Sitting of 19 July 1921

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
COLNE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3ª with the Amendments; further Amend meats made; Bilk passed, and returned to the Commons.
SWANSEA GAS BILL.
Read 3ª, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.

LIQUOR (POPULAR CONTROL) BILL. [H.L.]
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I owe your Lordships an apology for having been slightly out of order in some of my remarks the other day. I do not propose to repeat the arguments I used; or deal with the aspect of the question to which I referred, on the previous occasion. I am going to assume that every one is agreed that there is a drink problem. People differ as to its extent and as to the way it should be tackled. It is easy to exaggerate it, but every one must be agreed that there is a drink problem; that is, that the national efficiency: to some extent is impaired by an unwise and excessive consumption of alcohol.
The Bill before the House recognises that there are, broadly speaking, three alternative ways of dealing with the drink problem; that there are three alternative policies before the country—private ownership, disinterested management and prohibition. The Bill also recognises that in any drink reform it is absolutely essential to carry the public opinion of the country, and it makes it impossible for any change to be brought about unless there is a direct mandate from the people. The Bill adopts the machinery for ascertaining the will of the people which has been used throughout the whole Empire. The

1107
referendum is particularly suitable for dealing with the drink problem. Local option, or national option (the options vary in many cases), has been adopted throughout the whole Empire, except in England, Wales and Ireland. It is suitable and consistent with Anglo-Saxon development; it is democratic.
The Bill also accepts existing Statutes. It recognises that there is a claim for compensation. As Mr. Asquith said some time
Ago—
"There has grown up a claim for an equitable consideration which the State ought not and cannot ignore."
The Bill, accordingly, recognises that where existing interests are dealt with they should he properly compensated. It also recognises the fact that Parliament has accepted the principle of the time limit and that a Bill embodying this principle, passed by both Houses of Parliament, is in existence to-day. The monopoly value of licences, as your Lordships are aware, has been directly created by the State. Undoubtedly, there would be great hardship if this value were suddenly cancelled without due notice, but the State, if it gives reasonable notice of its intention to cancel the licences, so that provision can be made by insurance or otherwise, is within its rights in discontinuing such interests. So this Bill recognises existing Statutes, the principle of compensation and the time limit, and it provides machinery whereby the three ways of dealing with the liquor traffic can be referred directly to the people for decision. It is believed by those who support the Bill that whichever is ultimately the best way of dealing with the question will be adopted by an increasing number of areas. Changes will be brought about only after local experiments. The Bill does not commit the country as a whole to any drastic change.
Before dealing with the Bill in greater detail, I should like to touch upon some arguments which were put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner. Like many of your Lordships, he was at a disadvantage in not having had an opportunity of studying the details of the Bill. Unfortunately some of the remarks which he made have created a wrong impression outside Parliament. He created the impression that, if this Bill went through, the country would be committed to an expenditure of from £300,000,000 to £400,000,000 sterling. That figure was an
1108
estimate which was put forward by the Committee over which he presided in 1917, when they were asked to make an approximate estimate of the total value of the liquor traffic in England and Wales. But that Committee made it very clear that from this total must be deducted the value of the redundant premises, whether they be public houses or breweries. The estimate also included the licensed trade in Wales, whereas this Bill does not touch Wales. From the total of £300,000,000, therefore, must be deducted the value of the redundant premises in England, and the whole value of the liquor trade in Wales. But whatever figure might thus be reached, it would be worth discussing only if this Bill proposed to commit the whole country immediately to State Purchase or to prohibition.
The Bill does not do so; it allows for local experiments. It makes it impossible for any change to take place unless there has been a direct mandate by the inhabitants of the locality. I have never met any temperance reformer, however keen an advocate he was, who believed that England would "go dry" now or in the near future. It is inconceivable that any large number of areas would vote for No Licence at the first poll. Similarly, it is inconceivable that any large number of areas would, at the first poll, vote for State Purchase, or disinterested management. The people of this country are far too conservative to do that. Sonic areas undoubtedly would do so, and I believe that, as success followed these local experiments, so they would be adopted at successive polls by an increasing number of areas. But at each poll, at each vote, at each referendum, the amount of compensation money which would have to be found would grow less.
The Bill accepts the principle of the time limit, at the end of which no compensation is payable in case of a No Licence vote. It also accepts the basis for compensation which was recommended unanimously by the Committee presided over by Lord Sumner in 1917. Your Lordships will remember that, in arriving at the capital value of the liquor trade, the Committee took the net profit for a datum period, and multiplied it by a certain number of years' purchase. This Bill proposes to give 100 per cent. compensation at the first, vote, and to reduce the amount of compensation at each successive vote, so that, when you

1109
reach the end of the time limit, no compensation would be payable in the case of a No Licence vote. That means that if this Bill were to pass—and I need not remind your Lordships that the most rev. Prelate, when he was introducing it the other day, said that he did not mean to carry it further than a Second Reading—there could be no question whatever of the country being committed to anything remotely approaching the figure of £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 which was mentioned the other day.
I should like to deal with another fear expressed by the noble and learned Lord. He feared that if an area voted for State Purchase there must of necessity he a loss on the operation of the liquor traffic in that area. Why should this be the case? It has not been found to be so at Carlisle. Carlisle will have paid for itself in six or seven or eight years—I do not know what the exact figure may be. It has been found at Carlisle that, when you have a monopoly in a particular area and the State comes in and acquires it, profits may be increased by reducing the cost of production and distribution. In Carlisle, where there were four breweries, there is now only one. The public houses there have been reduced by over 40 per cent. It is in that way that the large profits have been made under State Purchase in the Carlislc area.
But the noble and learned Lord seemed to be afraid that political pressure would force the reduction of the price of beer, and that, although there might he profits if the liquor trade were run as it has been run in Carlisle, there would nevertheless, as the result of political pressure at Election time and through Parliament, be such a reduction of price that all profits would be wiped out. A study of the Bill will show that this fear is groundless. The Liquor Management Board proposed by the Bill is not to he subject to daily control by Parliament. It is purely a business body, and its duty is merely to produce and distribute the beverages. It is not subject to daily control as to quality or as to prices. I ought to add that, in case of proved incompetence, the Board can be removed by a direct vote of Parliament. An Advisory Committee is to be set up to assist and guide the Board, and on that Committee existing private interests are to be represented, as well as the temperance societies. It would he manifestly unfair if, in a State Purchase area, as the result of political pressure, the price of
1110
beer or spirits were reduced below the price in No Change areas, where there was private trade. The existing interests of the brewers are safeguarded by their having representation on the Advisory Committee. Similarly, there are a large number of temperance reformers who fear that if the State were to acquire the liquor trade it would be conducted to the detriment of the public interest. Their fear is met by giving them representation on the Advisory Committee.
When we are on the question of cost, when we consider the cost to the community of any possible change of our system of licensing and management of the drink traffic, we ought to ask ourselves whether the present system is economic, whether we can afford it, and whether it is in the national interest. I am not talking of the cost which might be attributed to the unwise consumption of alcohol in its direct results. The country is now paying the liquor traffic £145,000,000 more than it did before the war to collect the taxes on alcohol. I suggest that, at times like this, when we should have a maximum of economy, the country cannot afford to pay nearly £150,000,000 sterling more to the liquor traffic than it did before the war to collect these taxes on drink. This is not "Pussyfoot," but purely a business proposition, and I suggest to your Lord-ships that, as a business proposition, it cannot be defended.
There is undoubtedly a demand in the country for what we call the reformed public house—the improved public house. Many people think that the surroundings in which people have to drink alcohol are unsuitable, and conducive to intemperance. There is a great deal to be said for this argument. I do not believe there is a single genuine temperance reformer who is in favour of the reformed public house in private hands. There is a section prepared to accept the reformed public house if it is under the control of the State, but under any other consideration they would oppose it. After all, the sale of alcohol is absolutely different from the sale of any other commodity. I am strongly opposed to the nationalisation of coal, or of boots, or of bread, because we want the maximum production and consumption of coal and boots and bread, but no one can say that it is in the national interest to have the maximum production and consumption of alcohol. Yet, while you have private ownership,

1111
and success to the brewer who sells the most beer and failure to the brewer who sells the least, so long is the liquor traffic bound to be contrary to the public interest. Because of that I would agree, somewhat reluctantly, to the State management of this particular industry and of no other industry.
We are asked sometimes what it is that State Purchase would give—what advantages, besides the reformed public house, are offered to the inhabitants of an area by this Bill? We are asked, why not have an option in the reduction of licences? Why bring in State Purchase at all? A vote for State Purchase, or disinterested management, would be followed by the following material gains. All redundant public houses would be closed—twenty to
forty per cent. would be closed—redundant breweries would be closed; grocers' licences, external advertisements which are lures to drink, would be abolished, and disinterested management would be established. Those are the immediate gains which would be offered to the inhabitants of an area through State Purchase.
We have to ask ourselves when we support a measure like this, what is going to be the attitude of the different interests and groups in the community? What, for instance, is to be the attitude of the temperance Parties? Are the temperance Parties going to reject this Bill because it provides compensation? Hitherto, temperance movements have asked for an opportunity of testing public opinion on No Licences—for a Bill on the lines of the Scottish Liquor Vote Act, with a time limit and no compensation. If eight years is a suitable time limit in Scotland, at least fourteen years would have to be provided in England. That was the time limit offered by Mr. Asquith some years ago. Nobody imagines that a Bill framed on the lines of the Scottish Act, providing machinery for a No Licence vote, is going to be passed this year or next year, or, I should imagine, the year after that.
That is to say, if the temperance Parties stick to the line of advance of the past, and ask for a Liquor Veto Bill pure and simple, with a time limit and no compensation, the most they can expect to get is a first vote on No Licence in something like twenty years. Next, are the temperance Parties going to reject this Bill because it proposes a referendum on State Purchase and disinterested management? How can the
1112
temperance Parties logically ask moderate drinkers to agree to a referendum on No Licence and deny to moderate drinkers a referendum on disinterested management? The temperance Parties will have a great responsibility if they reject a Bill framed on these lines, merely because of the option of State Purchase and because it provides adequate compensation.
Then, what is to be the attitude of the Trade? I know a large number of people in the Trade, and have many friends in it, and I am perfectly convinced that the Trade, on a measure such as this, will be divided. There are some who will always look backward, but there are in this business, as in all businesses, far-sighted men. They realise that new factors have arisen. They realise that increased efficiency has been found in Canada and the United States, and that that is a factor which is going to bring temperance to the fore in the future. They realise that the vote which was taken in Scotland was taken at a moment when there was reaction against all forms of State control. They realise, also, the enormous influence which the women's vote is likely to have on temperance reform in the future. I do not imagine that the Trade as a whole, or any section of it, is going to come forward and say that this is a generous measure which should be accepted. If you have a horse to sell, and want to get the best price for it, you always reject any suggestion that you should part with it for a consideration. You always spurn any offer which is put forward, if you want to get the best price, but it does not necessarily mean that you will not sell the horse or accept a reasonable offer.
As to the general public, I believe they will support the principle of this Bill. I believe the public want to treat fairly and reasonably those who have invested their capital in the liquor trade. The public will be attracted by the fact that the money which will have to be found will not come out of the pockets of the taxpayers, but will be found by means of a compulsory levy on the Trade. But what I think will attract them also is the fact that it does allow for local experiments. A large number of people are not convinced that Carlisle can be applied to other areas, but many would be willing to have State Purchase, or disinterested management, or even No Licence, tried in other areas, and I believe that that will bring support for a Bill drafted as this has been.

