, except that I notice that the Secretary for Scotland resented somewhat warmly what I said this afternoon about what I understood to be his attitude towards the question of making some provision for fair treatment of the publican.
  Mr. McKINNON WOODdissented.
  Mr. CLYDE: If I misrepresented the Tight hon. Gentleman I am sure I did not 'misinterpret the Lord Advocate, for precisely in the.same Debate, the Second Reading Debate last year, I am perfectly certain, for within the last few minutes I have read it over, that the Lord Advocate, whom I think I heard say a moment ago that he was not conscious of any difference with the Secretary for Scotland—
  Mr. URE: About this Bill.
  Mr. CLYDE: About this Bill—I should be sorry to extend the matter unduly—certainly said that so far as his view was concerned the provision of some means of fair treatment for the publican was absolutely indispensable, and he certainly invited us to consider this proposal upstairs. To be quite serious, once more, what do you ask me to do as an elector in my ward or parish? I am going to make the assumption that I think there are far too many public-houses in my ward or parish. The assumption is, if you will, that I think there ought to be none, though I doubt very much if I should reach that view, but it is quite likely that I should reach the view that there are too many. Having reached that view you ask me to cast a vote in the ballot box under this Bill which will have the direct and immediate effect of taking away from 25 per cent. of the people in my ward in Edinburgh or in my parish in the county of Kinross, the business that they have conducted for years, the means of livelihood by which they live; and which will involve the forfeiture of the capital they have put into it. Even if you were to tell me that it was certain that I would do a great deal of good to a lot of people in that ward or parish, I should absolutely refuse to accomplish that purpose by either taking away from these people their business or annihilating the capital which they put into it. I should do so because I think it is monstrously unfair that in order to try and do some good you should victimise certain individuals. You are certain of the harm you will do. You are only perspective and speculative about the good you may do.
  I have tried to put that perfectly clearly from the practical point of view, from the point of view of one to whom the Bill is going to apply. How anybody who was brought up in the traditions of liberty can put his hand to this Bill without making provision, on the one hand, in some such direction as disinterested management without either a reasonable solution of the problem with regard to our fellow citizens and their right to regulate their own lives, or, on the other hand, with regard to some fair form of insurance or compensation or extended time limit, or whatever you will, to make the thing applicable without gross injustice to those whose livelihood and capital depend on the business, I cannot understand at all. I perfectly understand the attitude of the hon. and learned Gentle-

  547
  man (Mr. Munro) or the hon. Member (Sir W. Menzies), both of whom let the cat out of the bag. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Munro) said the temperance organisations were the backbone of the Liberal organisations. I quite understand that. That is intelligible. But the less the hon. Member talks about political petulence in these circumstances the better. I quite understand the point of view of the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire, who says that no Liberal candidate need hope to stand in Scotland unless he swallows this Bill. It is a powerful argument, but it is not very eloquent of the opinion of the people of Scotland, and of those who talk glibly about the opinion of the people of Scotland, and who challenge us, for example, as to what success we would have if we went to the electors with a proposition that we would not swallow the Bill as it stands. There is nothing that I have stated more clearly than that while I feel, and everybody feels who considers the question, that the idea of local option has a great deal of attraction about it, and, it may be, a great deal that might be useful, there are only two conditions on which it could fairly be given effect to. These are, on the one hand, that by a system of disinterested management you should provide some palliative at all events for the monstrous interference with the right of everyone to conduct his own business, and, on the other hand, that there should be some means—I think there are many ways by which it could be done, and I admit that they are all different—of doing what is only fair and just to the publican who is going to be dispossessed.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a little difference that arose between himself and myself, and between the Noble Lord and myself when he repeated the same statement later on in the discussion. Both the hon. and learned Member and the Noble Lord represented me as saying that there was a strong demand for compulsory insurance. I have not the exact words of the hon. and learned Member, but the Noble Lord stated that I said there was a strong demand by the people of Scotland. The Noble Lord was good enough to tell me the speech he referred to. I find that a considerable portion of the speech dealt with compulsory insurance, and that I made it abundantly clear that I was convinced that a very large portion of the trade were not
  548
  in favour of compulsory insurance. If the Noble Lord will refer to the words which precede those he referred to, he will find that was put in unmistakable language. I referred to the scheme brought forward by the hon. Baronet in 1910, and I reminded the House that when he brought it forward he received many letters against his own scheme from the members of the trade. It was quite evident that he had not the support of the trade.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: That was long ago.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I said it was in 1910. It appears, therefore, that there is a great difference of opinion as to the proposal of compulsory mutual insurance. The Noble Lord quoted a sentence from my speech in which I stated that there was a demand for compulsory mutual insurance, but he put in some words of his own which—
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I asked him to couple that sentence with what the Lord Advocate said in order to get at the proper meaning.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A most extraordinary way of interpreting a speech ! That is a novel kind of criticism, and it is not of a very satisfactory description. If the Noble Lord had read the next sentence he would have seen from where that demand proceeded. It was from the Scottish Mutual Insurance Association, which naturally wanted compulsory insurance that would add to their business—small blame to them ! I did not criticise them That was the demand I spoke of, and the demand from a section of the trade. That small point, which I have now disposed of, shows how dangerous it is to quote isolated sentences from a speech. Even the best reports cannot be altogether trusted. I remember once having the honour to reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. There was a question of settling some small matter by Order in Council. The hon. Baronet said that this was reverting to the Star Chamber, to which I replied that that was rather exaggerated language, for the only thing, after all, that had got to be settled was the question of small fringes of area, but the OFFICIAL REPORT, which was "Hansard" in those days, made me put the thing in this way: "This was an exaggeration of language, for the only thing that had to be settled was a very small question, only the question of female franchise."
  I have always felt that

  549
  it was very dangerous to take detached sentences. I always strive to take the general tenour and meaning of a speech. The hon. and learned Gentleman accused my hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs of having learned nothing. I have learned something from this Debate—that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been just as much opposed to this Bill if we had accepted the Lords Amendments as he is now, because his objection to the Bill is that it contains the principle of local option and. if we had accepted the House of Lords Amendments it would still have contained that principle. If there are four options instead of three, it may be true that it would be more difficult to carry any one of them. Still it contains the principle of local option, and that is what the hon. and learned Member condemns in unqualified terms.
  He said, in a passage of immense eloquence and energy, that it was a proposal that he should establish himself as the master of the people and dictate to them what they were to drink. That might be an objection to some other Bill. It has nothing to do with the present Bill. The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University found fault with some of those on this side of the House for not having read the Bill, but he revealed the fact very soon that he had not read it himself, because lie said that 16 per cent. of the people could carry either reduction or veto.He talked about a minority carrying reduction or veto. That is quite an abuse of language. You have got to get a majority, and that majority has to represent a very substantial proportion of the electorate on the roll. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not of the people."] Not of the children. Under this Bill you have to obtain such a majority in order to carry a Veto Resolution that not one of us would like to have to obtain such a majority to become a representative in Parliament. I wonder how many of us would fail to qualify under the conditions of this Bill. The whole weight is against those who want to get prohibition under this Bill. They have got to get a three-fifths majority of those voting, and that majority must not be less than 30 per cent. of the electorate. That means a very considerable proportion of those voting. The number of people voting at school board or local elections would not carry either.
  This Bill has been persistently misrepresented, I think persistently misunderstood,
  550
  because I do not think that it has been wilfully misrepresented, but it has been entirely misunderstood. The fact is that the Bill gives very great safeguards to the licence holder. I have learned this, that the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite is not based upon the fact that we have not accepted disinterested management, or compulsory insurance. The Opposition is to the root principle of the Bill. "I am against it," said the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, "root and branch. In this Bill I profoundly and thoroughly disbelieve." He went on with much eloquence, but some confusion of metaphor, to compare a public-house to the rose. He spoke of it as "the abode of beauty and elegance." I have never heard a public-house described in such eloquent and glowing terms. Most people apologise for the public-house as a necessity, but the hon. Member thinks it is a rose, and the abode of beauty and elegance. No wonder he objects to its being interfered with. Then another hon. Member opposite asked us to look at the thing fair and square. It is the old fight. The hon. Member for Glasgow University said that the reason why temperance legislation was passed was because we get the assistance of people who belong to temperance organisations; that they are very active people accustomed to organising, and that they went to the agents of the Liberal party and said, "Now, if you support temperance legislation, we will give you the aid of our valuable organisation." And so legislation was carried. That is the picture on one side. Is there no influence of the trade at elections? The hon. Gentleman who is the representative of the university sits high above these things. But there has been treating. There has been a great deal of influence on the part of the trade at elections. The influence is being exerted here to-day. And one of the reasons of the opposition to the Temperance (Scotland) Bill is because the English trade think it might be a pattern for an English measure. The hon. Member for Midlothian brought forward an extraordinary argument, and so did the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member always addresses the House with much eloquence and skill, but I do not think I ever heard an argument quite so bad as his this afternoon. He seems to think that the fact of his representing a Conservative constituency which has not supported temperance legislation proves that Scotland is against it. Let me paint out that there is a very large

