TARLIAi^^ >UESTIO:.N 8 M ON LICENSIIS^ ..'i f'<:^V';[ii'?!c:f-''!i:w-tifiii;':s;!'H:>i!^tf<:^^(^'ii!i^f't''.i:i:'g>;^?*yii<;<;t[;t;(;i Hi ^ms. ilj^HUHl ^^^^^B[ '.i' ^^TjB Hmh ; ■.•';;;:::s?c.<'^ M y-Y!" / ^6 THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS & DEBATES ON LICENSING MATTERS EXTRACTED FROM THE OFFICIAL PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (CORRECTED EDITIONS). Reproduced by permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office. OCTOBER 7, 1912 TO AUGUST 15, 1913 PRINTED BY THE REVIEW PRESS LTD. 13 LITTLE TRINITY LANE, LONDON, E.G. i. i i J i i » 1 J J J J J J J.J J J ) J • * J » O ■» 3 > : :'^ ,^' r, ;^; ^■ H.L c • . t C C This volume consists of the important ques- tions asked and the debates that took place in Parliament on Licensing Matters during the period from October 7, 1912, to August 15, 1913, except in regard to the Temperance (Scotland) Bill as from its introduction on March 12, 1912, to February 17, 1913, issued in the previous volume. The Session of 1912-13 which commenced on February 14, 1912, and adjourned on August 7, was resumed on October 7, 1912 and ended on March 7, 1913. The Session of 1913 commenced on March 10, and ended on August 15, 1913. DECEMBER 1913. V National Trade Defence Association, Queen Anne's Chambers, London, S.W. ' e ■rhfy CONTENTS. QUESTIONS : Pages i DEBATES : Pages 24 QUESTIONS : Toddy Licences (Ceylon) : Ceylon (Government Officials) : Licensing Compensation Levies : Political Clubs (Entertainments) : Government of Ireland Bill : The Spirits Act : Beer Casks : Finance Act, 191 2 (Owners' Losses): Railway Servants (Total Abstinence) : Income Tax Commissioners : Licence Duty (Applications for reduction) : Licensing Administration (London) : House of Lords : Licensed Houses (Assessment) : RosYTH Canteen Licence : Yield of Licence Duties in Ireland and in London : Liquor Licence Duties (Dublin and Nottingham) Licence Duties in Dublin and English Towns Compared : Licence Duty : Clubs (Sale of Wines) : Liquor Licence Duties : Retail Licences (Total Yield) : V to 23 to 324 Date 1912 Oct. 16 1913 June 3 1912 Nov. 7 Nov. II Dec. 3 Dec. 5 Dec. 10 Dec. 19 Dec. 19 Dec. 30 Dec. 31 1913 Jan. 20 Jan. 28 Feb. 3 April 2 June 24 July 14 April 24 April 29 May 1 May 8 Page 4 5 7 7 9 9 10 1 1 II 13 13 14 14 16 17 17 18 18 19 Date Page 1913 June 5 20 June 23 2 I July 29 2 I July 29 22 Aug. 13 22 Aug. 14 23 vi CONTENTS QUESTIONS {continued) : Meetings on Licensed Premises (Wales) : "Tied " Houses (Income Tax) : Hops (No. 2) Bill : Temperance Hotels : FiN.\NCE Act, 191 o (Increase of Clubs) : Children Act : DEBATES : House 01 Lords : Home Rule Bill (Viscount St. Aldwyn on taxa- tion of alcohol) : Jan. 28 " 24 House of Commons : Shops Act (1912) Amendment Bill: 1 912 Introduction of Bill : June 1 8 — Second Reading : July 10 24 Considered by Standing Committee A : Nov. 6 — '913 Report Stage: Feb. 1 i 25 Third Reading: Feb. 11 29 House of Lords : 19^3 Shops Act (1912) Amendment Bill : First Reading : Feb. 12 — Second Reading : _ Feb. 1 7 29 Report Stage : Feb. 1 8 30 Third Reading: Feb. t8 30 Royal Assent : Mar. 7 — House of Co.mmons : Address to the King (Mr. Leif Jones on omission from King's Speech of reference to temperance reform) : Mar. 10 30 Army (Annual) Bill : Committee Stage : Clause 3 {Prices in respect to Billeting) : April 16 36 CONTEXTS vii DEBATES {continued): Date Page ousE OF Commons : 1913 Finance Bill, 1913 : Financial Statement : April 22 43 Financial Resolutions considered in Com- mittee : April 29 47 Second Reading : June 2 54 Committee Stage : Aug. 1 1 Report Stage : - Aug. 1 2 Third Reading : Aug. 13 60 Roy at Assent : Aug. 15 Temperance (Scotland) Bill : Re-introduction 0/ Bi/l (second time) under the provisions of the Parliament Act (1911): May "J — Second Reading : June 20 66 Procedure Motion ("' That on the Committee Stage . . . the Chairman . . . do report the Bill without Amendment . . .") June 23 147 Committee Stage (/or;/m/); July 2 158 Suggestion Stage : July 9 162 New Clause : Certificates to be insured (Mr. Barnes) : {defeated): July 9 162 Third Reading : July 9 198 House of Lords : Temperance (Scotland) Bill: First Reading : Second Reading : Committee Stage : Amendments to Clause I {Date of Act coming into operation) 280 Clause 2 [Poll of electors on resolutions submitted) 280 July 10 July 17 247 July 29 272 viii CONTENTS DEBATES {coiU/nnc;; ^ ^ Sir G. Younger : I only rise to answer one point which has been raised by the hon. Member for RushcHfife [Mr. Leif Jones]. I am not going to re-echo the hon. Member's complaint that there is no mention of a Licensing Bill in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. I have a distinct recollection of the 1908 measure, and an equally distinct recollection that after the General Election there was not a majority for that measure in this House. I also remembered that the Budget supervened upon the licensing measure, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he could not decently impose his taxation upon the trade if the 1908 measure had been passed. The hon. Member said that he did not accept as any reason for not bringing in a similar licensing reform the statement that the brewer had been heavily taxed as he had been able to secure the whole of the taxation placed upon him by reducing the gravity of the beer. He went back to the dark ages when he talked about the gravity being below the standard. The difference in the standard since the Budget, as a matter of fact, is very small indeed. The hon. Gentleman is one of those unfortunate people who get hold of one side of the case and do not get hold of the whole of the argument. Somebody puts some figures in his hand, and he thinks he has sufficient argument in those figures, but in taking the gravity he entirely forgets the question of price. He ought to be entirely 36 ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL satisfied with the situation as he tells us it is, because the public drink a much lighter article. When they wanted a stronger article the specific gravity was higher, and now they want a lighter article it is lower. The price used to be about 70s. per barrel as an average, but it is now about 45s. per barrel. Therefore the whole structure he built upon the figures he gave falls to the ground. Ai'iuL 16, 1913. {Official Debates. Vol. li.) ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL. Committee Stage, {Clause 3) Further considered in Committee. Clause 3. — {Prices in Respect of Billeting.) There shall be paid to the keeper of a victualling house for the accommodation provided by him in pursuance of the Army Act the prices specified in the First Schedule to this Act. Mr. Newman : I beg to move to leave out the Clause. I do so in order to draw attention to a subject which at the present moment does not get very much attention, but which is one which occupied very much more attention years ago, and was one of the grievances embodied in the then Petition of Rights. I refer to the question of billeting and quartering. In those days there was only barrack accommodation for something like 5000 soldiers and the Government used their powers of billeting and quartering the extra forces very freely. At the present moment the Regular Forces require very little billeting, since there is good barrack accommodation and troops are moved by rail. There is a note to Clause 4 of this Bill which drew my attention to the question of billeting with respect to the Territorial Force. That note says : — " It is thought desirable, as the powers of billeting will be principally exercised in respect of the Territorial Force, that the powers to issue billeting requisitions should be exercisable by divisional, brigade, and battalion commanders of the Territorial Force." COMMONS [Apr. 16, 1913] COMMITTEE STAGE 37 In other words, this new citizen Army which lias been lately introduced , and which will, I hope, be extended in numbers and made more really fit as an Army, may billet its members. Under those circumstances, I think it desirable to draw attention to the billeting clauses and billeting prices. Except in cases of emergency, powers of billeting can only be exercised on licensed victuallers and innkeepers, and the prices to be charged by