1113
People often ask me: Why should you or anybody else interfere with other people's social habits? They ask why one group should be allowed to interfere with the habits of another group. In prehistoric days every man thought only of himself, and the weakest always went to the wall. Gradually, civilisation developed and advanced, and then Christianity came along. Prehistoric man changed his point of view. Man began to realise that he had a responsibility towards his family, towards his clan or his tribe, and eventually his State. At the present moment we realise fully that we have corporate and collective responsibility for the community as a whole. The national conscience is forcing many individuals to give up their prejudices and their preferences for the good of the community. This Bill is absolutely democratic—no change can take place unless there is a direct mandate from the people. I believe that it is a measure which could be supported by all who want reasonable progress and fair treatment for those who have invested their money in the Trade, and who have faith in democracy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government a few days ago indicated with complete clearness the general attitude of the Government. They have, and they must undertake, responsibility for their own proposals, and they must be regarded, as a Government, as disinterested observers of the proposals which the noble Viscount has supported and the right rev. Prelate has introduced. I will make a few observations, which I will divide under two heads; and in making these observations, on a. subject in which I have long taken a deep interest, I make it plain that I speak for myself and myself alone, as I ant entitled to do upon a social proposal which is not accepted by the Government, and in relation to which alternative proposals are actually under contemplation, which have the authority of the Government as a whole.
The main or the novel objects of this Bill are, in the first place, to apply the principle of local option to an option, namely, for State Purchase. So far as I am aware of the history of this movement, no measure in the direction of local option has ever proposed to include, among the subjects which could be pronounced upon, that of State Purchase. The second main object of the Bill is to obtain from the
1114
Trade itself the money necessary for buying up the licensed trade in areas which decide on State Purchase and compensate the holders of licences in areas which should decide for No Licence.
One objection which I take at once is that, if not extremely probable, it is at least very possible that these proposals may involve a demand upon the Consolidated Fund, contingent upon a local vote. The noble Viscount who spoke last deprecated the use of inflated sums to indicate these contingent liabilities, and I have no doubt that the vast figures with which he dealt are very greatly exaggerated. It is none the less very relevant to the proposal now under discussion to consider that there is at least the contingent risk of a liability which might be considerable. Every four years there is to be a popular vote in every polling area—" polling area "is defined in the Bill—on the questions whether (1) the licensing system shall go on substantially as it is; (2) there shall be no licence for the sale of liquor; (3) the sale of liquor shall be placed under public ownership and control. If a majority of votes is in favour of (2) or (3), that is to say, if liquor licences are to end (a state of affairs which is shortly described as No Licence), or if licences are to be taken out of private hands (which is called State Purchase), payments according to the prescribed rules are to be made to the persons who are dispossessed of their interests.
The necessary money is to be found, if I understand the Bill aright, out of a Central Compensation Fund, and that Fund is to be procured in the following way. The local compensation funds under the Licensing Act of 1910 are to be abolished and the proceeds of the Compensation Levies, out of which they have hitherto been formed, are to be carried to a Central Fund. The rates of levy, which at present apply only to on-licences, are to be doubled, and the levy is to be extended so as to cover, at a different rate, off-licences also. In the second place, the Central Fund is to receive the proceeds of the sale of surplus premises and properties taken over in a State Purchase area, not required for the purposes of the trade. In the third place, the Central Fund is to receive the trading profits in the State Purchase area after deducting all the charges properly borne by the undertakings in the area, including the cost of compensating the interests taken over.

1115
The resultant financial consequences of the provisions I have shortly summarised may be made the subject of speculation—they cannot be stated confidently. But this at least is plain, that if, and to such an extent as, the Fund is inadequate to the demands made upon it, the Consolidated Fund is to stand as collateral security. That, as I read it, is the effect of Clause 30 (6) (a) and (b). The charges, if any, falling on the Consolidated Fund will be by way of terminable annuity and not of capital payments; only amounts not exceeding £500 are to be paid in lump sums.
It is obvious that the mere fact that indisputably such contingent liability exists is sufficient reason for supposing that this Bill could in no circumstances make substantial progress in this House. The right rev. Prelate in charge of it has, I think, indicated that he does not propose to carry the matter beyond the stage of a Second Reading. If a Division is taken upon the Second Reading, if any one challenges it, I shall have the misfortune to find myself in the opposition upon that question because, in my judgment, this Bill is a fanciful Bill, though a most well-intentioned and laborious Bill, and I can conceive of no circumstances which would lead me to the conclusion that it is in the least likely to make a useful contribution to the liquor problem referred to by the noble Viscount who spoke last, whatever that problem may prove to be.
Whether there is anything to be said on behalf of State Purchase and State acquisition I do not know. At one time I was attracted by the conception, but this was, I confess, in the days of pre-war finance. To-day I lay this down as representing my own views; that if there is to be any State control on a universal scale over the liquor trade, that State control ought to be boldly asserted as a principle and applied by Government, and it ought not to be left, in dependency upon the varying decisions of various localities. I have frankly admitted to your Lordships—being slightly apprehensive that some of my earlier observations might linger in the memory of any individual here and there—that before the war I was attracted by these proposals. We have learned a great deal, I hope, in the last seven years. We have had a great deal of experience of State-managed enterprises. I find myself in complete agreement with the noble
1116
Viscount when he says, as I understood him to say, that he is opposed to the State control of almost every other commodity. He gave many and various illustrations.
I share that view, but I find myself driven now to ask the question: If the State manages coal badly and railways badly and half a dozen other activities badly, with which the noble Viscount is as well acquainted as I am, what is there in the nature of Governments or in the nature of liquor which is to lead us to the conclusion that whereas the State control has conspicuously failed when applied to certain commodities, the moment it is applied to those problems which are concerned with alcohol it will succeed? I, for one, see not the slightest reason to suppose that the functions of control will be either better or worse exercised by Governments when applied to liquor than when applied to any great business enterprise. Let no one blind his eyes to the fact that the management of the liquor trade is a gigantic enterprise.
If brewers make great fortunes—as some of them have done—they make them because they are consummate men of business, and the reason why they surpass in their business the skill of Government officials who direct themselves, in substitution for trained persons, to the control of these matters, is simply because the specialist and the man trained to a particular business will always exhibit superior qualities to the State official. I ignore for this comparison the fundamental fact which is elementary in the whole of this argument, that the motives and the inducements from the highest to the lowest of those who are engaged in individual processes of business, are motives which lead to success, and the motives and the inducements which apply to those who are the employees in a great bureaucracy are altogether lacking in the stimulus which, throughout the ages in all civilised countries, has been associated with a high degree of industrial success.
I have, I confess, another objection to these proposals. We hear a great deal in these days about local option, and the noble Viscount gave us a most interesting sketch of its history—I regret that he curtailed it a little, because some stages not quite immaterial seem to me to be omitted —from the days of prehistoric man to Christianity. With a sure and rapid tread, the noble Viscount passed in a sweeping

1117
argument in order to demonstrate the merits of the Bill recommended by the right rev. Prelate. Neither in the records so far as I have consulted them in the well-known work of Mr. Wells, which deals with the subject of pre-historic man, nor in the observations of the noble Viscount, have I been able to discover anything in favour of local option. So far from finding that, I find a striking omission in relation to an argument made good by an attentive consideration of the practice and precepts of Christianity. For not only do I find no reference to local option in any doctrine with which I am familiar, at any rate anterior in date to the time when the most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, ascended to the highest position in our National Church, but I find, on the contrary, there are many admonitions which seem to me most weighty in conflict in the most direct and obvious manner with the doctrine advocated by the noble Viscount, and with the whole school of thought of which the noble Viscount is the convinced and conscientious advocate in this House. I find none of this feeling which underlies the speeches and the advocacy of the noble Viscount and others, that the consumption of alcohol is, in itself, a bad thing. I find quite the contrary. The most sublime authority of all, far from repelling those beverages which the noble Viscount would wave away from our lips, on suitable occasions adopted and recommended them. I am not able to derive the slightest encouragement in the courses which this Bill invite us to take front any precedent of the kind indicated.
What is fundamental in the case which underlies local option? You may cover it up with fine phrases. You may attempt to justify it by pointing to results in Carlisle and elsewhere, and, even there, a greater variety of opinion exists than the noble Viscount seems to think. But it all comes to this—that on a question which affects the individual conscience the majority is to impose its will, as the result of the ballot box, upon the minority. I have the misfortune to find myself irreconcilably opposed to this doctrine. Let those who are in conflict with the view that has been held through the ages by the greatest philanthropists, the greatest moralists and the greatest teachers of religion, and let those who find themselves of opinion that the consumption of alcohol is excessive, that it works great mischief—as undoubtedly it does—address themselves to the task of
1118
persuading others. Let them exhibit a high example in favour of persuasion, but do not let them attempt to force it upon others by compulsion. That sobriety which is the result of compulsion has no value at all.
The noble Viscount, I am sure, would be, as he always is, quite candid with the House, and I have not the slightest doubt that the ideal which he has set before himself is to see the same shackles of complete prohibition thrown round the citizens of this country as are at this moment thrown round the limbs of the nation in whose harbour the statue of Liberty still finds a conspicuous place. I am sure that the noble Viscount would not dispute that that was his ideal. I think I am entitled to infer that that was his ideal. This is a very convenient moment to separate yourself from it, if you happen not to have held it in its earlier stages. The Romans had a very useful maxim principiis obsta, which you may roughly translate by saying that if you think a thing is wrong choke it if you can at its very birth. The noble Viscount attempts to console us by saying that in his opinion this question of Licence or No Licence will not be ripe for decision for twenty years. Twenty years is a considerable period in the life of an individual, but I confess that I for one feel a responsibility in these matters not only for the present generation but for others. Twenty years is a very small space in the life of a nation, and how do we discharge ourselves of our responsibility to-day by accepting the consolations of the noble Viscount that a direct vote cannot be taken for twenty years? I want to put it out of the power of an intolerant majority in this country to press prohibition on a resisting and resenting minority for all time, or for as long, at any rate, as my voice can be raised, or my influence exerted, in its behalf.
I would gladly see improved public houses. I have spent the whole of my life attempting to enforce the precept that the only true temperance reform is to be found upon the road of making our public houses clean, sanitary, healthy, virtuous and comfortable; making them, in other words, places to which a decent working man, after a day's toil, can take his wife and children, away from the heat and discomfort of a small house, and enjoy all the amenities of social life, provide them with light refreshments, and feel that there is some brighter social amenity independent

1119
entirely of the scanty efforts in a meagre house of individuals of small means. All this is within our grasp of corporate endeavour, but it is utterly out of reach of the resources of a tiny household. But the noble Viscount has no room for those things at all. He says that no temperance association is prepared to give a reasonable hearing to the case made for improving a public house as long as that public house is in private hands.
Again, I have the misfortune to differ entirely from the noble Viscount. I would venture to remind him that if those be the views of the temperance societies of the country they are placing themselves in direct and demonstrable antagonism with the experience and with the fundamental nature and characteristics of the English people. It has been said truly by a writer of an earlier age—
" Whoe'er has frayed life's chill round.
Where'er his stages may have been,
May sigh to think he still has found
The warmest welcome, at an inn."
The England of Dickens—the England so characteristic of our life for three hundred. years—was an England in which every traveller who paused at an inn was made welcome, and was there given good food and good drink for man and beast alike. The inns of those days were all houses which were supported by private enterprise, and it was just because the profits went to a good and worthy landlord that the inns were so well maintained and responded so truly to the needs and tastes of the people of that day.
I remember, in the days when I was a young man at the Bar, that I used to practise a good deal in these matters before the Licensing Bench at Liverpool, and, upon the question of attempting to make public houses confortable and useful, your Lordships would hardly believe that in those days—I would almost call them barbarous days—it was the custom of the Bench to allow the police to come forward and give evidence that a licence ought not to be renewed because the convenience of a telephone had been supplied on the premises for the use of clients, or because draughts were played in the room in which refreshment was taken. That was noted as an objection which was considered when application was made for the renewal of licences.
I am of the opinion, which I have already indicated, that the true line of licensing
1120
reform was once and for all laid down in that great Bill which was passed in the concluding years of the last period of Office of the Unionist Party. That Bill is an Act to-day. It provided that the Trade should themselves support a fund which should be used for the compensation to be given m the case of redundant houses. That Bill was most bitterly opposed upon its introduction, but no one who has studied the statistics of its operation—no one, I will make bold to say, who, in any large town, has taken the trouble to make himself familiar with its working—will be under any delusion as to the great; merits of this Act which has brought, results incomparably greater than any measure of temperance legislation that has ever been passed in our time. I confess, speaking for myself, that if I alone had had to deal with this matter, I should have been well content to have allowed that Act to continue to operate, while at the same time making every effort to convert the public house into a useful club.
I will take the opportunity of excepting from my remarks many of those houses which have been taken over and conducted by the Trust Company. I exclude those most particularly because the Trust Company has succeeded, and it has succeeded for this reason, that it has attempted to translate into the necessities of modern life the very spirit of the good landlord of the old days. That is not the spirit of the proposals of those who, at this moment, and as a first step, have attempted to make the way easy for No Licence, never troubling to conceal their real intention of getting rid of licences altogether. I would certainly, speaking again for myself, enter a caveat when we are asked to see in the work of the Control Board during the war evidence of an extraordinarily successful contribution to our present problem. I am not, of course, here to criticise what they did in so far as that was justified in relation to the necessities of the war, but after all that form of control, though tolerated during the war, was always one which was very unsatisfactory to the people. It was undemocratic. The Board was in supreme control. No one could question its decisions, and there were many of its decisions as to the wisdom and necessity of which I confess that I entertained the strongest possible doubt.
I should be much obliged to anyone who will tell me at this moment why it is that a