  551
  number of Members who represent a group of constituencies, and who are in favour of local option, and even Members on that side of the House who come forward and seek to obtain votes at a Scottish election have, with the hon. Member for Midlothian, at least to render lip service to the cause of temperance. What did the hon. Member tell us in an argument against the Bill? Surely it was the most curious argument in the world. He said that when he fought Midlothian he appreciated that a large majority of the Scottish people demanded temperance reform? He told the hecklers that he was in favour of the Bill, and he said that they did not heckle him any more.
  Major HOPE: I said provided that the areas for the Bill were enlarged, and that a scheme of insurance provided by the trade itself was introduced into the measure.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I know the hon. Member said the area was to be enlarged, and we have agreed with the other House in that matter.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Not as regards the wards.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Does the hon. Baronet think that if you increase a town you do not automatically increase the area of the wards?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Not necessarily.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know that there is any exception. Speaking generally, you cannot increase the limit of population without automatically increasing the size of the wards. The important thing is that he said he was in favour of the principle of the Bill, and he is the only Member opposite who said he was in favour of the principle of local option. But, surely, the situation is clear'. I forget the exact numbers, but, it is something like eight or nine to one of those who represent Scotland who are not only in favour of
  the principle of the Bill, but who put it forward at every election, and know in this matter they represent the opinion of Scotland. Of this thing I am sure, and that is that Scotland wants to see this principle of local option tried. Hon. Members say that the veto will not be carried. Very well, that will depend on the will of the people. If the people take the view they desire them to take, there will be no veto. Does any hon. Member opposite deny what the Royal Commission many years ago, even the Majority of them, admitted, that in many parts of Scotland there are far too many public-houses, and that the excessive number of licences is a direct incitement to temptation to drink. If that is the opinion of the people of Scotland they will use this Bill for the reduction of the number of licences. Hon. Members want this principle of local option. I do not think it is necessary to say any more upon this subject. I had hoped this controversy might be closed. I should have thought it was in the interests of the trade as well as of the people of Scotland that this matter should be settled, but I am afraid that the matter will have to go on. I do not know what will happen in another place, and I will not attempt to forecast their action in the matter, but I do hope that counsels of more conciliation will prevail. We have had no conciliation offered us from hon. Members opposite.
  Major HOPE: Have you offered any?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, I met all the Amendments I could meet, but I am not prepared to give up the principle of the Bill, and if anything is plain from this Debate and from the best Debate we had this Session on this Bill, it is that nothing will conciliate hon. Members opposite except the surrender of the principle of local option.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 166.

  Division No. 189.]

  AYES

  [10.59 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Adamson, William

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Boland, John Plus

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Barnes, George N.

  Booth. Frederick Handel

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Alden, Percy

  Barton, William

  Brace, William

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Brocklehurst. W. B.

  Armitage, Robert

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Arnold, Sydney

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Jardine, Sir J, (Roxburgh)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Hey wood)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, Leil Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Clough, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Clynes, John R.

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Kelly, Edward

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Radford, G. H.

  Cowan, W. H.

  King, Joseph

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Crooks, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Reddy, Michael

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cullinan, John

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

  Leach, Charles

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbifjhs)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneslde)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robinson, Sidney

  Dillon, John

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Dons, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

  McGhee, Richard

  Rowlands, James

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Maclean, Donald

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Edwards. Sir Francis (Radnor)

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Elverston, Sir Harolil

  Macpherson, James Ian

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wextord, N.)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Firench, Peter

  Manfield, Harry

  Sheehy, David

  Field, William

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Shortt, Edward

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Martin, Joseph

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Smyth, Thomas F. {Leitrim, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  Snowden, Philip

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Sutherland, John E.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Middlebrook, William

  Sutton, John

  Goldstone, Frank

  Millar, James Duncan

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Molloy, Michael

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Tennant, Harold John

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Allred

  Thomas, James Henry

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mooney, John J.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hackett, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hancock, John Georue

  Morrell, Philip

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Harcourt, R1. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Morison, Hector

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Muldoon, John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Munro, Robert

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Webb, H.

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

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Needham, Christopher T.

  White, Patrick (Heath, North)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Hayward, Evan

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Hazieton, Richard

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Wiles, Thomas

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Nuttall, Harry

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wor s.,)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hinds, John

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Winfrey, Richard

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E, H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Hodge, John

  O'Grady, James

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

  Hogge, James Myles

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Malley, William

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Horns, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Palmer, Godlrey Mark

  554

  555

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Forster, Henry William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

  Greens, Walter Raymond

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

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

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barnston, Harry

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Royds, Edmund

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Lawrence

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Sandys, G. J.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Hickman, Cornel Thomas E.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hills, John Waller

  Stanier, Beville

  Bird, Alfred

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Blair, Reginald

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Boles, Lieut.- Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Stewart, Gershom

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Swift, Rigby

  Boyton, James

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Sykes, Alan, John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Burn. Colonel C. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Butcher, John George

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Terrell, George (Wilts. N.W.)

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Jessell, Captain H. M.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerry, Earl of

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kintoch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Cave, George

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

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent. Mid)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Locker-Lsmpson, O. (Ramsey)

  White, Major G. D. (Lanes.. Southport)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  LcckWood. Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Winterton, Earl

  Croft, Henry Page

  M'Mordie, Robert James

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Dixon, C. H.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Doughty, Sir George

  Morison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Younger, Sir George

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Fells, Bertram Godfray

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Eyres-Monsell and Major Henderson.

  Fell, Arthur

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Adjourned at Twelve minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Clyde Rubber Works.
  Clyde Rubber Works.
  Army Institutes.
  Army Institutes.
  Special Reserve (India).
  Special Reserve (India).
  Suffragist Prisoners.
  Suffragist Prisoners.
  Gold Coast (Messrs. Lever Brothers).
  Gold Coast (Messrs. Lever Brothers).
  Traffic in Worn-out Horses.
  Traffic in Worn-out Horses.
  Tuberculosis (Animals).
  Tuberculosis (Animals).
  Hops Bill.
  Hops Bill.
  Vaccination Officers.
  Vaccination Officers.
  Legal Profession (Admission of Women) Bill.
  Legal Profession (Admission of Women) Bill.
  Limerick Jurors.
  Limerick Jurors.
  Hollesley Bay Farm Colony.
  Hollesley Bay Farm Colony.
  Parish Council Elections.
  Parish Council Elections.
  Local Government Board (Staff).
  Local Government Board (Staff).
  Post Office Counter Clerks and Telegraphists.
  Post Office Counter Clerks and Telegraphists.
  Imperial Wireless Chain.
  Imperial Wireless Chain.
  Invalided Postal Employés.
  Invalided Postal Employés.
WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

TITCHFIELD DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
RHONDDA TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 16) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
BLYTH AND COWPEN GAS BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

ASCOT AUTHORITY BILL. [H.L.]
The KING'S consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
(Kingstown Order.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDER.)
Reported without amendment.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. [H.L.]
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow, and Standing Order No.XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday the 21 st instant (The Earl Beauchamp). (No. 106).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911 (PART II UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE).
The Special Exclusion (Stone Carvers and Sculptors) Order, 1913, dated 2nd July, 1913, made by the Board of Trade under Part II of the Act: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 107.)

PRIZE COMPETITIONS (PROHIBITION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order for Second Reading on Monday next, discharged.
POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Administration of the Poor Law as to married women—Was presented by the Earl Russell; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 108.)

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg to give notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill I shall move as an Amendment—
"That this House declines to proceed with the consideration of the Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country."
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendment proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

CROWN LANDS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Execution of instruments on behalf of Commissioners of Woods.
1.—(1) Any instrument requiring to be executed by the Commissioners of Woods or any two or one of them or to which they or he are or is a party may be executed by any permanent secretary of His Majesty's Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues on behalf of the Commissioners of Woods, and if so executed shall be deemed to have been executed by the Commissioners of Woods and shall have effect accordingly.
(2) Any instrument purporting to be so executed shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been duly executed by the Commissioners of Woods without proof of the official character or handwriting of the person appearing to have executed it.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): I move, before the word "instrument" at the beginning of subsection (1) and also at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert the words "deed or other." These two Amendments are necessary because the word "instrument" is not a term used in Scottish jurisprudence.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after ("any") insert ("deed or other")
Clause 1, page 1, line 12, after ("any") insert ("deed or other").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 109.)

HERRING FISHERY (BRANDING) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
LORD LUCAS: The whole of the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper are purely drafting Amendments, so that I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I move them quite formally.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 22, leave out ("Before making any such Order")
Clause 1, page 1, line 23, leave out ("the") and insert ("any such")
Clause 1, page 2, lines 4 and 5, leave out from ("gallons") to the end of the clause and insert as a new subsection:
"(4) For the purposes of this Act the expression 'barrel' includes half-barrel when the context permits."—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 14, after ("be") insert ("liable to be").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 2, line 23, after ("be") insert ("liable to be").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Amendment moved:
Clause 4, page 2, line 29, leave out ("or half-barrels").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Amendments moved—
Clause 6, page 3, line 16, at beginning insert ("In England, Wales or Ireland")
Clause 6, page 3, line 17, leave out ("sentence") and insert ("order")
Clause 6, page 3, line 18, after ("Quarter Sessions") insert ("in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Acts").—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 110.)

THE INDEBTEDNESS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE THE EARL OF DUNMORE rose to move for a Return showing—

(a) the limitations placed by various Acts of Parliament upon the borrowing powers of each class of local authority in the United Kingdom, specifying each local authority separately; and

(b) the cases in which by subsequent Public Acts of Parliament provision has been made whereby money for various purposes is to be excluded from being reckoned as part of the debt of a local authority for the purposes of the limitation on borrowing previously imposed by Parliament; and

806

(c) the cases in which by private legislation the borrowing powers of any local authority have been extended beyond the powers allowed under the general law.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to preface my remarks by saying that this Motion is not dictated by any spirit of antagonism or even necessarily of criticism. There are many members of this House who have had considerable experience in local government and I have no doubt possess a much more intimate knowledge of local finance than I can pretend to, and I think they will endorse my words when I say that the great increase in the outstanding loans of local authorities during recent years is a matter which demands the serious consideration of Parliament. Local finance is a somewhat complex subject, and I think it is apt to be more complex, certainly more difficult to follow, if one plunges into a mass of figures. I therefore propose to quote only two sets of figures in order to indicate the extent of local indebtedness.
The first comparison is with regard to National Debt and Local Debt. For the year ended March 31, 1912, the nominal amount of the funded National Debt was £602,000,000; for the year 1909–10, which is the latest period for which the figures are obtainable, the outstanding loans of the local authorities of the United Kingdom amounted to £620,000,000. Apparently, therefore, the Local Debt was something like £20,000,000 over the National Debt. In that same year the loans of the local authorities of England and Wales amounted to £536,000,000; the valuation of England and Wales for the Poor Rate was less than £216,000,000. Therefore the indebtedness of the local authorities was about two and a-half times the amount of the Poor Rate valuation.
A great deal of this indebtedness is due to the action of Parliament in constantly adding to the purposes for which local authorities may borrow. Indeed, a great deal of the responsibility for local indebtedness rests on legislation which the local authorities are called upon to carry out, and it is for this reason that I venture to call the attention of the House to the methods on which Parliament is proceeding. As indicated in paragraph (a) of my Motion, various Acts of Parliament place

807
a limitation on the borrowing powers of local authorities; but these limitations vary for different local authorities, and are spread over a considerable number of Acts of Parliament. Therefore it is very difficult—in fact, it is almost impossible—to get a general view of the position. For instance, the expenditure of the local authorities is limited under the Public Health Acts of England and Wales so that the total loans shall not exceed the assessable value for two years of the premises assessable within the district of the local authority. As your Lordships are aware, there is a great deal of miscellaneous expenditure thrown upon the various local authorities under the provisions of the Public Health Acts. Then there is a limitation upon county councils. They are limited as to loans to one-tenth of the annual rateable value of the county, and that limitation cannot be exceeded without the sanction of Parliament. There are limitations on boards of guardians and on parish councils. A board of guardians is limited to one-quarter of the total annual rateable value of the union, and a parish council is limited to one-half of the assessable value. That is, roughly; an outline sketch of the general limitations on the borrowing powers of local authorities. Those limitations are scattered throughout various Acts of Parliament passed in 1875, 1888, 1889, and 1894. The only other observation which one might make is that the areas overlap—in fact, the borrowing within a county area becomes cumulative.
Passing to paragraph (b) of my Motion, I would ask the House to consider the manner in which Parliament is constantly infringing upon the limitations of the local borrowing powers. Hardly a session goes by without one or more Bills being passed by Parliament giving fresh powers of borrowing to some local authority, together with a provision—a provision which has become almost a common form in these days—that the money borrowed for the purposes specified in the Bill is not to be reckoned as a part of the debt for the purpose of the limitations on borrowing imposed by Parliament under previous Statutes. I do not wish to weary the House with numerous instances, but I would like, if I may, to give your Lordships two or three examples taken haphazard. Under the Small Holdings Act, 1908, county councils are given power to borrow for the purpose of providing small holdings,
808
but by Section 52 money so borrowed is not to be reckoned as part of the county debt for the purpose of the limitations imposed by the Local Government Act. Then in the Housing of the Working-classes (Ireland) Act, 1908, there is an unusually strong provision in Section 2 which lays down that the money borrowed for the purposes of the Act, whether borrowed before or after the passing of the Act, is not to be reckoned as part of the debt for the purposes of the limitation under the provisions of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878. Under the Town Planning Act, 1909, borough councils and urban and rural district councils are the local authorities. They are given powers of borrowing for the purposes of the Act, with the proviso that the money so borrowed is not to be reckoned as part of the debt under the Public Health Act, 1875.
The provisions of these Acts are excellent. I think that therein lies the danger of our present system. Public opinion makes an advance in respect of some branch of local administration. Then proposals are brought before Parliament and an Act is passed. There is an instance this session. I have no doubt that in a short space of time the House of Commons will have passed the Mental Deficiency Bill. That is a measure which excites no Party controversy; its objects are unimpeachable. You will find in that Bill a clause such as I have been describing. Nor is this confined only to public legislation. Local authorities—in particular, I think, the big municipalities—find it very convenient to come to Parliament in order to get their borrowing powers extended by private legislation. The result of all this is that Parliament is unconsciously whittling away the provisions which it set up, and which presumably were set up as financial safeguards.
It was suggested a long time ago that there should be an annual budget of local expenditure in order that Parliament might have an opportunity of reviewing every year the financial position of the local authorities of the United Kingdom in the same way as they review at present every year our Imperial expenditure. I think a good deal might be said in favour of that proposal. At any rate, under our present system there is no method by which one can get a general view of local finance. Indeed, it is very difficult to trace the Statutory provisions relating to

809
Local Debt. The Return for which I ask is, perhaps, somewhat comprehensive, but I nave no doubt that the Local Government Board possess a great deal of the information desired, and I venture to think that that information will be useful not only to those of us who are interested in local finance, but it will be useful when that large and somewhat complex question of the readjustment of local and Imperial finance comes to be considered by Parliament. Before I sit down I should like to say once more that I am not criticising local authorities. I am endeavouring to obtain authoritative information on a matter which is not only of local but of national importance.
Moved, That there be laid before the House a Return showing—

(a) the limitations placed by various Acts of Parliament upon the borrowing powers of each class of local authority in the United Kingdom, specifying each local authority separately; and

(b) the cases in which by subsequent Public Acts of Parliament provision has been made whereby money for various purposes is to be excluded from being reckoned as part of the debt of a local authority for the purposes of the limitation on borrowing previously imposed by Parliament; and

(c) the cases in which by private legislation the borrowing powers of any local authority have been extended beyond the powers allowed under the general law.—(The Earl Dunmore.)

VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, the noble Earl prefaced his remarks by saying that he did not think he was so well informed as many other members of your Lordships' House on local finance, but I think from the remarks which fell from him we shall all agree that he has made himself thorough master of the subject. Though I am afraid I cannot follow him into the figures which he gave, I quite agree that the whole question of Local Loans demands attention. They certainly are increasing in an alarming way, and the figures which the noble Earl quoted in comparing the National Debt with the Local Debt were certainly rather startling.
810
Coming at once to the noble Earl's Motion, I may say that it will be quite possible to issue a Return dealing with paragraphs (a) and (b). The noble Earl is, perhaps, aware of the Table which is contained in the Report of the repayment of loans by local authorities which was made by a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1902. If he is not acquainted with that Table—which he will find at page 264 and following pages of the Report —it is possible that it may be sufficient for his purpose either as it stands or brought up to date, and if he would confer with the officials of the Local Government Board it might facilitate the giving of the Return asked for.
But with regard to paragraph (c) of the Motion it would be very difficult to give the Return. A great many local Acts are passed every year giving powers to local authorities, and almost without exception they include some additional borrowing powers. To make a Return including all these cases, even covering a limited number of years, would be a long and laborious business, and the results, I think, would not be commensurate with the time and trouble involved. It really would necessitate an immense amount of labour, because several thousands—I do not think I am exaggerating in using that number—of local Acts would have to be looked up. As to paragraphs (a) and (b), however, the Local Government Board will be glad to give the noble Earl the information he desires.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Viscount sees his way in the main to grant the wish of my noble friend who made so interesting a speech in moving for this Return. I cannot help feeling very strongly the way in which, certainly without the knowledge of the ratepayers and almost without the knowledge of Parliament, these very considerable powers of borrowing are given to local authorities, and I really think that Parliament itself, in justice to its own views of expenditure, ought to take some little means to make more public and bring home what is being done in this direction. To say that the check on this expenditure lies with the ratepayers is a truism. At the same time every one knows that in local elections you are dealing with ratepayers who think in shillings, and it is absolutely useless putting before them