1121
citizen of this country, who happens to have been to a play and who wishes to go and have supper in a public restaurant, cannot, as I understand, obtain any alcohol in the course of that supper. I am told this is so. I never go to plays, and still less would I go in this hot weather, and I can truthfully say that I very rarely go to supper parties. Therefore, my interest in this question is entirely altruistic, and is on behalf of the greatest city of the freest Empire in the world. The moment I hear of any shackle being imposed upon other citizens which I hold to be unnecessary every fibre of my being rises in resistance. If, when a private citizen who has taken his wife to see a play and afterwards has gone to a suitable restaurant to obtain supper, you deprive him in the course of that supper, during the hours which you have agreed as proper for taking the supper, of the opportunity of consuming alcohol—of course in decency and in moderation—you are acting tyrannously to him, and you ought to be stopped. Instead of coming to Parliament for greater powers you ought to have taken away from you the powers which you have of acting in this manner.
I have been betrayed by very sincere feeling on this subject into a longer speech than I intended to make. In the course of the next few days I shall be engaged in discussing and reconciling the views which I have honestly put forward to-day with the proposals which shortly, I understand, the Government are about to make upon this question. But on this particular occasion, as a member of the Government has full licence to express his views, I have taken the opportunity, for which I have waited for many years, to explain my views on this question. They are views which I deeply hold, views which have attended the whole of my career and which will continue and determine it as long as I take any part in public life.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I cannot help expressing some regret that the noble and learned Viscount has been so completely converted by his experience during the last few years from that sympathy which I thought he at one time exhibited in relation to this matter. I listened with great interest and admiration—an admiration which we must all feel—to his eloquence, and to his denunciation of anything in the shape of State management or State control. I am bound to say
1122
that I think he has been carried away a little too much by the prevalent wave of public opinion, a natural revulsion perhaps, against the restrictions which were imposed upon all of us, and necessarily imposed, during the period of the war. It is difficult at this moment, I admit, to advocate the principle of public management and public control of any business, but the very fact of the stream of opinion excited by the Press in denunciation of Government action, and in its abuse of the word bureaucratic, ought surely to lead us to look with a little more discrimination and not rush to the conclusion that because public ownership, public management and control, may be undesirable in many businesses, it is necessarily undesirable and fatal to all.
What seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding in this matter is this. It is always assumed that if anything is taken out of the hands of private enterprise it is necessarily to be placed under a public authority and run like the present Civil Service. It is one thing to have public control and authority, and another thing to have a bureaucratic system and control of the Central Government. Surely we have many instances (no country has so many) of management of public affairs by public authorities which are not directly responsible to the Central Government. Is the Port of London Authority to be denounced because it represents the principle of public ownership) and control? Are we satisfied that the Port of London, run by a dozen competing companies, would be better and more economically managed than under the public authority which at present controls it? We have to use a certain amount of discretion even in our most fervent denunciation of the excesses of public control.
I should like to be allowed, briefly, to state the reasons why I am prepared, though not by any means defending all its details, to give a vote in favour of the present Bill. I do so simply because it embodies for the first time in any Bill introduced into Parliament the principle of public ownership and control of the liquor traffic. I am firmly convinced that we shall never get out of the interminable controversy, so noxious to our political life, on this question, nor shall we be able, materially, to reduce those evils of the liquor traffic which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack must deplore as much as any one, so long as the liquor

1123
traffic remains in private hands. That may seem a bold proposal, and it is for that reason, while differing on some of the details, that I am prepared to give a vote in support of the Bill.
As I have said, that may seem a bold proposal, but I contend that it has experience arid authority in its favour. The Liquor Control Board (which has come in for a certain amount of criticism from the Lord Chancellor, but which, undoubtedly, did very good service during the war), despite the success which attended its efforts in the enormous diminution of drunkenness, as well as in the reduction of many of the other evils resulting from an excessive consumption of drink, came to the conclusion, and embodied it in a Resolution some four years ago, that it was impossible, effectively, to regulate the drink traffic as long as it remained in private hands. The Resolution and the recommendations of the Board, and the arguments by which they were supported, made such an impression on the Government of that time that we were within an ace of the introduction of a measure for taking over the business of the manufacture and supply of liquor throughout England and Wales, lock, stock and barrel.
Had that happened, I believe it would have been not only the greatest blessing to the people of this country but a triumphant economic success. Lord Sumner, who spoke on the last occasion this Bill was before your Lordships' House, made some very severe criticisms of the economic aspects of a State Purchase policy. As against the terrible picture he drew of the possible economic consequences, which, after all, are only guesswork, I think Viscount Astor is perfectly justified in quoting the actual facts of the Carlisle experiment. The Carlisle experiment certainly is a very hard nut to crack for those who say that the acquisition of the liquor trade by public authority must necessarily be economically unsound. What happened at Carlisle was that the profits of the trade conducted by the public authority were so great that, after paying all costs and providing liberally for depreciation and paying interest on the capital required to buy out private interests, they were in a position, within four years, to replace half the capital required for the acquisition of those private interests. That purchase would within ten years have paid for itself and, after that, all the profits of the business would have gone to the community.
1124
Your Lordships will observe that these economic gains were all concurrent with changes and improvements in the method of supplying liquor to the public, which have resulted in benefit to social order and the health of the community to which every single authority, civil and ecclesiastical, that has investigated the subject, has borne abundant testimony. You may say, "That is the experience of a single district. One swallow does not make a summer." It certainly does not make a winter; and it is hard to contend, in view of the success from an economic point of view, that it is likely to be a failure elsewhere. I would ask your Lordships to observe this. There was nothing exceptional or specially favourable in the condition of Carlisle. There was no wonderful management, there were no recondite causes for the success to which I have referred. It was due mainly to the suppression of a large number of redundant public houses. When they were suppressed, all the parties interested in them were liberally compensated. Nevertheless, the abolition of these houses led to very great economies, which enabled improvements to be effected in the houses which were left, and at the same time provided amply for the cost of the acquisition of the private interests concerned.
Redundant public houses represent a fact with which your Lordships are familiar in every part of the country. They exist in great numbers almost everywhere, and the evil of them is generally recognised. There is the Statute to which the noble and learned Lord, who has now left the Woolsack, referred, which is directed towards getting rid of them gradually. I am bound to say that I listened with some astonishment to the eloquent tribute which he paid to the success of the system of compensation introduced by that Statute, for, as a matter of fact, it will take us hundreds of years to get rid of all redundant public houses under it, and all the time that you are getting rid of them you are increasing the value of the remaining public houses, without any guarantee that they will be improved or better managed, and you are pouring into private pockets the wealth which, under the Carlisle system, goes to the community.
This reform of the liquor traffic, indeed, seems to me to be the one great social reform of which I know that does not encounter the most formidable economic

1125
obstacles at the threshold. The general experience of the social reformer is that, however great the possibility of ultimate advantage in the reform which he advocates, the immediate prospect is simply an increase of expenditure. As a result, social reformers are continually having to strike a balance between social considerations on the one side and economic considerations on the other. But here is a case in which social and economic advantage go hand in hand. Under this system, the public authority at one and the same time has the power of getting rid of redundant houses and improving the houses which remain, with the prospect, so far from becoming a burden to the taxpayer and the ratepayer, of opening up a new source of revenue to the community. It seems to me, therefore, that this is the one hopeful and practical method of temperance reform.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in not desiring prohibition. I have never been able to convince myself that a majority, whether local or national, has any right to cut off a minority from reasonable opportunities of obtaining alcoholic drinks, if they desire to have them. I cannot say that I go to the length of the noble and learned Lord in denouncing any kind of regulation of the drink traffic. I thought his arguments went to the full length in that respect, and when he grew so eloquent about the hardships of people being unable to get drink between 11 o'clock and 12, or between 10 o'clock and 11 at night, whichever it might be, I rather wondered whether he objected to there being any such thing as the closing of public houses at any hour whatsoever, or whether he also regarded it as an intolerable interference with the liberty of the public that opportunities of obtaining alcoholic drinks should not be afforded to everybody at every hour of every day and night. I am opposed to prohibition, and I am totally opposed to confiscation. I would rather pay too much than too little to the people at present interested in the Trade for buying up private interests.
But in my opinion—and I think the more you look at the actual experience during the war, particularly in the Carlisle district, the more your Lordships will be inclined to agree with me—neither prohibition nor confiscation is in the leastnecessary. I believe that what is vitally necessary is to get rid of the system under which large
1126
numbers of people have a direct interest in pushing and encouraging the sale of drink, and in tempting people to drink more than they want and more than is good for them. It is idle to say that, so long as this business is in private hands, there will not be thousands of people interested in encouraging the sale of drink and stimulating its consumption. It is inevitable that there should be, and I do not blame them. Every trader is necessarily desirous of increasing the consumption of the article in which he trades, and where, as in this case, the number of traders is unfortunately much too large, the very fierceness of competition drives them to stimulate consumption all the more.
Eliminate that dangerous and anti-social element from the supply of drink. Leave the traffic in the hands of an authority which, while bound to provide reasonable facilities for the purchase of alcoholic drinks by those who require them, has no interest in pushing the sale of such drinks, but, on the contrary, is interested in the maintenance of real places of refreshment and social intercourse, where alcoholic drinks will be obtainable, but where other things will also be obtainable, and where the management has nothing to gain by pushing the sale of alcoholic drinks. Such opportunities are afforded by a public authority. I believe it to be only fair, in the interests of the poorer classes of the community, that they should be afforded. I believe that public opinion and the growth of temperance principles may be relied upon to do the rest. I believe that this can be achieved, not only without any financial burden whatsoever being placed upon the community, but with actual economic advantage to the community. For these reasons, I hold very strongly that the true road of reform, the most hopeful road of reform in this matter, is the road of State Purchase, and, though differing on many points from the proposals of the Bill, and admitting the force of what was said by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that if it were to be regarded as a practical measure, with which we were going on, it was open to objection from the point of view of privilege, nevertheless I am prepared to go the length of giving a vote for its Second Reading.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I never interfere in a debate upon temperance without an uneasy feeling, born of a long

1127
experience, that I shall most assuredly encounter the hostilities of extreme advocates on both sides. I have never been in favour of prohibition. I have never seen how it could be enforced, although I admit thoroughly that if it were possible to establish such a system in this country with the consent of the people, the enormous advantage that would most undoubtedly arise from the abstention from alcoholic drink would entirely outweigh any personal or selfish interest that an individual might retain in his desire for alcoholic satisfaction.
I am genuinely grateful to the most rev. Prelate for having introduced this Bill, and to those behind him—the noble Viscount and, perhaps I might add also, Lady Astor, for her public position entitles me to refer to her—for the zeal and encouragement which they have given to the furtherance of this matter. In truth, whether we agree with the exact details of this measure or not, I think we must all agree that the question of temperance reform cannot be allowed to go on sleeping. It is of the utmost consequence that we should give our earnest attention to investigating the best means by which we can redeem this country from its national vice of intemperance. That I am not using language that is too strained, must, I think, be obvious to anyone who has looked at the figures which we saw in this morning's papers, and found, suddenly, that the convictions for drunkenness, which must be some index of excessive and gross drinking, are leaping up now that control is being relaxed.
It is a very easy thing to laugh at temperance reformers, and a very easy thing to talk about the liberties of individuals and their rights to enjoy themselves, the jollity and happiness of English inns, and the friendliness of English landlords. It is an easy thing to discuss, and in many cases it reminds all of us of very pleasant memories, but it has nothing whatever to do with the drink traffic. If you want to know the effect of that, do not go to some English inn in the country. Go across the river, down into South London, which I have not the least doubt the Bishop of London knows from personal experience. Go, as I have gone, and as many others of your Lordships have gone, into the hospitals, where I have seen a ward of little children, all or nearly all of whom, I was told by the sister in charge, owed their position in that ward to the fact that
1128
their mothers were drunkards. Go and consider that fact, when reference is made to the jollity of English inns, and remember that there is something besides jollity connected with the drink traffic, and that it cannot be doubted that as centres for the dissemination of vice, brutality, cruelty and degradation in their worst forms, you can find nothing to equal the less well-regulated public houses in the South and East of London. Both these things have to be brought together, and into contrast, when one is forming a judgment upon this matter. The Bill proposes that this matter should be dealt with by local option affecting one of three methods of dealing with the traffic. The mere question of local option provoked the ire of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. He tells us that he has devoted the energies of his life to the securing of better conditions in public houses. I have not the least doubt that he has, and, as everybody knows the powerful driving extent of his energies, I cannot help thinking that looking back he must be rather disappointed as to the results of his efforts, because it is extremely difficult for anybody to find that the conditions inside these public houses—I am speaking of the towns and of London, which I know—are much better then they were twenty years ago. This matter can never be controlled from within. The licensing magistrates can only act upon the records of actual convictions. They find themselves in extreme difficulty if they act upon the recommendations of the district, and unless some external control is put upon the traffic it is impossible that it can be brought within proper measurable dimensions.
Now, the ground upon which, as I understand, the noble and learned Viscount objects to local option, is that no three people have any right to say what two people shall do. But, after all, the whole basis of our Government depends upon three people saying what two people shall do. It is the very thing upon which the whole of our laws are based, and I am unable to understand why we should accept Government by the will of the majority, as we do in all public affairs, and then deny it in local affairs. If you return to Parliament to-morrow a majority of people pledged to destroy all public houses without compensation they can do it. Although the minority might protest, such a law would be perfectly valid. It is the very principle upon which our system of