811
these questions of millions, which convey nothing to them at all. Very few members even of your Lordships' House are really aware how great a pressure there is of rates in certain places, and how much has been added by Bills which in themselves look absolutely innocent and which hardly seem to have the smallest effect on local expenditure.
I made a suggestion some sessions ago which was received very favourably on both sides of the House, but on which no action was taken, and I venture to renew it now with the desire that even before the end of this session we should consider whether some Sessional Order should not be passed which would enable us to call the attention of Parliament to what it is doing in this matter. In this House we do not deal with the financial stage of general Bills, but in the House of Commons every financial point which can in any way affect the Exchequer is obliged to be printed in the Bill in italics, in order to call the attention of Parliament to the fact that they are putting a charge on the Exchequer. I venture to think that any provision in a Bill which puts a charge on the ratepayers should, by order of this House, be printed in italics, so that the attention of your Lordships and of the public may be called to the fact that there is a proposal to add to the local charges. Without some provision of this kind there really is no means of our finding out what we are doing; and, as my noble friend has pointed out, in the last few years it has become not an occasional but almost a habitual practice, not merely to put charges on the local rates by the Bills that are passed, but to put those charges beyond and outside the limitations which Parliament has laid down in each particular to prevent over-borrowing and overspending.
My noble friend and I have had together a pretty considerable experience of what the London County Council has done in this respect, and I can assure your Lordships that, without any question of Party or even policy, it is possible by close scrutiny and by bringing home to those concerned what they are doing to limit very considerably these charges which it is endeavoured to set up. And there are some cases, of which I could give instances, in which we have in this House unwittingly
812
laid what seems to be a power but what practically becomes an obligation on local authorities to borrow and to spend considerable Sums which I think would be regarded as avoidable. In many of these cases when a permissive power is given it very often becomes almost a necessity that it should he adopted by the local authorities; and the joint effect of all these permissive powers has undoubtedly been to carry borrowing by local authorities to a point which, even if it be necessary in the interests of the public, becomes an enormous charge on the local exchequer.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, there is one consideration which appears to me to be germane to both the speeches to which we have listened from the other side of the House but was not alluded to in either—namely, the distinction which it is necessary to draw in this matter of local borrowing in particular, because we draw it so far as we can in matters of national borrowing, between productive and unproductive expenditure. No hint was given in the very interesting speech of the noble Earl opposite, or in that of the noble Viscount, that such a distinction could be held to exist. But it is a distinction of the most profound importance when the figures of either national or of local indebtedness come to be considered.
For instance, when you compare the figures of the National Debt, as the noble Earl did, with the figures of local indebtedness it is surely reasonable to ask what is represented by the one and by the other. That debt which represents the remains of the cost of the Napoleonic wars, however necessary it may have been to incur it—for, indeed, if it had not been incurred perhaps none of us would have been sitting here at this moment—cannot be compared, for instance, with the kind of debt which we in India pile up in the building of railways or the financing of great schemes of irrigation. The two things are really hardly comparable, and ought perhaps not to be called by the same name. One is indeed an investment, and the other often represents something like a dead loss. Of course it is necessary, even in considering the most productive expenditure—expenditure which will pay both

813
interest and sinking fund and be disposed of in due course—in the making of a work which is to the general benefit, to consider the effect on the national credit. But, however much that may be the case, no reasonable person would compare the debt involved, for instance, in the South African war with the debt involved in the completion of the great scheme of Irish land purchase. They are not comparable things, and ought not to be spoken of in precisely the same terms. And that difference surely offers at any rate one reason for the exclusion of certain subjects from the limitations imposed by Parliament upon the indebtedness which different local authorities are entitled to incur, because it may in particular cases be reasonable to take into account to what extent the indebtedness of a particular 'local authority has been for productive or for purely unproductive purposes.
With regard to the interesting suggestion made by the noble Viscount opposite I do not, I confess, recall the debate to which he alludes, in which he said that a suggestion that certain parts of public, and I assume also of private, Bills should be printed in italic's in order to show that thereby a certain burden might be thown upon the rates was brought by him before this House. I should be sorry to dismiss the suggestion off hand, and I conceive that in some cases it might serve the purpose of calling the attention of a possible burden on the rates to the minds of those who would otherwise have neglected it altogether. But whether the effect would be either as prompt or as complete as the noble Viscount appeared to anticipate I confess I have some doubts. I am afraid that the sentences printed in italics would, after their first novelty had worn off, tend to be slurred over, and that they might not receive all the attention which the noble Viscount would desire them to have. But, as I said, I should be sorry to throw cold water on the suggestion, and I should be quite willing, if noble Lords opposite desire it, to concert with them in consulting the authorities of the House, and in particular the Lord Chairman of Committees, as to what in their opinion the effect of such a technical alteration of our printing proceedings would be. I am sure the noble Viscount will not expect me to say more than that, and I hope that that rather limited promise may satisfy his desires in that direction.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, I am quite prepared to admit the distinction which the noble Marquess has just drawn between remunerative and unremunerative expenditure, but whether a loan is for remunerative or for unremunerative purposes the total local debt is a mortgage on this country, in the same sense that the National Debt is a mortgage, and it therefore deserves the same careful consideration of Parliament. But I submit that it receives certainly no consideration as a whole, and extremely little consideration in detail. I associate myself with the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, that it would call attention to Bills which are going to impose a fresh burden on the rates if the provisions involving this charge were printed in italics; but I should like to add that I think such Bills ought to be brought in by a responsible Minister. That would add one more safe-guard. As regards the Return for which I move, I gathered from the noble Viscount opposite that he was going to meet me so far as paragraphs (a) and (b) are concerned, but only in so far as referring me to a certain Table, which I confess I once tried to wade through but which does not put the information concisely or make it very easy to gather.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: The Table to which I referred could be brought up to date; or if it is not in the shape which the noble Earl would like perhaps he would confer with the officials at the Local Government Board, who would try and give him the information in the form he desires.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: As long as it is in intelligible form and easy to understand I shall be quite satisfied. I withdraw paragraph (c) from my Motion, as the noble Viscount says it would entail a great deal of work. But perhaps he would inquire whether the Local Government Board could give me the information asked for in paragraph (c) from 1903. I think they might have that information in their possession. But in any case I withdraw paragraph (c) from my Motion to-day
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: I will inquire whether the Local Government Board have the information from the year the noble Earl mentions, and if they have I am sure they will be very glad to give it to him
On Question, Motion, as amended agreed to and ordered accordingly.

THE ROAD BOARD.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to ask His Majesty's Government when the Annual Report of the Road Board will be issued; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: I quite understand that there are special reasons this year why the Road Board's Report has not been issued earlier. The fact that the able chairman and the excellent secretary of the Board have been engaged in certain work in connection with the International Road Congress may have delayed the bringing out of the Report, but I think that any time which may have been technically lost in that way has been well expended. But as a general principle I think your Lordships will agree with me that it would be convenient if the Report was produced earlier in the session. We have not been getting the Report until the beginning of August—last year's Report was dated August 1—with the result that, certainly in another place and to some extent in this House, there is no possibility of detailed criticism, for at that time of the year everybody is rather weary of Parliamentary matters.
The Road Board's Report has become a Report of a great deal of importance to the nation at large, and especially to country and district councils awl other local authorities. The Road Board now handles a comparatively large sum of money. Its revenue is approximately £1,000,000 a year, and it takes a very large, and so far very honourable, share in making the main roads of this country better and more fitted for the traffic they have to bear. I have nothing but praise for the actual work of the Road Board. They have, in my opinion, gone the right way to work, and if there are criticisms as to their administration of the funds in their possession they are only in this direction, that the Board are rather too keen in their dealings with local authorities and when they give a grant towards an improvement demand that the local authorities should provide more than those authorities think right out of local funds. It is contended also that the Road Board should help directly towards maintenance, and not confine their financial assistance to improvements. But as to that criticism it must be remembered that in the Act of Parliament which constituted the Road Board it was laid down that they were not to assist in
816
maintain but only in specified improvements.
Later on we may hear something as to the position of London. London has some right to complain, because a large proportion of the taxes which form the revenue of the Road Board is collected in London and so far London has had a very small share of the expenditure. I am delighted to know that, by an arrangement entered into between the Road Board and certain local authorities on the west side of London, we are within measurable distance of having a trunk road constructed from somewhere in the neighbourhood of Hammersmith to take us out to the main roads leading to the south and west of England. That is a very much needed improvement, and a right thing for the Road Board to engage in; but it would be convenient in a case of that sort that we should have ample time to discuss such an important project at an earlier period of the session than the beginning of August. Considering that the financial year ends on March 31 it should be possible for the Report of the Road Board to be presented earlier.
Your Lordships will no doubt be glad to hear that at the International Road Congress, which held its session in London a fortnight ago, it was unanimously agreed by all competent foreign observers that the roads of this country, were on the whole the best of their class in the world. I think the Road Board must be given credit for having assisted to a great extent towards that result. It is a good thing to know that we are proceeding on the right lines, because, quite apart from all questions of horse-drawn or motor traction, traffic of all kinds increases daily, and the roads in future must be constructed to carry both fast and heavy traffic of a kind that did not use our roads in years gone by. One very wise thing that the Road Board have done, in my opinion, is that they have insisted on the provision of good foundations for roads. It is pretty well accepted now amongst road engineers that it is not the rolling of wheels over the surface of a road which wears the road away, but the crushing of the material between the crust of the road and the foundation. The use of bituminous material has very much diminished that wearing away. It is with that knowledge that the Road Board are working, and I hope that the

817
result will be a great saving not only in wear and tear but also to the ratepayers' and possibly to the taxpayers' pockets.
As showing how important this road question is I may mention that we have in this country 27,700 miles of main roads and well over 200,000 miles of secondary roads. Therefore, the Road Board have to do, or may have to do, directly and indirectly, with grants for something like 230,000 miles of road. That indicates the importance of their labours. It is an extraordinary thing that at the present moment there is no Department of Government directly responsible for road administration. If there is maladministration in connection with sanitary matters, with the Poor Law, or any other maladministration there are Departments of Government to appeal to. But in the case of the roads of this country there is no responsible Government Department, although the taxpayer, apart from the ratepayer, provides quite a large sum per annum towards the upkeep of the roads. I suggest if the Government and the Road Board are thinking of any development of the Board's duties, and if noble Lords on this side of the House should be in a position to handle the question in the near future, that they should give serious attention to this matter and consider whether the time has not arrived when a national Department of Highways, similar to the Department which exists in France and in every other civilised country, should be established.
On the 230,000 miles of main and secondary roads in this country, with which the Road Board sooner or later may have to deal, no less a sum than £18,000,000 is spent annually out of the rates and taxes. That huge expenditure may be well or badly spent, but at present the only possibility of criticising it is in the council chambers of county councils and other local authorities. No Parliamentary criticism is possible, and if questions arise of national importance concerning roads there is no responsible Minister to whom we can appeal. I will give your Lordships an instance. When dust was admittedly a very serious nuisance the only questions that could be asked in Parliament were questions affecting the use of motor-cars as the raisers of dust, and not the sins of the roadmakers which were the real cause of dust. The drivers of motor-cars could be criticised, but you could not criticise the makers of the roads.
818
I think that shows how inconvenient it is that there should be no Department to answer for the roads of the country. To show what ignorance prevails on the question of road administration I will quote an instance against the Party to which I belong. According to a report in The Times, which I believe to be perfectly correct, Unionist speakers at the New-market by-election, and I believe the candidate also, alleged that the difficulty of getting money advanced for the building of cottages for rural labourers was very great, while on the other hand large funds were paid out of the Development Fund to keep up the roads for rich motorists. We know, of course, that that is not so, but that certain specific taxes are imposed on all motorists out of which road improvements are made for the benefit of the whole community.
As regards the work of the Road Board, I understand that at the present moment there are certain difficulties in the way of the granting of the Return which I have suggested privately to the noble Earl. But what this House and the public generally would like to see in the Report of the Road Board which is almost due and in future Reports is some plain statement of fact as to the finances of the Board and the way in which they are managed. We would like to see a statement of the revenue on one side and a statement of the expenditure on the other, put in a simple and clear way year by year. At the present moment, owing to the curious system of bookkeeping adopted at the Treasury, it is only by most diligent search that we can extract from the Road Board's Report the real state of the Board's finances. It is only by means of Questions such as were asked in the other House the other day that we can ascertain what the revenue of the Road Board is under certain heads. We all know that the use of petrol continually increases, and that the petrol tax is very much more productive now than when it was first put on; but we know, on the other hand, that the revenue from the carriage tax, both motor and horse-drawn, has shown a tendency to remain stationary or decrease. It seems as if the number of horse-drawn carriages is declining out of proportion to the number of motor vehicles coming into existence.
Another point which I should like to make is this. Would it not be possible for

819
the Road Board as a whole to be consulted more often as regards all kinds of matters concerning traffic? Every one who has studied this question knows that there is great need for the codification of our highway law. There are numerous Acts of Parliament, extending back to Tudor days, concerning traffic on the roads, and the present state of the law is chaotic. The traffic in London is well managed simply because of the tact of the police and the common sense of the public. But it is only in the middle of Section 78 of the Highways Act, 1835, that the rule of the road can be found. I ask, Has not the time arrived when we ought to codify our highway law?; and I suggest that the Road Board might well spend a portion of their funds in employing some skilled legal gentleman to draw up a codification of the laws which govern traffic on roads, and then this House and the other House should be asked to consider it, and, if thought advisable, place it on the Statute Book. The law is at present in such a state that local authorities and other people concerned in highway matters experience the greatest possible difficulty in ascertaining what the law is; and I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will corroborate me when I say that the Highway and Locomotive Acts are sometimes entirely contradictory.
The Returns of the Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade show, in the case of London, that whereas Londoners took 144 journeys per head in 1903, they took 228 journeys per head in 1912, and this year the figure will be higher. In the country it is just the same. Every one knows that the great highways are much more used now than formerly. Therefore, this has become an important national question, and the more responsibility that is put on the Road Board and the more funds that are placed at their disposal the better it will be for the nation at large. I have raised this debate in an entirely friendly spirit. I have watched the proceedings of the Road Board and there is nothing serious to find fault with; but I have ventured to submit a few suggestions to His Majesty's Government which I hope the noble Earl who will reply on their behalf will be able to adopt. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the proceedings of the Road Board.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord has said as to the necessity of a Roads Department. It would solve a great many of the difficulties which we now meet with in local administration. When I talk of main roads I do not mean main roads in the technical sense. In the county of Huntingdon, for instance, no less than 93 per cent. of the roads are main roads, showing the peculiar definition in that county; whereas the average of main roads in other counties is 20 per cent. The main difficulty arises in the case of roads in urban areas outside our great towns, because it is obviously important that for exits from and entries into the great towns far wider roads are necessary. The local authorities say, Why should we spend these large sums of money on the maintenance of roads larger than we require for the benefit of other people? The fact is that the old local government areas are much too small, and you cannot get roads on a sufficient scale made even by cooperation between local authorities because of the very large expenditure involved. To some extent the Road Board relieve that difficulty, but only to a very partial extent, because, as Lord Montagu pointed out, the Road Board have nothing to do with maintenance, and it is very largely the cost of maintenance of the roads of which the local authorities complain.
I would venture to offer one or two criticisms on the administration of the Road Board. In administering these grants the Board have mainly dealt with rural areas and with inter-urban areas. I quite agree that great damage is done by motors and in other ways to the roads in rural areas, and that rural areas and inter-urban areas ought to be fairly considered; but I think that urban areas ought to have more consideration from the Road Board than they have received up to the present. These urban areas supply the funds, in the way of the Petrol Tax, the Carriage Tax, &c., for the Road Board. That is true of all our great cities. It is certainly true of London. Your Lordships have only to appeal to your own sense of smell to know the amount of petrol consumed in London, Yet when I look at the last Report of the Road Board I find that the amount of money granted to London is absolutely negligible; it amounts to only £1,200 granted to the Borough Council of Fulham. Considering the large proportion of the revenue of the Road Board which is contributed by

821
London, I think London ought to receive more consideration.
The Road Board ought also to consider far more what are the requirements of the local authorities, and not attempt, as they very often do, to dictate to the local authorities on what principles they should conduct their own roads. There should be some interplay between them. I will take an instance of the recent administration of the Road Board. You have the suggestion of a great western approach to be made into London. The Road Board say they are prepared to grant half the cost of that great new road. Of the total expenditure, £1,000,000 falls within London and of that amount the London ratepayers would have to contribute half. It is very hard, indeed, to ask the ratepayers to contribute half of the cost towards a road mainly to be used by motors and rapid traffic. So far as municipal London is concerned, it is very well supplied on the whole with main exit roads. There might, of course, be others; but what London really wants is by-passes to relieve the existing great roads and also new roads passing between one great borough and another. I submit that London, being so vast, ought to be considered not merely as a town but as a conglobation of towns, and roads running between the borough council areas ought to be considered as inter-urban and contributions ought to be made accordingly.
May I add a word as to the amount which the Road Board contribute? It is prohibitive if the Board say that they will contribute only half the money. If it is a question of a road costing £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 you cannot ask the ratepayers to contribute £500,000 or £1,000,000 towards that great road. In my opinion the contribution of the Road Board ought to go to at least 75 or 80 per cent. for this class of road. In some parts of the country that is done, but where the sum is large the Road Board get nervous of spending their money and do not give such large grants. If 75 or 80 per cent. is contributed by the Road Board there will still fall on the local authorities, in addition to the balance of the original expenditure, the whole cost of maintenance. I think if the Road Board would modify its position in that respect much more would be done. I observe that a great deal of the funds of the Road Board are not spent, and I contend that those moneys were contributed in
822
order to be spent and not to be merely invested. I do not say that the position of the Road Board is not a difficult one, but I suggest to the Government in a friendly spirit that the Road Board might, while not neglecting rural areas, extend a little more consideration to the large urban areas and to the views of the local authorities concerned. If that were done, I believe that great benefit would ensue to the roads in London and also in the great cities.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I am sure that those who are responsible immediately as well as indirectly for the administration of the Road Board have every reason to be grateful to the noble Lord who initiated this discussion. The work of the Board is of an entirely novel character, and in those circumstances public criticism could only be of the greatest value; for naturally in the case of a new work of this kind the more minds that are brought to bear on the problems presented the better it must be. Those of your Lordships who have read the Reports which have been issued during the last two years will, I am sure, have found them to be of a very interesting character. The second Annual Report, to which reference has been made, was presented on August 1 last year, but the Board hope to present the third Annual Report within the next fortnight, a slight improvement upon last year. I shall certainly convey to the Road Board the wish which has been expressed that if possible an earlier date should be found for the publication of the Annul Report.
I am sure that the Road Board will appreciate the praise of their work which the noble Lord who raised this question to-day was good enough to express. But the noble Lord thought that in some cases the Road Board had been rather hard in their dealings with local authorities, and had not contributed as much as the local authorities would have wished. It is perfectly natural that expression should be given to that view, and I notice that a similar complaint was made by the noble Viscount who spoke last. Local authorities are like private individuals in this matter. Whenever they see sums of money lying about they are very anxious to get their share of them. It was therefore only natural that the noble Viscount, speaking on behalf of urban authorities, should