1129
government depends, and why it is not to be applicable to the reduction of the drink traffic I have never been able to understand. When one realises the extent to which life, and, what is of less consequence, property, may be deteriorated in any district by the presence of public houses, which frequently are the resort of very undesirable characters, it seems a hard thing to say that the people in those districts must be compelled to submit to the presence of those disadvantages, without having any voice in deciding whether they should wholly cease or be regulated.
When one is brought face to face with the question as to whether the State should acquire the drink traffic and take it over, I hesitate to speak. The noble Viscount who has just spoken will forgive me for saying that I have not rushed to the conclusion that State management is bad. I have been driven to it by a series of experiments and examples, which appear to me to admit of no explanation, except the fact that State management and control can never effect what individual enterprise can accomplish; and I am very glad to learn from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that he, at last, has become a convert to this view. I cannot help wishing that the opinion which he urged upon us with such 'force had been urged upon the ears of his reluctant colleagues during the last two years. Then we might have been saved some of the difficulties into which this country has been plunged.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord will recall that most of the instances of Government activity under which we have been labouring for the last two years were inherited from the time when both he and I were responsible.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble and learned Viscount will forgive me for saying that I have heard that argument from him on nearly every occasion that I have made a speech in this House, and it never carries the least conviction, and for this reason, that when he and I had the pleasure (which I am afraid will not be renewed) of serving together in the same Government the country was at war, and that has no relation whatever to what has happened during the time when the noble and learned Viscount, unassisted by my society and my guidance, has been a member of the Government which has continued into the
1130
times of peace conditions that could only be justified under the temporary exigencies of actual warfare.
I do not wish to continue this argument nor to bandy words with the noble and learned Viscount. I am sincerely anxious to secure some method of controlling the drink traffic, which I believe, in its uncontrolled excess, is responsible not only for an enormous percentage of our crime and of our unemployment, but also for no little share of the industrial indifference and inefficiency from which this country stands to-day in grave danger. Everyone who examines this question in any country always finds that these conditions are the necessary result of drink. And when people talk with some scorn of the conditions obtaining in the United States of America I beg them to remember that the reason why the States in America voted for prohibition was because of the unanswerable example of the States that went "dry" one by one. It was that, and that alone, that convinced the United States that, in the public interest, it was essential that this measure should be made universal. Although I do not pledge myself to the details of this measure, yet, none the less, if the Second Reading is challenged—and I hope the most rev. Prelate will take the sense of the House upon it—I shall certainly support the Bill, as I regard it as an honest and sincere attempt to deal with a grave evil which has been but little mitigated in recent days, and in the relief of which I certainly look for a great deal of hope in the future of this country.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, as chairman of the chief temperance society of the Church of England, I think I ought to say a few words on this Bill, although I can only support it in rather a half-hearted way. I listened, as we all did, with the greatest interest to the Lord Chancellor's speech, but I should like to remind him, if it is not impertinent, of Mill on "Liberty"—one of the greatest authorities on liberty that any one can quote. He says:—
" As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it becomes open to discussion."
And again—
" Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage or definite risk of damage, either to an individual

1131
or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty and placed in that of morality or law."
I should like to place side by side with that quotation this description from life. The noble Lord opposite has appealed to me as one who has had thirty years' experience of East London; may I read to your Lordships this letter which carries us right down to bed-rock facts? I received it from an East London clergyman as I started upon my five weeks' tour through England on this particular matter. He writes:—
"After fourteen years' experience in these London slums it is not possible to face the Day of Judgment without protesting against the drink. If Christian England only knew what is going on in the slums she would rise with one consent and put it down. Only to hear young girls shouting in the streets at night going home drunk! Only to see starved little children waiting for the public-houses to close and their drunken mothers to come home! To have twenty-nine public-houses in your area with the low atmosphere and degrading moral influence, no matter what we try to do! It is most unfair that any party should hang this thing round the neck of Young England."
We have to balance a cry like that against that protest for the liberty of the individual which was addressed to us from the Woolsack.
It seems to me that in the last few years lightning flashes have been thrown upon this problem. It really is a totally different problem from what it was six or seven years ago. In the first place, we cannot ignore what has happened across the Atlantic. I am not in favour of prohibition. All round England, at every great meeting I held, "I am not a Pussyfoot,' I said, "and I am not in favour of prohibition." But the facts of the gaols that have been closed across the Atlantic—300 in number, I believe—the rescue homes that have been found unnecessary, have convinced the most sceptical person of the extraordinary effect that prohibition has had. We put the question to the Bishops, fifty-two in number, when they came over to the Lambeth Conference from America. They had not done a hand's turn towards getting it, but they all, with one voice, said, "We will never go back." Admiral Sims said exactly the same thing the other day.
And, in the light of the pamphlets which have been freely scattered among your Lordships by the Trade—I received two myself, and a similar pamphlet was given
1132
at every one of my seventy meetings; they must have spent £500 trying to injure my campaign—I find these facts are really worth knowing. The cases of drunkenness in Philadelphia have gone down from 43,000 in 1917 to 20,410 in 1920; and the 54 police chiefs, in answer to 80 enquiries in the American city, gave the following figures:—Arrests for drunkenness, 372,497 in 1917; 141,071 in 1920. It is exactly the same in Canada. And I have here from the medical correspondent of one of our great papers, who was present when Ontario went "bone dry," the result of what happened over there. I will not trouble your Lordships with that, however.
The second revelation which was made was the revelation in 1915 of the danger of our existing habits during the war. I shall never forget that particular time, as I was privileged to be allowed by Lord French to go down the battle line in 1915. Every general said: "How can I get through these lines with two rounds a day? Why did we have two rounds a day? It was explained to us by our leaders at that time, Mr. Lloyd George and Lord Kitchener, in three famous speeches, that we were fighting Germany, Austria and the drink; that the most dangerous was the drink, and that all the German submarines put together were nothing like the danger that the drink was to this country. Lord Kitchener said: "What prevents our sending ammunition to our men is the lure of the drink." That was a lightning revelation, which we ought never to forget, of what our old drink habits were to this country. It seems to me we should be fatuous to forget it.
There is a third reason—the effect that ensued from strict and fair drink control. Your Lordships may perhaps have forgotten what happened. The Liquor Control Board, when, under that splendid man Lord D'Abernon, it took over the drink of England, reduced the hours from nineteen and a half in London (a disgraceful number) and seventeen and a half in the country (equally disgraceful) to two and a half in the morning and three in the evening. That was done with the full co-operation of the Trade in 1915, who saw the danger, and who, as thoroughly patriotic men, would not as individuals oppose what they saw then was the cure of a national danger. What happened under this drink control? This is really a thing we ought never to forget. The con-

1133
victions for drunkenness in London went down in twelve months from 67,000 to 16,000. To show that it was not solely because the men had gone to the war, it went down among the women from 21,000 to 7,000 in two years. Infant mortality in the country—and the noble and learned. Lord opposite is right in saying that a large number of children suffer from this—went down 43 per cent. The prisoners in our prisons went down from 14,000 to 7,000, and many of them went overseas and died for their country. The output of munitions and of our great industries was so great that when I looked into the French and Italian fronts, on my way back from Salonika in 1918, I found there was more ammunition at the end of battle than there had been in the morning, because the women and the sober population here had simply poured the stuff across.
We have also to consider whether, even from an industrial point of view, we are able to compete with what is practically a sober nation across the Atlantic, when we have a drink bill of £469,000,000. One firm competing the other day with an American firm—this was told at the Liquor Control Board a few weeks ago—made it a matter not of social or of moral policy, but of industrial policy, for a man to be a teetotaller for twelve months after they took him on, otherwise they found they could not compete successfully.
Then comes the next revelation. That is the terrible experience we have had since the Armistice. I do not know whether your Lordships happened to read the very striking diary published by the Observer newspaper in May, 1915. This is what has really happened since the Armistice. There have been twelve relaxations, February 5, March 10, April 1, May 7, May 28, June 3, July 22, August 19, and November 18, in 1919; July 5 and November 26, in 1920; and April 25, 1921. Those relaxations have been made in hours and strength of the liquor and in favour of going back to more individual liberty. What has been the result? These are the increases of convictions for drunkenness in England since the Armistice. On August 17, 1919, 106 per cent. over the Armistice figures, 69 per cent. among women; on January 25, 1920, 230 per cent., 124 per cent. among women, showing that it was not merely because the men had come back. On August 1, 1920, 249 per cent., and 154
1134
per cent. among women. There had been a little drop during the depression of trade. Now even The Times newspaper, which has never taken a very strong line on the question of drink reform, in its leading article to-day—your Lordships must have read it—strikes a note of alarm. In 1914 the number of convictions was 183,828. Those figures sank in 1918 to 29,075. Then last year the figures rose again to 95,763, which is nearly half of what it was in 1914. That is what I call a fourth revelation of what would happen if you really went back to the old drinking hours. It seems to me that the very fact that every single relaxation has been followed by an increase of drunkenness is a thing which really must wake us to a sense of the danger we are in.
Then I come to the fifth revelation, which I really believe all your Lordships have not understood. That is the scientific revelation. On that we have a Report of the Committee set up to consider the nature of alcohol itself. Until last year, having been forty years a teetotaller, the nature of alcohol really did not concern me much. But that Report is not temperance propaganda. It is issued by the Privy Council and is to be bought for 1s. It is embodied in the syllabus issued to all our schools by the Board of Education. This revelation underlies the whole problem of temperance reform. Ten great physiologists—of whom all the experts to whom I spoke all round England, great leading physicians, said, that ten men more impartial could not be found—discovered that alcohol is not a stimulant at all, but a great narcotic. When a friend of mine said: "I cannot make a speech after dinner without a glass of champagne," according to that Report he dulled his powers of self-criticism. He did not realise what a fool he was about to make of himself because alcohol had drugged and dulled his powers of self-criticism and self-control.
When you look at our slums and what drink has done there; when you consider its effect on that parish, of which I read an account to your Lordships; when you consider that a man with 13 years' good character in the Navy not only wronged, but finally killed, a poor little girl of thirteen because he was full of this narcotic, which turned him from a man into a beast, you cannot say: "I must have my glass when I go to supper at the Savoy, and I cannot attend to what is going on in the

1135
slums, and what the effect, legislation or no legislation, has been upon my fellow creatures." That is impossible, I protest, in the light of those facts.
With regard to the Bill, it is not my Bill, or the Bill of the Christian Churches. Sixteen Christian Churches have agreed on nine points—Sunday closing; restriction of hours for the sale of drink on week-days; reduction of the number of licensed premises; increase of the power of local licensing authorities; control of clubs; abolition of grocers' licences; prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors to young persons; local option; and the provision of alternatives to the liquor tavern. Those are the points the sixteen Churches have demanded that the Government shall embody in the Bill for which we have waited two and a half years. It is because that of those nine points one—local option —is embodied in this Bill, that I am able to give it my support.
I am very doubtful altogether, and I agree with the Lord Chancellor and other critics, about State Purchase; but what is embodied in the Bill is local option. I ask your Lordships: Is it no concern of a parish such as I have described in East London to have the right to say whether it shall have twenty-nine public houses or not? It seems to me it is right that it should. As a Labour leader said the other day: "You are very fond of calling the public house the working man's cellar, so for God's sake let him have the key of it; he has not got it now." It is a very striking fact that the Labour Party passed this resolution at Scarborough in 1920—
"This Conference, believing that the liquor traffic is a trade in respect of which the people as a whole must assert free and unfettered power, in accordance with local opinion, demands for this purpose that the localities should have conferred upon them facilities:—

" (a) To prohibit the sale of liquor within their own boundaries;

(b) To reduce the number of licences, and regulate the conditions under which they may be held; and

" (c) If localities decide that licences shall be granted, to determine whether licences shall be under private or public control."

That seems to me to dispose largely of the five objections to local option.
There are five in all—that it is not an all-round choice; that it is ineffective; that it is prohibition in disguise; that it is class legislation; that it is an invasion of personal liberty. Those are the five
1136
great attacks on local option. Why is it not an all-round choice? We are quite content to let people choose any other licence if they want it. We trust the people absolutely. If a locality wants another licence let them have it. We do not believe that they are going to choose another licence.
Ineffective? Yes, it will be if you keep the areas too small for local Option, but we do not propose to have small areas for local option, but large areas where you will have the whole county voting on the subject. Prohibition in disguise? That attack is contradictory of No. 2 attack. If it is to be ineffective it is not prohibition in disguise. As a matter of fact, a prohibition area is quite different from a licence area. Class legislation? If it is class legislation I say that the Labour Party are well able to see that their class is looked after. Invasion of personal liberty? I began with that in answer to what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said, whereas I meant to conclude with it. While we all feel that sort of appeal which the Lord Chancellor made—an appeal to liberty—I would point out that liberty must be tempered by consideration for other people. I honestly believe that we have to tackle this temperance question, and by working fairly and squarely together we may have a better future in store.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I know that the House is anxious to proceed to another Bill in which it takes great interest, and I will detain your Lordships for one or two moments only. I notice in the first place, as Lord Astor has reminded the House, that Wales is excluded from the operation of this Bill. I take that as an indication that the framers of the Bill recognise that the situation in Wales regarding licensing is different from that which prevails in England, and that the case of Wales demands and deserves special treatment and special legislation. I can only, in a sentence, express my personal hope that the day is not very far distant when an opportunity will be afforded of granting to the people of Wales the right of settling their licensing question in their own way.
In reference to this Bill I wish to say that I am glad the right rev. Prelate has introduced it, because it gives this House, and through this House the country, an opportunity of considering the urgent