823
express the opinion that they should have a larger share than rural authorities. I am quite sure that if representatives of rural authorities had taken part in this debate they would have expressed their desire that more money should be given to rural authorities and less to urban authorities. The fact of the matter is that in considering the respective claims of urban and rural authorities the Road Board must look upon the question from a detached point of view and hold the balance even, and do their best for the general administration of the Fund.
Generally speaking, what the Board do is to contribute a proportion, but only a proportion, of the amount of money which is spent upon improvements. Generally it is as much as 75 per cent., and the complaint which is made that they do not contribute more invariably comes from rural counties with only a sparse population. Those counties naturally suffer from the increase which there is in the cost of maintenance due to motor traffic, and having themselves a sparse population, with perhaps comparatively little traffic, they object to spending very much money upon the improvement of their roads. When that happens the Board do not urge them to spend more money than they can afford. The Board's view is that the work of improvement in counties of that kind is really not of a very urgent character. The Board are anxious, in the first place, to assist in the improvement of the more important roads in the country which connect the populous centres and carry a large volume of motor traffic, and they are not of opinion that any serious harm will ensue if roads in sparsely populated areas are left without those improvements until the more important roads are dealt with.
The policy by which the local authorities are expected to contribute something towards the expenses of improvements is one which has certainly received the approval of Parliament for a great many years past. It has always been held by Parliament that so long as the local authorities are made to bear a certain proportion of the expense you will have a more economical administration than if the whole of the expense fell upon a central authority. It is a well understood maxim, I think, in our local government that local authorities should always bear some
824
portion of the expense. It is only natural, of course, that there should be this complaint from rural areas; but it is in the view of the Road Board sounder policy to deal first with more important roads and then afterwards deal with those rural areas to which I have referred.
The noble Lord and also the noble Viscount spoke of the great problem in London, and they thought that too little money was spent upon London itself. Your Lordships must remember that there is a large sum of money at the present time in the hands of the Road Board which is intended to be spent upon the new western approach road within the area of the Middlesex County Council. It is proposed to give a grant of£400,000 to the Middlesex County Council, which will go a long way towards the expenditure—between£500,000 and £600,000—which it is thought that this new road from Kew Bridge to Hounslow will cost. The length of the new road will be about, three and a-half miles, and those of your Lordships who have had experience of the difficulties of motoring in and out of London on that particular road will appreciate the relief which may he expected when this western approach is finished. The Middlesex County Council will provide one-fourth of the cost and the Road Board three-fourths, subject to Treasury sanction. I understand that the county council will ask for Parliamentary powers for the work in the next session of Parliament.
Reference has been made to one or two questions which have been discussed before in this House. The question of a new Department for Highways is not an unfamiliar subject to your Lordships, but it is one upon which I do not know that I can add anything very useful upon this occasion. The further criticism with regard to the accounts of the Road Board shall certainly be conveyed to the Board, and I have very little doubt that if they feel there is real substance in the complaint they will do their best upon subsequent occasions to see that their Reports are presented in a form more intelligible to the public as a whole. Had the noble Lord been in the House yesterday he would have heard a short reference to a third point which he mentioned—namely, the difficulty of highway law. We had it from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack yesterday that this was an exceedingly complicated question.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I was here.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Then no doubt the noble Lord heard it himself. It was a dictum from the Lord Chancellor that there were few subjects in English law more complicated than the law relating to highways. It might, perhaps, interest the noble Lord if I gave the figures with regard to the income and expenditure of the Road Improvement Fund. The income since the constitution of the Road Board to June 30 last year, including interest on investments, amounted to£3,556,995. Out of that income the Board have indicated grants to highway authorities aggregating£2,596,752, leaving a balance of £960,243. Out of that balance short loans, amounting to£838,48l, have been indicated to highway authorities, so that your Lordships will see there is no large balance available now for further grants. The noble Lord is probably so well aware of the distinction between grants made and grants indicated that I will not take up time with regard to that point.
The other point which I think will be of interest to your Lordships is that a large portion of this money, although indicated and promised, has not been spent. It is pledged in respect of certain improvements, but it has not been spent. The reason for that is very largely to be found in Section 18 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, which I shall venture to read to your Lordships—
"In approving, executing, or making advances in respect of the execution of any work under this Act involving the employment of labour on a considerable scale, regard shall be had, so far as is reasonably practicable, to the general state and prospects of employment."
I think it is a matter of real congratulation that at the present time while employment is so good as it is in the country and there is no need for expenditure on unemployment work, this money, quite apart from what is available under the Unemployment Insurance Act, is accumulating for the time when distress becomes really bad and there is urgent need for the expenditure of money. Perhaps the most common criticism upon work carried out for the benefit of the unemployed has been that it is conceived in a hurry and that very often the money is largely wasted. Here on this occasion there is a well considered scheme of vast public utility, and funds are available for carrying it out. We hope that it may
826
not be the case, but if there should be large unemployment and great distress among the population during the course of next year there will be this very large sum of money available for the benefit of the unemployed. I venture to think that that is a matter of very real satisfaction when we come to consider the possibility, however much we hope it may be avoided, of unemployment in the course of next year. I do not know that there is anything that I can usefully add in answering the various questions put to me, but I shall certainly take care that the Road Board are made acquainted with the criticisms that have been made, and I have very little doubt that they will try as far as possible to meet them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it may be of very great advantage that the unemployed should have proper provision made for them in the time of distress which the noble Earl reluctantly anticipates. At the same time I am a little doubtful whether great improvements in the roads of this country ought to be indefinitely postponed until the time of distress comes. After all, though it is very important that we should relieve unemployment it is equally important that a great industrial country like this should be properly equipped with roads, and I question whether the policy of hoarding money may not be carried too far. At any rate, I hope that the noble Earl and those who act with him will consider how long we ought to wait before this money is made available.
I am not able to go quite so far as did my noble friend in his interesting speech introducing this discussion in saying that we ought to have a Minister of Highways. At the same time I have considerable sympathy with him in that view, because I am perfectly certain that the policy of which the Road Board is the embodiment is only in its initial stage. It will require any amount of extension and development. The truth is that the old state of things under which the charge for the maintenance of the roads of this country falls primarily upon the ratepayers is altogether out of date. After all, why should the owners and the occupiers of real property in the various parts of England pay for the maintenance of a road which is primarily used, not by themselves or by their fellow ratepayers, but by persons and vehicles belonging to other parts of England? That cannot be defended

827
as a sound policy. The charge should fall upon a much larger area; and I think that Parliament will ultimately come to the conclusion that, in the case of what I may call national or arterial roads, the burden must be made to fall not upon the ratepayers but upon the taxpayers of this country. That, I think, explains to some extent the policy of the Road Board in using more of their money for rural districts than for urban districts even so far as their operations have already extended, because in urban districts the principal wear of the road is by the inhabitants of those districts. It is clear in that case that the charge should fall upon the urban ratepayers; but in the case of these great arterial roads the local rural ratepayer uses them comparatively little.
This leads me to another point. As your Lordships are aware, the Act confines the expenditure of the Road Board to improvements and precludes them from paying towards maintenance. That limitation, as the noble Earl opposite will remember, we resisted to the best of our ability when the Bill was going through Parliament. I am quite sure that subsequent experience confirms us in the view that on that occasion we were in the right, and if I may say so respectfully, the Government were in the wrong. The noble Earl opposite (Earl RUSSELL) shakes his head, but I think he agreed on that occasion that the burden of these arterial roads ought to be thrown upon the taxpayer. Why only the making of the road? Why not the maintenance of the road? The people who wear out these arterial roads are not the local ratepayers but persons belonging to all parts of England. Therefore the maintenance, like the improvements, ought to fall primarily upon the taxpayer. I do not say that that should be so in the case of every road—I am speaking of national or arterial roads, with which your Lordships are very familiar. That appears to me to be the direction in which policy ought to move—an extension of the operations of the Road Board in the direction of bearing the cost of maintenance as well as of the improvement of these important roads; and I think probably in the administration of the roads as well. I think there is no such sound maxim as that those who pay for the road should manage the road—that is to say, should be primarily responsible for the management of the road. My noble friend Lord Peel spoke of a contribution of 75 or
828
80 per cent. towards the cost. That may be very proper in certain instances, but I confess that in the case of these great national roads the whole charge ought ultimately to fall on the taxpayer, and then the administration should be with the central authority representing the taxpayer. This discussion has been a very interesting one, and I hope that it may bear fruit and that we may see a little quickening of the operations of the Road Board and in the near future an extension of their powers.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, so far as the Road Board themselves and their administration are concerned I endorse everything that fell from my noble friend Lord Montagu, but on the question of the maintenance of the roads I am bound to say that I have always thought that the Road Board was founded on a totally wrong principle. I am of opinion that it is a mistaken policy to tax a special class. It is to some extent a return to the turnpike system—namely, the idea that the man who uses the road should be the man who pays for it. As a general rule the people who use the roads—except, of course, motorists who use them merely for pleasure—use them not merely for the benefit of the man who happens to be conducting the vehicle but for the benefit of the community as a whole; and I deprecated when the Road Board was established going back to what I called the turnpike system.
I agree entirely with the noble Marquess that these arterial means of communication should be national highways and should be supported by national money, and in that case, of course, administered by a Minister of Highways. I should not approve of grants of the taxpayers' money being handed over to local authorities and then that they should be allowed to administer them in any way they liked. If we have national highways they should be a national service, like any other service. The Road Board is somewhat of an intermediate stage, and I fear that while in this transition stage we shall always have this feeling of soreness on the part of local authorities that they are paying for traffic which is not their own. In the case of a sparsely-populated district between two towns this is a very natural and legitimate feeling on their part, and to that extent I hope we shall nationalise the burden of the rates and nationalise their administration. Every one interested in good road administration takes that view and supports