1137
importance of dealing in some way with the licensing problem as it affects our national life to-day. I think that I shall carry noble Lords with me almost unanimously in the statement that we cannot be satisfied with the present framework of our licensing system, having regard to the results which it produces. Some change is required, and I think that change is required upon two cardinal points. First, in regard to the extent of the facilities provided for drinking, and secondly, in the character and medium of the control of the traffic. Many of us differ as to the best way of exercising this control, but I may say, as many noble Lords who have known me in the past are aware, that I have always been a very strong advocate of the principle of local option, and, because that principle is embodied in this Bill, 1 at all events will vote for its Second Reading.
I should like to make my attitude clear upon the question of State Purchase. I am not in favour of State Purchase. I do not think the present financial position of the country makes t hat a practical issue, even if the general opinion of the country were in favour of it. But there is a distinction between a national scheme of State Purchase and local experiments in the way of disinterested management. Personally, I see a most formidable series of practical difficulties in the way of carrying out the plan advocated in this Bill.
I will conclude by simply making one further reference to the Central Control Board, to which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and other speakers, referred. I desire to express my very highest appreciation of the value of the services rendered by the Central Control Board to this country during the most difficult time in which they operated and carried out the powers placed in their hands. They have been attacked, as noble Lords know, and attacked bitterly, and, as I think, unfairly, by all sides, but my opinion is that when the time comes for the history of the efforts made during the war to be written in a clear atmosphere, we shall see that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the members of the Central Control Board. I venture to prophesy that many of the steps which they took during the war in the direction of control will find a permanent place in our licensing system in the future. I am glad that this Bill has been introduced, because it has given us an opportunity of pressing, as I think rightly, the urgency of the question, and I
1138
feel sure that even the limited opportunity which we have had of discussing the proposals may be a useful means of preparing a way for the settlement of the question in the future.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, before voting for the proposals before your Lordships' House I should like very briefly to make one or two observations, especially in regard to Part II, which is by far the most important part of the Bill. As to local option, it is perhaps safe to say that if it does little harm it will not do very much good. The best security for the conduct of the liquor trade is a strong, independent, representative licensing authority. As regards Part II it raises the question of the elimination of the element of private profit in the retail trade, which has been adopted in more than one country. It has probably been brought home to most of those who have studied the subject that the monopoly held by the State is a dangerous form of control. One of the great wonders of administration was seen when the late Czar was able to put an end to the enormous liquor revenue drawn by Russia from the monopoly possessed by the State.
I am afraid that Part II of this Bill tends rather towards State monopoly of the liquor trade, and in my opinion that is a danger to be avoided. The elimination of the element of private profit, as in the Scandinavian system, in which the late Lord Grey was so much interested, is one that has been tried on a limited scale only in this country, because there is no power of monopoly over an area, and the effects of the system cannot be well judged of except in Scandinavia. This system, I think, offers by far the most hopeful solution of the problem. I agree with what has been said, that nothing will give control over the liquor traffic except the elimination of private profit. I doubt if that can be applied to the manufacturing part of the trade, but, at any rate, it can be applied to the retail trade. The controlling body would, I think, be much better constituted were it unpaid, and were a permanent, representative citizen appointed to the Board, to distribute the profits to the trade.
With amendments on those important points the Bill would move in the right direction. I feel confident that anything which tends to make the Treasury, or the local authority, dependent upon

1139
revenue from the liquor traffic is a danger to the community of the first order, and, indeed, a greater danger than anything from which we now suffer. Some provision must be made for the profits of the trade being wisely spent, and it would be much better done by strong representative bodies of citizens in the different localities than by a Board which, in its character, is uncomfortably close to those bureaucracies from which we have suffered and from which we are struggling to get free.
On Question, Motion for the Second Reading negatived.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I regret very much that the important discussion which has taken place has somewhat delayed the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill, which is to effect the union of the Scottish Churches. Since I occupied my present position I have not had placed in my hands a task in respect of which I have felt an equal degree of responsibility. It is not long ago, about a month, since I happened to find myself in Edinburgh on the occasion of the meeting of the National Assembly, and I had some discussion with our late friend and colleague, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on the subject of this Bill. I cherish the melancholy pleasure of remembering that he was good enough to express to me his satisfaction that I was charged with the fortunes of these proposals in this House.
The question is one of the deepest moment. It involves an area into which statesmen and politicians should intrude only with the deepest self-distrust, and then only with complete and certain assurance that the spiritual interests involved require the intervention of Parliament. The situation, which I must shortly explain, is in my judgment most clearly one of those which satisfies the formula I have laid down. The ecclesiastical history of Scotland, as many of your Lordships know, is a remarkable one. It is remarkable when contrasted with the ecclesiastical history of any European country known to me in the comparable period, and the principal ground of difference between the development of view in the Scottish Church, or Churches, and the other churches
1140
of Christendom, has been this, that where there has been dissidence in the other countries of Europe that dissidence has in almost every case been confined to some difference of dogmatic opinion.
If you trace the great movements in this country and in the Latin countries of Europe, where we set up the great chronological landmarks on these issues, you will find that it is rarely that the minds and consciences of men are stirred except by points in which at some stage it comes in contact with dogma. It is a peculiar circumstance in the history of the Church in Scotland that differences which have proved to be most lasting and exacerbating in their results have taken place, in the main, on some point which, in relation to the great points involved, must be pronounced secondary, and which, indeed, are recognised as being secondary in the proposals to which this Bill gives statutory effect.
Another reason which in any circumstances must incline this House to consider most indulgently the proposals I now have to recommend, is the consideration of the immense gain in strength which is immediately effected by union in such a case as this. Napoleon, in a cynical phrase, said that if there were no religion it would be necessary for statesmen to invent one. What he meant was that the most sublime foundation upon which the moral conscience, whether in an individual or in a nation, reposed lies in the sanction which is contributed by devotion, by a belief in a future state, by a belief in the obligation imposed not by an earthly code of morality but by one of more sublime origin and superior sanction. If that be true—and, indeed, it is a commonplace—it would appear to be clear that there could be no excuse for maintaining or supporting a system under which, in the opinion of those most competent to form a judgment, there is a dissipation of energy, a weakening of strength by the division of energies, which were divided only in relation to historical causes which have long since passed away—a division which can be swept away to-day by a simple legislative Act.
The true position, as we find it who must apply our minds to this question, is that a number of pious and learned men in Scotland, each of them charged with the responsibility for that branch of the Church to which he belongs, having become con-

1141
vinced some years ago that there was such a dissipation of energy that the work which, to them, is the work of their lives, could be more efficiently discharged if union were established between themselves and other bodies in Scotland, have come to Parliament to-day and have asked that, by stages which I will presently, however shortly, explain, Parliament shall give effect to that which it is no exaggeration to say that the leading theologians and divines of Scotland, with a surprising degree of agreement almost amounting to unanimity, have come to Parliament to request. I cannot, in any circumstance, conceive that such a claim would be made in this House to deaf ears, and, indeed, if ever there was a question in which supreme importance should be conceded to the local opinion, in which effect should be given, in substance if not in name, to that power of independent wish which we associate with the term of Home Rule, it is surely in a case like this, when it is substantially true to say that all the divines and all the leading Churches of Scotland have come to Parliament to say that., deeply conscious of their spiritual responsibilities, they are persuaded that they can discharge them more efficiently and with more adequate return in the fruits of their ministrations, if the facilities are given to them which are contained in this Bill.
One other observation falls to be made at this stage. There have been in Scotland, as in other countries, great movements and transmigrations of the population from rural districts into industrial districts. Any person who examines a map of Scotland as that map was observable forty years ago, and then examines a map of to-day, which exhibits the relative population of the two areas, will be immensely struck by the change that has taken place during that period in the direction of concentrating great masses of population in Scotland between the two great Firths with which many of your Lordships are familiar. Ecclesiastical readjustment has by no means kept pace with that migration of the population, which has, of course, been the result of economic causes. One of the principal reasons why the ecclesiastical movement has not corresponded has been the artificial and stereotyped condition resulting from the disunion which it is the object of this proposal to alleviate and to end. I should be sorry to pretend to give your Lordships the exact figures—I was
1142
astonished when I was informed of them two weeks ago on my visit to Edinburgh—which would exhibit in how many small villages, making, indeed, under modern conditions, an inconsiderable claim upon the ministrations of clergymen, you can find two devout men, two scholars who—if I may use mundane language in relation to matters much higher—are, indeed, if you analyse their activities, competing in a small parish for the suffrages or the preferences of the population.
At the same time you can find, in the industrial centres of population of which I have spoken, great collections of people living under condition's in which it might be that the ministrations of pious, efficient, able ministers would bring a message of hope and improvement, moral, material and spiritual, in their condition. Here there is starvation of the ecclesiastical resources which can be brought to bear to deal with the local difficulties. It is the object, and it will most certainly be the result, of this Bill, if and when it receives the assent of Parliament, to enable a distribution of resources to be made which will be at once commensurate with the united resources of these Churches and appropriate to the necessities of the districts to which it will apply.
Before I approach the actual terms of the Bill, it may be convenient that I should give your Lordships very shortly one or two of the material dates in this controversy. It would, I think, be substantially true to say that the movement in the direction of union began in the year 1907. It continued until 1919 under circumstances to which, in a moment, I will briefly allude. But it is true that. in 1907 conferences took place between representative Committees of the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church upon the obstacles to union. It is broadly true to say that in 1907, when these discussions first took place, most of those who were well informed thought that the difficulties in the way were likely to prove too great to be surmounted in any reasonably short period. But those who took the other view persevered, and in 1919, after long years of discussion, which reflected great credit upon the humanity, tolerance, industry and cultivation of those who took part, draft Articles were prepared by the Church of Scotland Committee and approved by the United Free Church Committee as the basis of a union under which the Church would be both national

1143
and free. Nothing else would satisfy those who are, in fact, if one analyses the situation, the contracting parties, except that that Church shall be both national and free. It is the claim of the parties who are contributories to this settlement that they have drafted Articles which preserve the twofold feature of the Church of Scotland, without the maintenance of which it would, in their judgment, be neither Scottish nor a Church.
The Articles to which I have made reference, with such minor amendments as have been introduced at a later date, as the result of further discussion, are printed in the Schedule to this Bill. The earlier paragraphs of that Schedule deal with matters which are too sacred, whatever be the political beliefs of any individual, to form the subject of a Parliamentary debate. I am not hold enough to trespass upon topics which are too high for me. I pass them by; and I recommend them to this House solely with the remark that the learned and devoted men who have agreed upon these formulae—formulae which have escaped any defect of generality, and are precise and scholarly in their expression—claim to have embodied in them the ancient view upon these sacred matters held by the Scottish nation through the centuries with rugged and vigorous independence.
To have attained this astounding degree of unanimity would in itself be a very considerable feat, but those of your Lordships who are familiar with the argumentative resources of the Scottish nation in all its social divisions, from the highest to the lowest, would not commit the superficial error of supposing that because the Assembly agreed upon given Articles such an agreement would necessarily mean that the matter was disposed of for all time and among all sections of the Scottish people. But tact, conciliation and the merits of the case did their insensible work, and in May, 1919, the Church of Scotland Assembly submitted the Articles to the Presbyteries, and authorised the Commission of Assembly to instruct the Committee to approach the Government with a view to necessary legislation, if a majority of the Presbyteries approved.
Those of your Lordships who have closely studied, or indeed are generally aware of, the democratic constitution of the Church, know how great a part is played
1144
by the majority of the Presbyteries when set in motion by the Commission of Assembly. On December 17 there was a meeting of the Commission of Assembly. It was reported that seventy-four out of eighty-four Presbyteries approved, while nine disapproved, and the Commission, by a majority of 219 to 36, authorised the Committee to approach the Government. On May 30, 1921, armed with this high authority and expression of opinion, which must be pronounced to be almost unanimous, the Church of Scotland Assembly approved the Bill introduced into Parliament by 292 to 14.
When one reflects upon the great sacrifice in the lovefor individual ceremonial of worship (which is ingrained and inherited) involved in a vote like that, the conclusion must be pronounced to be a remarkable one. It is a feature that is as familiar in the Church of Scotland as it is familiar in some of the smaller Nonconformist communities in England, of which 1 have personal knowledge. They like that ceremonial better than that of another Church because their fathers taught it them, and because they learned it at their mothers' knees, and they have grown up with it as children. The most rev. Primate, who, with statesmanlike effort, has been attempting to deal with these difficulties upon a larger scale, will, I think, join with me in recognition of how important matters, which on first impression appear to be not essential, may grow to be, and therefore that a majority so great should have accepted this Bill is really a phenomenon which entitles him who recommends it in this House to say that the Church of Scotland upon this point is unanimous. On May 30, 1921, the General Assembly of the United Free Church, by. a majority not less overwhelming, approved of the Bill being proceeded with.
I have mentioned only two Churches, but none of your Lordships who are in detail familiar with the question will make the mistake of supposing that I take no cognisance of the smaller communities affected by these proposals. Within the limited space of time at our disposal, however, one must, of course, deal with the bodies which represent the great mass of the population, without closing our eyes to the laborious and meritorious services which are rendered by the smaller communities. These two Churches embrace within their membership the very great

1145
majority of Scottish Presbyterians, and include actually more than 95 per cent. of the Presbyterian congregations in Scotland. Therefore, the fact is that 95 per cent. of the Presbyterian congregations in Scotland have actually agreed upon the proposals contained in this Bill, and come before your Lordships and ask that these proposals should receive Parliamentary sanction.
It of course, true to say that the main operative force of this Bill is contained in the statement and the definition of the Articles. No constitution which was the creature of Parliamentary enactment could or world be accepted by the United Free Church, even if so enacted with the assent of the Church. The situation requires, indeed, to be very carefully defined. The true position and the only position, which will he effected by this Bill, if it is carried into law, will be that the Articles framed by the Church of Scotland Committee have been accepted by the United Free Church as embodying declarations as to the spiritual liberty of the, Church which are satisfactory to them. The Church of Scotland cannot, of course, adopt those Articles as declaratory of her constitution in matters spiritual, without the intervention of the Legislature. The true position, therefore, is that in this Bill the Church of Scotland seeks to obtain not the enactment of these Articles by Parliament, but the removal of statutory obstacles to the adoption of these Articles by the Church itself, and recognition of them as lawful if and when adopted by the Church.
In these circumstances, I might dilate at length upon the purport and effect of this Bill, but in these sentences is contained the whole substance of this change. Let me, in still shorter sentences, attempt to define them. The United Free Church cannot, on conscientious grounds, accept the assertion or dictation of the Legislature as to the views held by them upon sacred and religious matters. The Church of Scotland finds itself in agreement with its sister Church upon the Articles upon which they have agreed, but under the terms of its own constitution, and under the obligations of a State institution, the existing Statute Law is such in its application that the Articles cannot be changed without some such statutory convenience as is provided in the existing Bill. The effect of the Bill, the only relative effect, is that statutory power is given to the Church of Scotland to effect this change, and it has been used with
1146
so much humanity, so much sagacity and compliance with historical evolution of theological belief in Scotland, that it has procured the assent of the other bodies in Scotland, which comprise 95 per cent. of the whole Presbyterian population.
Those two bodies, therefore, approach Parliament through different doors. One conies and says: "I ask for this Bill because, under my constitution, I cannot amend or define these Articles without Parliamentary sanction." The other comes through a different door, but approaches the same conclusion, and says: "We agree with these Articles. We have not been accustomed to premise, before making changes in our religious constitution, that we require your Parliamentary sanction, but in pursuit of that unanimity upon which we are both agreed we are here to ask for a Bill that Parliament shall record and register and act upon"—one of the most surprising acts of agreement in ecclesiastical history.
It is well known that there are other matters—matters not spiritual in their ambit, but material—which will undoubtedly require treatment and agreement at the later stages of these proposals. It has been thought wise—and I entertain no doubt as to the sagacity of this view—to postpone till a later stage the legislation which must needs deal with the questions of endowment which still require attention. That it would have been unwise to embarrass this Bill, which deals upon grounds of fundamental principle with spiritual matters, with a great deal of discussion on the subject of endowment must, I think, be admitted by any student of our Parliamentary institutions. Those who objected to one part of the Bill would have concentrated in their attacks upon both, and it may well be that the enemies of the Bill, who would have been mustered in one Lobby, had the two been combined, when their opposition is defined and the causes of their antagonism more closely explained, will be found to be opposed to one part of these proposals only. And therefore it was decided—and, I think your Lordships will conclude, rightly decided—that this Bill should be separated, and, if and when the present proposals pass into law and are accepted in the manner provided by the Bill, it will become necessary at a later stage to introduce proposals the general nature of which I understand has been discussed and is already the subject of a great deal of agreement, in relation to endowments.

1147
There are only four clauses of this Bill, apart from the Articles of which I have spoken. Clause 1 lays it down that
" The Declaratory Articles are lawful Articles, and the constitution of the Church of Scotland in matters spiritual is as therein set forth,"
and there is a complete statement, together with every safeguard that prudent care would suggest. The clause has not been technically adjusted between the two Churches—one must be careful upon that point—but it recognises the lawfulness of the Articles in terms which were suggested in conference, and which one is entitled to say are acceptable to both Churches.
Clause 2 provides that
"Nothing contained in this Act or in any other Act affecting the Church of Scotland shall prejudice the recognition of any other Church in Scotland as a Christian Church protected by law in the exercise of its spiritual functions."
This clause is also in accordance with the desire of both Churches, and it comes before your Lordships as an agreed clause.
Clause 3 provides that
"Subject to the recognition of the matters dealt with in the Declaratory Articles as matters spiritual, nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice the jurisdiction of the civil courts in relation to any matter of a civil nature,"
or all or any of the temporalities at present or hereafter belonging to or enjoyed by the Church of Scotland. The purport of that clause explains itself as I have read it. Clause 4 is merely a clause which defines the proper method of reference to the Act.
Such are the terms of a proposal which, as I have said, come before this House with a singular weight of union, of thought, of preparation, behind it. It comes before this House as the expression of opinion and of conviction on the part of the overwhelming majority of those pious and learned men who have devoted all their lives to spiritual causes in Scotland. Seldom has a case, concerning most especially them and their charges, been presented to this House with a greater degree of force or of weight than in the memorandum in which their claim is embodied, and which many of your Lordships have read.
We live in days in which those who devote themselves to spreading high conceptions of conduct, on whatsoever creed or belief those conceptions may in a particular case be moulded, are every day discharging
1148
duties which are increasingly vital in the complex fortunes and development of that troublous world in which we live our lives. The body with which we are dealing is not one of the least devoted, not one of the least learned in the world, and with a reward which in their hearts they believe to be a spiritual one, its members have devoted their careers to spreading doctrines upon which the most sublime morality known to the world can he grafted, and which are being daily recommended by them to their congregations. When they come, with a degree of unanimity as singular as it is unprecedented, to this House, I know well that your Lordships will give them that pledge which they ask, and will send them back to Scotland with that which they regard as a charter, and with the good wishes of every section of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, some of us who sit upon this side of the House are keenly interested in the fortunes of this Bill, and it is right that we should say something at least of the reasons for which we support it. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has made a very lucid exposition of the substance of the Bill, into which I do not propose to follow him. He has shown that he has mastered the spirit in which this Bill is brought forward. In his speech the Lord Chancellor referred to Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I cannot pass the moment by without saying how tragic it is to me that Lord Balfour should not be here to support this Bill. His whole soul was in it. The other day the most rev. Primate, in what he said about Lord Balfour, touched the true note, the true distinctive feature of the individuality of the man. In his simple way, with his unspeculative mind, he was a profoundly religious man, and the practical side of that religion was in no way more exemplified than in his earnestness about the future of the Church to which he had devoted and consecrated so much of his life.
To understand the present situation it is necessary to remember its genesis. Seventeen years ago I stood at that Bar, convinced as an advocate is rarely convinced of the justice of my cause. I fought for what I believed to be its just title of spiritual liberty of conscience on the part

1149
of the United Free Church of Scotland. We turned out to be wrong in our contentions. By a majority this House decided that the United Free Church of Scotland had turned itself, in virtue of its trust deed and declarations of doctrine, into a body which could hold its property only on trust to promulgate and pursue particular doctrines of an older type than seemed to the majority suited to the time, and that to deviate from those doctrines meant the forfeiture of over £2,000,000 of property, the peculiarity of which was that nearly the whole of it had been subscribed and collected by the very people from whom it was taken. It was taken from them, and they had to pay the costs of the litigation.
Parliament said, "That may be the law, but it is a law that we are not content with. These funds have a greater public application. We propose to appoint a Commission and apportion them between the people Who are entitled to them." That Commission was appointed by an Act which was passed in 1908, and the greater part of the property was given back to the United Free Church with freedom to apply for purposes which meant that the Church was a real Church; not a mere trust for the promulgation of certain doctrines, but a Church with spiritual powers of self-government which enabled it to mould and determine its own creed and to enjoy the privilege of spiritual liberty.
I want to refer to that for a single purpose, which is to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the success of the appeal which the United Free Church made to Parliament to pass the Bill was largely due to the generous support given by the Established Church of Scotland to her sister Church in its dire necessity. The Established Church came forward and fought for that Bill as if it had concerned itself. The late Lord Balfour of Burleigh took a very active part in the struggle, and the result was that at that time, with the co-operation of the Church of Scotland, the United Free Church won her liberty of constitution, and she won it because she was enabled to make and maintain what she had already put forward—the very declarations in substance which are contained in the Schedule to this Bill—and declare them to be her own constitution, and to embody the purposes to which she wished to consecrate her fortunes and her means.
When that was done, when the United Free Church of Scotland was emancipated
1150
from the shackles of the old trust deeds, naturally she began to look to union, to the healing of old strifes, and the Established Church on its part also began to look to the healing of old strifes and to union. The Established Church was in. a position not altogether dissimilar from that in which the United Free Church had found itself, to its cost. It was hampered not by old trust deeds, but by Statutes of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, old Scottish Statutes passed before the Union which put great obstacles in the way of the Established Church of Scotland having freedom over the moulding of her own creeds, and being able to make an effective fight for spiritual liberty. That is what stood in the way of union with the United Free Church which had come out on the disruption for the very purpose of vindicating its liberty and failed to do so because of the very old trust deeds. The Established Church said: "Let us be free from the Statutes." That was the basis of the negotiations which began in 1907, have been continued up to the present time and were not interrupted, I believe, by the war, although there was a cessation of activities during that time.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has with perfect accuracy described the nature of this Bill. It is not a Bill to set up a constitution. The Church would not ask that constitution from Parliament. What the Church says is: "We ask Parliament to say that if we wish to pass that constitution we shall be free to do so notwithstanding the existence of these old Statutes which have hitherto blocked the way." If this constitution is sent down from Parliament to the Presbyteries through the medium of that highly delicate apparatus, which I have not the slightest intention of occupying your Lordships' time in describing, the Barrier Act, as it is called, and if it goes back to the Assemblies approved by the great majority of the people who form the Church of Scotland, it should be in the power of the General Assembly to pass that constitution as the constitution of the Church free from the hindrances of which this Act has got rid.
The constitution will be essentially a constitution adopted by the Church, which the Church was free to mould and free to use. It has been the subject of a very great deal of consultation between the two Churches and represents a substantial

1151
agreement. There has been only one point of doubt and difficulty, and I wish to say something about it because, as a Scotsman not wholly unversed in these things, I have been brought into contact with it. I do not speak as an Established Churchman, or a Free Churchman, or even as a Presbyterian. I am not connected with any particular Church, although they all form to me the subject of profound interest. But I have seen a very justifiable apprehension arising among people in Scotland as to whether, even with the constitution given by this Bill, there will not be some power on the part of the Civil Court to interfere. That is a very justifiable apprehension.
Dr. Chalmers thought he had made a magnificently free constitution for himself when he drafted his claim. and trust deeds in 1843, the year of the disruption. And so he would have done, if he had not trusted the theologians, but had trusted himself to the lawyers instead. He had the most eminent legal advice, and had one of the greatest Lord Advocates of the time and other legal luminaries to help him, and they framed a skeleton trust deed. But Dr. Chalmers and his advisers were not content with a skeleton trust deed; they filled it up with magnificent theological phrases, upon which those of your Lordships who constituted the Law Lords of this House had to pronounce, and said that the United Free Church had bound themselves to certain doctrines and had stamped them as the doctrines of the Free Church of that date, which had been introduced into legal documents. The Church found itself laid hold of by the Civil Court because the Church had between two and three million pounds worth of property to dispose of at that time.
The Church of Scotland will have a great -deal of property to dispose of. It will depend upon the title which the Church of Scotland can make oat to its identity and continuity whether it can hold that property. When you get to property you cannot altogether oust the Civil Courts, and therefore, to that extent, I think the Civil Courts always must come in. Whether it be the United Free Church or the Established Church of Scotland, they must have the right to see whether identity has been preserved.
If a number of burglars got into the Carlton Club—I call them burglars, though
1152
they might be any other sort of people—took possession of the place ousted the committee and declared it an institution for the promulgation of Bolshevism, I think it would not be in vain that appeals would be made to the Courts, notwithstanding that there would be a new committee or majority of members to mould the constitution, and I think the Courts would say that identity had ceased and continuity was non-existent, and at an end between those two bodies. So it may be if the Church of Scotland or even the United Free Church were to go over to the creed of Mahomet or even to adopt the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, that the Civil Courts might intervene and say: "Are the people who have this property people who are continuous with those who have hitherto enjoyed the title?" That might be the case. But it is abundantly clear that so far as doctrine is concerned, so far as the spiritual side of the constitution is concerned, so far as doing everything which can appertain to continuity of existence and is consistent with it is concerned, the Church of Scotland will have under this constitution the most unlimited power of determining in its own courts, and free from intrusion from the Civil Court, the doctrine which will be taught. No Civil Court can intrude. That principle is conceded in the fullest form, and, speaking for myself, I have no doubt that the misgivings which have been expressed are misgivings which amount to nothing.
One of the most awkward things in Scotland just now is that the theological chairs in the universities have to be filled by people who belong to the Established Church. It sometimes happens that in the Established Church there is no one so well qualified by learning as the candidates who may be found elsewhere. I have known a professor of theology in the theological faculty appointed who would not have been appointed had it been open to choose a very eminent person who was available from the United Free Church at the time. This restriction of choice in the appointments to theological chairs will be removed if union takes place. All that, and a dozen other things which are difficulties, will disappear. There is everything to be said for the Bill from that point of view.
Again, take the Churches. It is too little realised how Scotland has changed