829
it as the ideal of the future. I therefore have welcomed the establishment of the Road Board, although I deprecate the principle on which it was founded—namely, the taxing of a special class. I welcome it because it is paving the way towards a national administration of the roads. The reason why I shook my head at the observation of the noble Marquess opposite that the funds of the Road Board should be used for the maintenance of roads was that a pledge was given when this taxation was imposed that the money should not be used to relieve the ratepayers but for the purposes of road improvement only. That was the understanding between the motor industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It may have been a bargain between them and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was not a bargain between them and Parliament, because, as the noble Earl knows we did our best to persuade Parliament to agree that the funds should be used for maintenance as well as for road improvement. But I quite appreciate the point made by the noble Earl. It does make a difference that this money is raised from a special class and not out of the general funds of the country.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I desire to thank the noble Earl for his promise that our suggestions shall receive consideration. I agree with the noble Marquess that the funds of the Road Board ought not to be hoarded. The Road Board have great powers of borrowing. They can borrow up to£5,000000, so that if there was any sudden demand for the employment of casual labour they could always borrow to meet that emergency without any inconvenience. Therefore I think the policy of hoarding money is a bad one. As to the noble Marquess's suggestion about maintenance, I should be quite willing that taxes from motorists should go towards ordinary maintenance if other traffic paid something as well towards the funds of the Road Board.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I did not understand whether the accounts of the Road Board are going to be given in full in the next Report. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us. It is important that we should see what amounts have been spent and what amounts are invested.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think the figures in the Report which is due within the next fortnight will be in the same form as those in previous Reports. If, however, after having seen them they are not thought satisfactory by the noble Earl I should be willing to consider the question of putting them in another form which he may like better. As to the question of hoarding, I would point out that as Parliament has not yet been asked to give its sanction to the proposed new western road and powers must be sought during next session, it is inevitable that for the time being the money should be kept in hand for this purpose.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
LORD WYNFORD LORD WYNFORD rose to call attention to the recent special Army Order of June 20 affecting the establishment and organisation of the Royal Field Artillery, and to ask whether the changes therein ordered cannot be carried out equally efficiently and at no great expense to the public without ruthlessly destroying the long record of service of the batteries concerned.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the methods by which the recent decision of the Army Council to reduce certain batteries of Field Artillery is to be effected, methods which, if carried out as contemplated, will cause a great deal of resentment. Lord Midleton a week ago, when Lord Lucas replied to some Questions of mine, referred to this matter, and Lord Lucas then asked for notice of the noble Viscount's Question. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will put forward the plea of economy, but I would urge that on occasions like these such considerations should give way to those of old associations, memorable traditions, and a feeling of esprit de corps, and that the saving of a comparatively small sum of money is not justified when it involves bitterness and resentment.
Your Lordships, I hope, will allow me to explain what is to happen on August 1 next. His Majesty's Government have decided to make alterations in fifteen batteries. Three of these are to be disbanded altogether. The remaining twelve are to be reduced in establishment; they

831
will be allotted to stations where their depots are at present stationed, and to all intents and purposes will become amalgamated with those depôts. They will cease to be efficient batteries; they will never go abroad nor carry out practice, and will never be more than a training school for Special Reservists. Of the 150 batteries which now exist, numbered from 1 to 150, all above the nineties have been formed since the year 1898. Your Lordships would think that the natural course to adopt would be to take the fifteen batteries with the highest numbers, and reduce the three of those batteries which had the highest numbers and carry out the necessary changes with the other twelve. But that is not the course which recommends itself to His Majesty's Government. It is rather difficult to explain to your Lordships what exactly is to take place, but I will endeavour to do so. In order to save the cost of moving the personnel to the particular stations to which these batteries are to be sent—or, as the Army Order has it, "as it is impracticable to change the personnel, etc., of the batteries affected from one station to another"—the changes will be carried out by batteries exchanging their numbers, records, and digests of service, and no actual move will take place.
Then follow in the Army Order changes in detail by which batteries, all formed over 100 years ago, are to hand over their numbers, records, and digests of service to batteries formed since 1900. More than half of these old batteries have a continuous record extending back to the latter part of the 18th century, and all but two have histories which go back to the time before Waterloo. If Artillery carried Colours, all these batteries, or the majority of them, would be entitled to have inscribed on those Colours such names as Seringapatam, Corunna, Salamanca, Vittoria, Aliwal, Chillianwalla, Sevastopol, Afghanistan, Lucknow, Cawnpore, Tel-el-Kebir, Tirah, and Omdurman. From their list of service, which I have been able to extract from the regimental history which I hold in my hand, I see that two of them were actually at Bunker's Hill in 1775, and others in places as far apart as Java in 1811 and the West Indies in 1796–1810. With such records as these what wonder is it that officers, non-commissioned officers, and men are proud, and justly proud, of belonging to the batteries which hold them? and your Lordships can understand their feeling
832
of indignation and resentment when by an Army Order and at a mere stroke of the pen these batteries are directed to hand over such records as these to batteries none of which have been formed earlier than 1900, and none of which have any record at all of active service even in South Africa.
No one would dream of ordering two Infantry regiments or regiments of Cavalry to change their numbers or names and hand over their records. Such a thing would never be tolerated. I know the analogy in this respect is not a true one, and I will tell your Lordships why. The majority, in fact nearly all the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of a regiment remain during all their service in the one Infantry or Cavalry regiment, but this does not take place in the case of a battery. The officers change much more frequently. At the same time there are non-commissioned officers and men who have done all their Colour service in the battery and a great many have spent their whole military life in the battery. I believe this is the first time on record that the whole of the rank and file of as many as fifteen batteries have been transferred in a body against their wish from old batteries to new ones. That is really the effect of this Army Order. Every man in a battery with such records as these has a legitimate pride in them and an intense feeling of esprit de corps. I do not know that I need cite to your Lordships any illustrations of this, but one does occur to my mind of which I have personal experience. A non-commissioned officer of many years service as a sergeant was asked whether he would accept promotion and become the senior non-commissioned officer—the sergeant-major—of a battery which had only recently been formed. He belonged to a battery which had a very good record, and his reply was that he would rather be the junior non-commissioned officer in his old battery than the senior one in the new.
I would like to ask the noble Lord what is to happen in the case of these batteries to the officers' mess plate—pieces of plate presented by former officers in the battery, many of them of historic interest and all of them associated with the records. Are these to be handed over with the records? Some of the batteries, too, have prizes, such as challenge cups and shields, which were presented by old officers with a view to

833
increasing the skill and efficiency of the men. Are these to be handed over with the records? Some of these batteries, by long and careful and judicious management, have amassed considerable funds which are invested and the income used for the benefit of the non-commissioned officers and men of the battery. Are these sums to be handed over also with the records? I would appeal to the noble Lord and ask why it is impracticable to move the personnel of the battery and thereby allow officers and men to retain their own records and digests of service—in fact, to keep their own property?
I am fully aware that the plea of economy will be put forward, and it will be argued that the cost of moving the personnel cannot be entertained. I should like, however, to point out that of the fifteen batteries in which these changes are contemplated, all except three have been two years or over in their present station and some have been actually four years. These batteries would, therefore, in the ordinary course, be transferred to another station this autumn. If economy is pleaded, I would ask why three field batteries were moved from Sheffield in 1911 to Ireland, only to be moved twelve months later out to South Africa; or why three other batteries which came home from South Africa only in January of this year are to be sent out to India next October. I do not wish to occupy too much of your Lordships' time, but I think it is only right and proper that this matter should be brought to your notice. That there is a very strong feeling, amongst all ranks of the batteries concerned I feel sure your Lordships will understand. After all, does not the success of our voluntary system depend to a great extent on the sense of pride in the traditions the past and in the records of regiments and batteries? I would appeal to the noble Lord to represent, seriously to the Secretary of State for War whether with equal efficiency and very little extra cost to the public the personnel of these batteries could not be moved to their new stations and thereby avoid this ruthless disregard of the traditions of the past.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, the noble Lord who has raised this question has stated the case, I will not say unfairly, but at any rate not fully as it stands at the present time. The facts as he has given them are accurate, but the conclusions drawn by
834
him from them are in a great many cases not quite justified by the facts that he has already quoted. It is perfectly true, as he says, that certain portions of the, batteries composing these training brigades are going to be transferred and exchanged with other batteries, but the thing to which the noble Lord attaches importance, and rightly—namely, the personnel, the guns and horses—will remain. Their places will be taken in these training brigades by the eighteen youngest batteries on the Army List at the present time. His suggestion is that instead of doing what is proposed in the Army Order the actual batteries, including the men, guns, and horses, should leave their present quarters and change places with the batteries which are going to take up their position.
The noble Lord suggests that the only reason for not doing that is a question of expenditure. No doubt it would involve considerable expense to take these eighteen training batteries, move them out of their present quarters, and bring into those quarters eighteen other batteries, six of which would subsequently be reduced. That is a consideration, as all questions of expenditure are. At the same time it is the fact that if that had been the only consideration in the case very likely the decision that has been come to would have been different. There is another consideration, and one which has weighed on the whole more with the Army Council in arriving at this decision than the question of expense, and that is the question of efficiency. The establishment of the training batteries is different from that of the batteries allotted to the Expeditionary Force. But more important than their establishment is their training. The training brigades are instructional cadres. Their establishment is given to them for that purpose, and their time has been devoted entirely to instructional work. They are not in any sense trained as a unit in the way that a battery has to be trained, and if they were to be suddenly put into the Expeditionary Force it would be difficult to mobilise them and they would not be able to act with the unity which is essential to make a successful battery. That is the main difficulty at the present moment. The batteries forming part of the Artillery of the Expeditionary Force have been trained as batteries, trained in Artillery work, trained to take their place in the Divisions to which they are respectively allotted; and what

835
the noble Lord is suggesting is that we should take these instructional cadres and ask them at a moment's notice to take their place in the Expeditionary Force. The result, in the opinion of the Army Council, would be a serious loss of efficiency to these Divisions, and that is the main reason which has actuated the Army Council in making this change.
Now I come to the question of the transfer. I do not think it is quite fair for the noble Lord to speak of it in the terms he did. His comparison, though he did qualify it, between these batteries and Infantry regiments is not a fair one either. I think we are much too prone in this House to discuss all Army organisation in terms of Infantry. To suggest that there is any analogy at all to, let us say, the converting of the Royal Fusiliers into the Oxford Light Infantry is absolutely misleading. The Field and Horse Artillery is one corps; these batteries are all parts of that corps, and it is a normal thing for men and officers to be transferred from one battery to another. An officer is constantly, I should think usually, transferred, on promotion, into another battery, and very often during the time he is in a particular rank he is transferred from one battery to another. Is is a normal thing, and a thing that every gunner expects to occur to him—namely, to be transferred from one battery to another.
The noble Lord talks about the continuous record of these batteries. What is there, after all, in the battery besides the actual record contained in its digest of service? The officers and men are not continuous. What is continuous is the digest of service itself. At the time of the South African War, when the Artillery was considerably increased, very large changes of personnel were made in batteries. I have not got the figures with me at the present moment, but I think cases could be quoted where almost as large and complete changes of personnel had been made in batteries in order to provide for the cadres of the new batteries, and so on, as are being made in this proposal. Yet did anybody at that time suggest that because of the transfer you were therefore smashing the records of the older batteries and transferring them to the new ones?
LORD WYNFORD: They were never all swept away.
LORD LUCAS: I admit that it is a question of degree, but it is the normal practice to transfer officers and men from one battery to another. It is the regular and usual routine of the Artillery to do that. Because it has been done in a greater degree here than usual is no reason for saying that therefore the unit as a unit has ceased to exist, and that, in the words of the noble Lord, we are ruthlessly destroying the long records of service of that battery. They are carried to the new battery and will continue in it, and very possibly in time as changes go on the personnel of that new battery may be very much what the personnel of the old battery was before. This, I think, is the point of the whole thing, that what the noble Lord is really asking for is that the Horse and Field Artillery as a whole should no longer be treated as one corps. Once you set up the idea that you cannot make transfers you break down the corps idea of the Artillery and nothing could possibly be done which would militate more than that against the efficiency of the Royal Artillery.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, in my opinion the speech to which we have just listened is entirely misleading. It is quite impossible to make any comparison between what happened during the South African War and what is now proposed. It is not so much a question of transferring officers and men from one battery to another as it is of transferring records from one battery to another. That really completely brings to an end the life of the battery and starts it under another number. It is virtually the same thing as a corps being dismissed and a new corps being formed possibly with an entirely new name and everything completely changed. There is a certain amount of analogy between the Infantry and these batteries in this matter. It is perfectly true that the Artillery is one corps. But take an analogy inside a regiment. A certain number of companies have had plate given to them for competitions. If that plate or the company Colours were transferred from that company to another company, it would be felt as a very great grievance indeed. It often happens that men are transferred from one company to another in a regiment, but plate and things intimately connected with the records of the company are never exchanged from one company to another. That is the grievance which the Artillery have, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it is a very real grievance indeed.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I think there is great force in what has fallen from my noble friend behind me. Any one not versed in the affairs of the War Office listening to Lord Lucas would judge that his speech was a direct negative to that of my noble friend. I submit that the noble Lord opposite carried his argument a great deal further than he was entitled to do. I know that these cases of reduction are extremely difficult, and I do not dissent from the principle that you must have regard to economy and efficiency in making them. But when the noble Lord carries us to the point of telling us that there is no analogy between reducing a battery and reducing a regiment, I do not think he will find a single military man of any standing to support him. There is an analogy. It is not the same thing, but it is a great deal nearer the same thing than the noble Lord admits. When you are dealing with records, with trophies, with funds—in all those cases you are depriving batteries of things which date back to the Battle of Waterloo or earlier. I submit that it is a strong measure to transfer what are to the battery in question most cherished insignia and memories to a new battery formed twelve years ago; and I am quite sure that nobody would feel more than the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who throughout his period at the War Office was most careful of the traditions of the Army, the undesirability unless absolutely necessary of taking this step, which is condemned by every soldier.
I deprecate the overstatement of his case by Lord Lucas as to its being the normal thing to transfer men and officers from one battery to another. I know that it is done, and has to be done. But I am sure that if the noble Lord had been longer at the War Office than he has he would know that these things are done only with the utmost discretion and care, and in some cases we have avoided sending men from batteries to India because of the very strong feeling that men who were holding particular positions in a battery or who had been long in a battery should not be severed from their comrades and sent to a battery where they were not known. I have been asked to intervene myself to save even a dozen men going from one battery to another, and have had the support of the Adjutant-General. Therefore so far from its being the normal thing to break up what I may call the esprit de corps of a
838
battery, every attempt has been made by past Adjutants-General to avoid doing it. I cannot, of course, deal without more information with the plea of efficiency—the plea that these particular old batteries have been trained to something which enables them to be broken up, while the new batteries having been trained to something different can be allowed to take over their work; but I believe the noble Lord will find that everybody who has had to administer the Army has endeavoured to avoid doing the very thing which the Secretary of State is now doing.
If I might make a special appeal it would be on this ground, that the necessity for reducing these batteries at all is challenged by the vast majority in this House and by every military man in the other House. We regard it as a retrograde step of a most unfortunate and of a very shortsighted character. There is not a military man in this House who will rise to support it. These batteries were granted by the Cabinet of the day after great consideration in deference to a very strong public feeling; and certainly the emergency which the Army in 1900 had to meet was not greater than the emergency which under the present Government and with the difficulties they have to encounter our Army may be called upon to meet either at home or abroad. For that reason I regard with great distrust this policy of reduction. But, quite apart from that, if it is carried out I would say, in the interests of the esprit de corps of the Artillery, that I hope that the very temperate observations made by my noble friend will be reported to the Secretary of State, and that even now he will consider whether the strong wishes of the batteries affected, whose old records are a treasured memory to them, may not be considered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down referred in the early part of his speech to a point on which we must all feel sympathy with these batteries. Every one would wish to keep their records intact and to make as few changes as possible; and the present Adjutant-General has worked with a desire to keep that steadily in view in such changes as he has to make. But the real point is the question of efficiency. The changes to which attention has been drawn are made at the suggestion of the General Staff, and the Secretary of State has acted on the advice of the General Staff. The purpose of the

839
General Staff was this that the Expeditionary Force should have the most efficient Artillery service that could be given to them. Great progress has been made in recent years with the Artillery service of the Expeditionary Force, but it was in the opinion of the Chief of the General Staff desirable that more of the batteries should be placed on the higher establishment than had been the case.
I doubt whether the public knows the immense changes which have been made in the Artillery service in the past few years. I remember the first experience I had of the Artillery. We were then in a position in which we could have mobilised only forty-two batteries, with one hundred men over. The reason for that was not any fault of the noble Viscount, because when he was at the War Office he was dealing with batteries which had a different kind of gun requiring less ammunition and which made a smaller demand on personnel. But this position was obsolete when we came to the use of the quick-firing field gun. Our position as regards mobilisation when I went to the War Office was, as I have said, a lamentable one. All that has been completely changed. We can now mobilise without any difficulty up to the full extent of our Artillery capacity; and the point that remained, the personnel being there, was to make the Expeditionary Force so equipped that it should be at least on a level with any other Force in Europe. In my time we got it up to a much better point than it had been, and we made it, I believe, efficient. But it has been strongly
840
impressed on the mind of the General Staff that it was essential that the standard of the Artillery service should be raised to a yet higher level, in view of what has been done in France and in Germany, and that has been carried out in the recent changes.
No doubt a certain amount of suffering has been occasioned by this change. In my experience I have always found that people were apt to look at what immediately lies before them; and what immediately lies before every soldier is the tradition of his own unit. But what those responsible for the Army have to look to is the good of the whole, and I doubt whether the change could have been made with less alteration. I deprecate very much that the War Office should be hampered in what they are doing, and I do not doubt from my knowledge of the Adjutant-General that everything in his power will be done to mitigate any hardships which may be involved by the change.

FORGERY (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

MONEY-LENDERS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.