1153
since the old days. The population is concentrated into a narrow belt. Half the population of Scotland is in the narrow belt between the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde. More churches are wanted there than in other places, with the result that tie distribution of churches is very uneven. What is urgently needed is the co-operation of all bodies into one single church for the bettor distribution of the full spiritual activities of the churches of the country.
Let me refer for one moment to the other side. There are those who think that this union, if adopted, will give rise to a renewal of old, or perhaps to the creation of new, spiritual differences in Scotland. I doubt it. Things have changed enormously. It is not too much to say that the very breath of the keenness of spiritual life in Scotland used to be the old doctrinal disputes. The differences that seem very slight now were matters of life and death in those days, and the earnestness to which they gave rise is something which no one can understand who has not lived in contact with it. The doctrine of the Churches is giving place to practice, and practice has been very closely associated with social questions. Go to the Scottish churches, make friends with their ministers—it is my privilege to be friends with many ministers, both Established and Free—and you will find that the rapid growth of their religious work is closely bound up with social affairs, and that in their preaching the two are nut severed. Doctrine is rapidly giving place to practice. That results in a certain diminution of the old keenness about religion in the older sense, but it has also given rise to increased opportunities and contact between the people and those who are their ministers, and my hope is that the passing of this Bill may bring ministers into still closer touch with the people.
There is one thing that I should like to say in conclusion. Some of your Lordships perhaps may marvel why I support this Bill, though I opposed the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act is an Act for diminishing the ambit of the Church of England. It was an Act for putting in qualifications as to membership. It was to be no longer a Church of the nation, but was to be the Church of very excellent people no doubt, but yet people who were not the full nation. This Bill, on the other hand, perhaps almost goes too far the other
1154
way. Our standards will not be so stringent as those in England. This is an enlarging Bill, calculated to bring in as many of the people as possible. That constitutes the difference to me between this Bill and the Enabling Act, and it is a determining difference. I did not rise to enlarge upon that, however, but merely to tell your Lordships why, having voted and spoken against the Enabling Act, I now stand here to speak and vote in favour of the present Bill.
I think, on the whole, that this Bill will prove to be a useful one. I do not think it will make the revolution that some expect. I do not think it will make things so enormously better as some people seem to believe, but it will do a good deal to lead to the solution of a number of difficult and delicate problems, and still more, I believe, it is necessitated by the development of the conscience of the time. It will minimise overlapping of the Churches and waste of spiritual activity, and will do much to bring spiritual activities into harmony. For those reasons it has my support.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, perhaps I ought to apologise for intervening in this debate, but I should like to say a few words. The Bill is one which concerns Scotland and the Churches of Scotland. Very obviously, I am not a member of any section of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland. My predecessors of a long time ago, and the predecessors of those divines who are promoting this measure, were distinctly at variance, and said very unkind things about one another a few centuries ago. That is perhaps putting it mildly, but I believe, and I always have believed, that the depth of that divergence was considerably exaggerated, and that some of it was due to accidental rather than to necessary incidents in the history of the sixteenth century. John Knox was offered the Bishopric of Rochester. After a considerable interval I accepted that Bishopric. I have sometimes wondered what would have been the history of the two countries if John Knox had accepted the Bishopric of Rochester. Whether the conditions which prevailed when I was consecrated to the office would have been precisely what they are I leave to others to conjecture.
But I am clear about this—that I am not relieved from the obligation of saying

1155
something on this subject by the fact that I am not a member of the Presbyterian Churches. In the first place, I am a Scotsman with a deep love for my country, and I believe that this Bill is going to do that country good. Then I have been familiar all my life with the questions which are raised by or touched upon in this measure. If your Lordships were to institute an examination as to knowledge of Scottish ecclesiastical history in the last seventy or eighty years—an exceedingly tangled subject—I should enter for that examination with very fair hopes of success. There are two noble and learned Lords who have occupied the Woolsack who would be formidable competitors, but I believe I should have a very fair chance of success in the competition. I have been familiar with the subject from the outset of my life. More than that, I am a believer in the diminution, and even, it may be, the ending of schisms within the Church of Christ. I am giving no small part of my time to the endeavours which are being made to diminish and reduce to smaller dimensions the schisms which have entirely kept us apart.
Allusion has been made to the contrast between the schisms and divisions in England and those in Scotland. In England we have still marked lines of cleavage in matters theological and ecclesiastical, schisms and rifts which have their source and origin in the troublous period of English history after the Reformation English had begun and 300 years before the present time. I believe that these schisms are on the wane and that a measure like this, though not touching English matters, will not be without its effect on the divisions which sunder us still in England. That bearing is not, of course, close.
The whole effect and history of the divisions which sever sections of the Churches in Scotland are based upon something very different from the causes which brought about the schisms and divisions in England. The absolute identity in doctrinal teaching and modes of worship, which have led to the possibility of interchange of pulpits between the ministers of one Presbyterian denomination and another, are indisputable facts. When we look into it we find that the divisions which exist are all due to the very limited range of questions relating to the exercise of patronage, partly to the relation of the Church to the State, and partly to phrases upon which too much stress may easily be laid.
1156
If our divisions in England are open to criticism, the divisions which separate the members of the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, whose doctrine, worship and whole attitude to these things is in other respects identical, are inconceivable to those who have not been brought up in their midst. In a controversy like this there is a tendency now and then for those who are opposing a measure of union to dwell upon the advantages which have come to a country from the multiplication of its churches, and they argue the consequent gains which may even arise out of schisms. They sometimes argue that schisms are good. I do not believe that at all. I believe that greater unity of corporate life in the body of the Church of Christ will enable it to make the strongest impact upon the evil it has to contend with, and. therefore, anything that removes difficulties, schisms and rifts which are keeping people apart, is to be supported with all the strength we have.
Those men were absolutely right who deprecated the schism which took place eighty years ago in Scotland; and I am certain they are right who are now trying to heal the schism. If any one will read the words of that great man Dr. Chalmers, he will see how deeply and intensely he deplored the necessity of bringing about the schism, the mischief of which he foresaw. He, however, considered that the cause was sufficient to justify the extreme action he took. Half a century later the gravamen of that difficulty was removed and patronage was placed in almost the position Dr. Chalmers desired to see it occupy. Since then other efforts have been made. In the year 1900 the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church joined themselves into one and made the United Free Church. It was a move of the most wholesome kind in the direction we are carrying still further to-day. The leaders, whom we are now trying to follow in what they are doing in Scotland, have approached Parliament with definite suggestions for practical action. They do it with a fine view of what is right, with a great desire to remove stumbling blocks standing in the way of unity, and with a readiness beyond all praise to sacrifice reasonable predilections of their own.
To give legal effect to what they desire, two things are obviously necessary. The first of these they ate attempting by this Bill; the second is postponed for a future

1157
Bill. They ask Parliament to declare that they have the power to make effective the Declaratory Articles which are appended hi the Schedule of the Bill. They feel that one step is quite necessary at the outset. Before any negotiations can take place on the business or mundane side of the controversy they feel that they must make sure that both parties are really agreed upon the great fundamental principle upon which the Church rests in its corporate life. Long ago, I believe, they were very much nearer each other in these matters than they supposed. The more I read the controversy of 1843 the more I marvel at the power that was allowed to phrases over principles. Phrases were dwelt upon and bandied about to such an extent that they became watchwords of strife, when a more careful and humble-minded endeavour to explain the position one to the other would have brought about that union which was not then apparent. However, I am certain that Dr. Chalmers would have welcomed with enthusiasm and acclaimed with his own unapproachable eloquence the substance of the Declaration appended to this Bill. And, if that is true, it would seem very strange that difficulties should now be made in bringing about a conciliation of an eighty year old strife and divergence.
At this moment the great General Assemblies in Scotland have given their support in no uncertain language. It has been my privilege upon two occasions to be present in Assemblies when these matters were under discussion. I was in the Assembly of the Established Church two years ago when they passed a Resolution by an overwhelming vote in favour of the preparation of this measure. I was present in the United Free Church Assembly a few weeks ago when, by an overwhelming majority, that Assembly endorsed the actual measure which is now before your Lordships' House. The Established Church Assembly (at which I was not present) endorsed the proposal, as we have been reminded, by about 300 votes to 12. It is practically with unanimity on the part of those who speak for the Churches of Scotland that this Bill is supported. They have the right, therefore, to come to us and say: "If that difficulty stands across our path, we trust you to help us to remove that which it is our unanimous desire to see removed."
The other Bill is still to come. People ask: "Why two Bills, instead of one?"
1158
The answer is obvious. If only one Bill had been introduced, all those who were hostile to the business proposals would have given their support to the people who were hostile to the theological propositions, and all those who disagreed with the theology of the Bill would have taken the occasion to support those who were criticising it on the other ground. There would, therefore, have been an amount of I opposition to the measure quite out of proportion to the real force of those who were criticising one part or the other. We are taking one step at a time in the right way. We are taking a step now in the most sacred action of giving Parliamentary authority to the Churches' declaration of the doctrine common to both the great sections in Scotland, and sweeping away-the difficulties which arise between them. We are doing this at the bidding of great religious leaders, to heal a schism which, whatever may be said about its origin, is needless and unnecessary. To-night, with all my heart, and with real hope of the high result that will follow, I wish it God-speed.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: My Lords, as one closely connected with Scotland, I should like to say a few words on this Bill. I desire in the first place to express the gratitude which I am certain that every one connected with Scotland feels to the most rev. Primate for the kind and sympathetic words he has used with regard to this measure. The most rev. Primate touched upon one feature in Scottish ecclesiastical life which is noteworthy. It was embodied in one sentence of Thomas Carlyle when he said that in Scotland all dissent is merely stricter adherence to the National Kirk on all points. The whole ecclesiastical history of Scotland is an illustration of the truth of that pregnant sentence. Every schism that has taken place in Scotland has taken place, not because its authors departed from the doctrine of the National Church, but because they thought that the majority of the day were not carrying out these doctrines or the ecclesiastical policy which flowed from them with sufficient strictness. If that be so, it surely gives us good ground to hope that at last we are not merely within sight of union, but that we shall very shortly see it achieved. What Scotland desires is a National Church, and we trust we shall see that National Church built upon foundations which will last.
One point on which most differences have

1159
arisen in Scottish ecclesiastical history has been what is called spiritual independence. I shall not enter deeply into that subject. I think it has been said that it would require a surgical operation to get the notion of spiritual independence into an English head.
LORD PARMOOR: No.
VISCOUNT FINLAY: There are, of course, exceptions, and my noble and learned friend is, I am sure, one of them. At the same time, one has sometimes been struck by the considerable amount of ignorance with which the subject has been viewed in Scotland. The doctrine is simply this: that the Church, in its own province, is supreme, and that that ought to be admitted by the State. It is not that the Church asks, or ever has asked, the State to confer upon it spiritual independence. The State has not that to give. What the State is asked to do is to recognise that the Church has it from another and higher Source. The State, as it has always been held by Scottish Churchmen, ought not to interfere in sacred matters. The Church Courts should be supreme in their own province in dealing with sacred matters.
I wish to say one thing about the practical working of that doctrine. It does not mean anything like priestly or clerical domination. In the Scottish Church courts the laity and the clergy sit side by side, and the laity may rely upon it that their interests and their point of view are fully appreciated and represented. There is another thing I wish to say about the spiritual independence which has always been the ideal of the Scottish Church. It is spiritual liberty, but it is not spiritual licence. The Church, according to the Scottish conception, is not -adrift on the sea of speculation. Take this Bill. It declares that the constitution of the Scottish Church in sacred matters is what is set out in the Articles which are appended to it, and it goes on to provide that, while there is power to alter the Articles in minor matters, there is no power whatever on the part of the Church to alter the provisions of the first Article, which sets forth sonic of the most essential verities of the faith which is the faith of the Church of Scotland. There is the Church, if this Bill becomes law, anchored, so far as the profession of its faith in spiritual matters is concerned, to the verities which are set out in the
1160
Schedule. A good deal has been said elsewhere about the power of interpretation which is conferred upon the Church with regard to the Articles. The eighth Article begins by saying that the Church has the power to interpret these Articles. That power of interpretation certainly does not extend to interpreting away any part of the first Article, which is declared to be a part of the very essence of the continuity and corporate existence of the Church.
It has been pointed out by more than one speaker that this Bill is a preliminary Bill. The reason for this was given both by the Lord Chancellor and by the most rev. Primate. It is necessary that the Church of Scotland, having regard to its constitution and the existing Statutes, should have Parliamentary sanction for making the chant in its standard which this Bill is intended to authorise. It is for that purpose that the Church of Scotland has come to your Lordships' House. The United Free Church does not come here on this Bill. The United Free Church is no promoter of this Bill. It most. cordially approves of it, and wishes it every success, but is not promoting it. The Bill is promoted to enable the Church of Scotland to enter upon the work which remains to be done with the security that that work can be done thoroughly. if there were any uncertainty as to whether Parliament would sanction what the Church of Scotland is now doing, the whole life would be taken out of the efforts of the two Churches to come to an agreement, and it is for that purpose, and for that purpose only, that the measure is brought forward by the Church of Scotland. The Bill, your Lordships will observe, does not profess to enact that the powers contained in the clauses of the Bill are conferred upon the Church. They are not conferred; they are recognised as already existing. It would be a great thing to have this Bill passed, even if the union never came about. It is necessary as a step towards union, but it would be worth doing in itself.
It is thirty-five years since, in 1886, when I was in the House of Commons, I introduced a Bill for the purpose not of enacting, but of declaring, the independence of the Church of Scotland in spiritual matters. This Bill is, in substance, for the same purpose, but it varies in detail. It varies in one respect which is not unimportant—namely, that the Bill of 1886 proceeded on the basis of the Confession of Faith. This Bill extracts the vital propositions of the

1161
Christian Faith, as held in the Church of Scotland, and they are all found in that part of the Schedule which has often been referred to but has not been read in the House, because the subjects are rather too sacred to be treated in detail. This Bill, if it passes, will put the Church of Scotland in a position to say to the United Free Church. "We are able now to go on, with the assurance that we will have the concurrence of Parliament in making the necessary change ire our constitution."
Of course, a good many points have been raised in connection with this Bill. The Scottish temper has a great affinity for metaphysics, and metaphysics are still more attractive if they have an ecclesiastical flavour about them. The power of interpretation may be dangerous, and it has been asked: If the interpretation is in the: eyes of lawyers erroneous, will not the Civil Courts interfere? I say without hesitation that on the terms of this Bill the Civil Courts could not interfere. The whole scope of the Bill is to oust any interference by the Civil Courts by way of suspension or anything of that kind. The terms of the alliance between Church and State are modified and stated in the Schedule of the Bill. If it can be conceived possible that the terms of that alliance should be violated or strained by the meaning put upon the terms of the Articles, it would be a case for reconsideration of the whole subject of the, relations of Church and State, and so much mischief has been done in the past by the attempts of the Civil Courts to intervene in ecclesiastical disputes, that to my mind the sagacious and statesmanlike policy has been adopted of making it impossible for the Civil Courts to assert themselves in the manner in which they have sometimes, in the distant past, asserted themselves. I believe that when the Bill becomes law it will be a great achievement. It cannot do any harm to the Church. There is no reason for supposing that the Church courts will go wrong, in the perverse way which is sometimes suggested as possible, and 1 think we may trust the clergy and laity of Scotland, sitting side by side, to work this Bill, when it becomes law, in the spirit in which the Bill has been drawn and in the spirit in which it has been discussed in the speeches to which your Lordships leave listened.
I have already said that the provisions of the first Article cannot be touched by
1162
the Church under the power of modification contained in Article VIII, and there is one thing more that I wish to say about that Article. It gives power of altering the less important Articles—those which are subsidiary to the first Article, which contains matters absolutely vital. That power is subject to very stringent precautions—precautions which it would take a very long time to enumerate, and upon which I shall not attempt to enter. These safeguards could not be in any way trenched upon, under the power of modifying the provisions of the Articles. The power of modification never could be used for the purpose of doing away with the very safeguards which are an essential condition of the power to alter being recognised. I really have nothing more to say, except to commend this Bill most earnestly to the acceptance of your Lordships' House. It has met, I think I may say, with a most favourable reception in every quarter. I believe the people of Scotland are practically unanimous in its favour, and I trust that your Lordships' House will pass a measure which is good ire itself, even if it he not followed by the act of union, as a first step towards that great achievement, the reconciliation of secular differences, which have existed in Scotland as to what are the true doctrines of the Church of Scotland.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I desire to say one or two words only in hearty commendation of this Bill, because I am sure it will have the hearty support and approval of the lay element in the Anglican Church. I want to ask your Lordships' attention to the extreme similarity between that which the Church of Scotland is desiring in this Bill, and that which the Anglican Church attained in what was known as the Enabling Act. For at least 25 years I have been cognisant of all the steps that the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh took in order that a Bill of this kind might finally be developed, and he, at the same time, gave cordial assistance in the attempts which were made to pass a similar Bill for the Anglican Church. I make that statement because I agree with the noble Viscount that the whole basis of this Bill is to preserve spiritual independence in an Established Church. That was exactly the effort and desire of all Anglican Churchmen ire supporting what is known as the Enabling Act. Something like twelve years ago I brought forward a Motion myself at one of our great

1163
Church meetings, that a committee should be appointed in order to see whether we could find a road by which spiritual independence could be asserted at the same time as the benefits of establishment were preserved. It was in consequence of that Motion that subsequent committees brought forward reports which eventuated in the passing of the Enabling Act.
There is one other matter in which I very much agree with the noble Viscount. According to the Articles of the Anglican Church, the Church is "the congregation of the faithful," which, of course, implies both clergy and laity, and the authority which is given in our Articles to the Church is an authority given equally to laymen as to bishops and clergy. I want to emphasise that point, because I agree with what the noble Viscount has said, that the safeguard required in these matters is that the position of laymen should be fully recognised and ascertained, and that we should have nothing nowadays in the nature of what we call clerical dominance —not that I think that there is the slightest prospect of any such dominance being even asserted or suggested in the case of the Anglican Church.
I also agree with the noble Viscount in what he said about the framework of these Articles in reference to spiritual independence. Everything has been done, as appears to me, in the wording of these Articles to ensure spiritual independence. The noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, may be right in suggesting that some flaw may be found by the ingenuity of lawyers, but what these Articles do—and I wish we could have the same provisions for the Anglican Church—is to provide that there is no appeal from the Church courts to Civil Courts in any form; indeed, they say that the final power to adjudicate in all matters of doctrine, worship, and government shall be with the Church alone, and that there shall be no interference from the civil authorities. Surely, in spiritual matters, that is right. We make exactly the same claim here as is made on behalf of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland—namely, that although we are an Established Church, our spiritual authority has no connection whatever with the State, and was not derived in any form from State authority.
The other matter which I hope we may some time attain ourselves in the Anglican Church, and which is given here to the
1164
Church in Scotland, is that the Church has the right to interpret these Articles. That is a matter of the first importance if you are to have spiritual independence; because, if you allow the interpretation of the Articles to be carried out before a Civil Court, it is quite clear that the so-called independence of the Church is not a real independence, but is subject to superior authority. But if you both take an appeal to a Civil Court and also say that the interpretation is to rest with the Church itself, everything in my opinion has been done, as it ought to be done, in order to ensure the spiritual independence of the Church. I only hope that before long the Anglican Church, as an Established Church, will have the same freedom and liberty in its spiritual independence as this Bill undoubtedly confers upon the Established Church in Scotland.
To one clause in the Articles I particularly want to call attention. I think the most rev. Primate spoke none too strongly on the dangers of schism. He spoke none too strongly on the question of the possible effect of schisms on the general Christian outlook. I find that in Article VII the Church of Scotland—they are very important words—
"recognises the obligation to seek and promote union with other Churches in which it finds the Word to be purely preached.".
Every Church ought to be regarded, as the Church of Scotland says it is here, as a branch of the Church Universal, and every Church ought to use its influence to seek to promote union with other Churches in order that Christian effort may be united, and that in this form both Christian teaching and Christian morality may be assured to the utmost of human power.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CORONERS (REMUNERATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I feel sure that at this period of the evening I shall best consult your Lordships' convenience if I do not make any speech upon this Bill. Just as your Lordships have been dealing this evening with the largest questions it is possible for the human mind to comprehend, so now this proposition is,

1165
I should think, the smallest that has ever come before your Lordships' House. It comes from the House of Commons. I understand that the Bill has the approval, so far as it requires approval, both of the Lord Chancellor and the Home Office. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Loan ASKWITH: My Lords, this Bill can be described in a very few words. The purport of it is that lighters, barges, and like vessels navigating in Great Britain are under certain circumstances and in certain ways to be ranked as ships; that is to say, that under the Merchant Shipping Act they should be registered, and the limitations On the owner be the same as for ships. The reason is that in many cases these vessels are now really as large as ships, and have been increasing from year to year. The Bill applies to vessels of this character in tidal waters and in harbours, and it goes on to describe what an owner is, and to adopt the system of registration in ports and other districts where there is measurement or registration, in substantial agreement with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts. By Clause 2 the owner is made responsible in cases where the hull or equipment is defective, or, by reason of overloading, improper loading or under-manning, the vessel is rendered unsafe for human life; and it preserves to workmen the right to sue in respect of loss of life or personal injury caused to any person carried in the lighter, barge, or like vessel.
The Bill is promoted by the Master Lightermen and Barge Owners and by the Union of Lightermen, who have jointly asked me to look after their interests in this matter, and also by the Port of London, the London Chamber of Com-
1166
merce, the harbour authorities, the insurance companies, and the underwriters, and it has passed through the House of Commons without any objections being raised to it. I therefore move that it be read a second time in your Lordships' House.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD INCHCAPE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill will be kind enough to enable us to avail ourselves of the opportunity which arises from the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906 to introduce a few words dealing with venereal disease. Otherwise the matter would have to be dealt with by a separate Bill, which would take Parliamentary time. I have no wish to do anything to jeopardise Lord Askwith's Bill with which I entirely agree. But it is of the highest importance that in the necessarily restricted area of a ship every opportunity should be given to isolate and cure those members of the crew who may have contracted venereal disease, Human nature being what it is, seamen and those who go down to the sea in ships away from home—lusty young men very often—nad visit foreign countries are peculiarly table to contract disease. There is an old sea saying: "Any port in a storm," and I am afraid it holds good to-day.
Under the law as it stands, men who find they have contracted venereal disease are not disposed to disclose the fact, or to place themselves under treatment and to lie up, as they will at once come off pay and may be put ashore at the first port of call. This may have been considered to have been right from the moral point of view many years ago, but it is recognised now that it has obvious drawbacks. It leads to concealment and makes a diseased man on board a ship extremely dangerous, not only to the rest of the ship's company, but to the passengers. Shipowners, therefore, would prefer to abrogate the right they possess under the law of putting a man off pay who is found to be suffering from venereal disease. It may be argued that the alteration in time law which I propose to suggest in Committee would encourage vice. From my long experience as a ship-owner, and from what I am told, I think that is most unlikely. I doubt very much whether the law as it stands has ever prevented a seaman from subjecting himself to risk. On the other hand, in rimy cases it has led to conceal-

1167
ment of disease, with grave consequences to the men themselves, as well as to others.
In proposing the Amendment which I intend to bring forward in Committee, on behalf of the shipowners and of the men themselves, the shipowners are actuated by humanitarian and not by sordid motives, and the proposal is entirely in the interests of the crews and the passengers. I believe that the proposed alteration has the approval of the Ministry of Health, and also of the Board of Trade, and perhaps the noble Lord will be able to say whether we may expect to have his support or not.
LORD ASKWITH: Before the noble Lord addresses the House on behalf of the Government, I should like to say that Lord Inchcape has raised what is quite a new point in regard to this Bill, and perhaps I might explain the position which it occupies in the matter. Venereal disease has very little to do with barges and lighters, and although it may be cognate in so far as it comes under the Merchant Shipping Acts it has not very much to do with the principle of this Bill. Personally, I shall be only too glad to support my noble friend almost enthusiastically in the very important clause which he proposes to bring forward in Committee. But if the Bill goes down to the House of Commons with this additional clause in it, without having. been made a Government Bill, I am told that it will be lost, in all probability, and that both his proposal and mine will be likewise wrecked. If the Bill is turned into a Government Bill the whole position is altered, and supposing the Ministry of Health and the Board of Trade, the two Departments which my noble friend cited as supporting his proposal, desire it, they may be able to get it through the House of Commons, through which my Bill has already passed, without allowing it to participate in the massacre of the innocents. As I have said, I think Lord Inchcape's proposal is most important for the shipping
1168
industry of this country, and it may be that the Government will take it up.
LORD STANMORE: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Somerleyton, I should like to say that the Government have no objection to the passage of the Bill into law. In its present form they look upon it as equitable and not controversial. The Board of Trade fully sympathises with the Amendment proposed by Lord Inchcape, but I am inclined to agree with Lord Askwith in thinking that to press it would endanger the passage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OVERSEAS TRADE (CREDITS AND INSURANCE) AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to
Order): Bill reported without amendment.

JURIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (RENEWAL) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, before the House adjourns I should like to state in reply to a question put by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, at the conclusion of business last Thursday, that it is the intention of the Government to take the Second Reading of the Housing (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill on Thursday next.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.

ADAMSON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
A witness ordered to attend the Second Reading.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That, the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 22nd June and the 12th instant discharged, and Bill committed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHAFTESBURY EXTENSION) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Southport and Kingston-upon-Hull Orders was withdrawn: The Orders made
1170
on Wednesday and Thursday last respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Orders, discharged.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on Wednesday last discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION WATERWORKS BILL.
    ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
    Committees to meet on Tuesday next.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BARNSLEY EXTENSION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (WATER) BILL.
Returned from the Commons. with the Amendments, agreed to.
WANDSWORTH, WIMBLEDON AND EPSOM DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ADVERTISEMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Wednesday the 27th instant.