those are carefully laid down. During the last few years the Schedule has been, I think, on more than one occasion revised. It was revised in 1907, the year of the creation of the Territorial Force, but having regard to the great rise in prices of the necessaries of life, the Schedule is wholly inadequate, and the prices which the licensed victuallers are allowed to charge could not possibly admit of a profit. I quite admit there was a rise in 1906. The total charge for three meals then for a soldier billeted on an innkeeper or licensed victualler was is. 6d. for breakfast, dinner and supper. At present it is rs. 9d., but surely that increase is not enough, having regard to the increase in prices. Let me point out what the innkeeper can charge a soldier for tea. He has got to give him with the tea a certain amount of bread, sugar and milk, and not a cup, but a pint of tea. For all that the innkeeper is allowed to charge threepence ; it used to be twopence halfpenny. I ask hon. Members would it be possible for any innkeeper to make much out of that with a pint of tea and bread, sugar and milk? The thing is impossible. There is then a substantial breakfast with bacon for which fivepence is allowed, and dinner which is to consist of half a pound of meat, vegetables, beer, mineral waters, is. id. The thing is absolutely impossible. There has been a rise from is. 6d. to is.9d., or something over 10 per cent., but that is not commensurate with the total increase in the cost of living. There is then the question of lodging. If a soldier does not take the meals provided by the innkeeper, then he has to be given the use of a kitchen and fire and vinegar and candles, and he has also to get attendance and a separate bed, and for all that the innkeeper is allowed to charge sixpence. I do not know what the charge in a "doss " house is, but I imagine it is something like threepence per night, but the man certainly does not get clean sheets and attendance and vinegar and candles, while the innkeeper is supposed to make something out of the sixpence. Again I say the thing is impossible. Take the 38 ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL question of n separate bed. It is only within the last few years that a separate bed has been required for each soldier. After the soldier has slept in the bed, naturally the innkeeper has to have the sheets washed. That means twopence, leaving only a balance of fourpence, out of which the innkeeper has to provide candles and vinegar. The Chail'man : The hon. Member is really attacking the Schedule rather than Clause 3. It must be understood that if he makes his points now, he will not bt able to raise them again on the Schedule. Mr. Newman : I would rather take my chance now. With regard to forage, the price has not been raised at all, and if the amount allowed is reckoned out, it will be found that an innkeeper might be liable to have an officer's horse quartered upon him for something under 12s. a week. That is not a living price. It is certainly not the price that we should have to pay if we attempted to quarter our horses upon any innkeeper in the country. The old idea was that when in cases of emergency it was necessary to billet or quarter soldiers on innkeepers, the burden did not fall upon ordinary' citizens. The innkeeper had a house which, without a licence, would be worth perhaps £^0 in the way of rent, but the possession of a licence made it an exceedingly valuable property. Therefore he could justly be asked to bear some extra burden when the State required him to feed and lodge soldiers for a short time. But that is all changed now. The licensed victualler is a heavily- taxed individual. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he does not own the house in which he lives ; he is merely the tenant. At the present moment the licensed victualler interest is the most heavily taxed in the country. Therefore it is unfair now to ask this class to bear an extra burden. All their expenses have risen. Rates are higher. During the last few years in any hotel you like prices have been raised against the customer. Even in this House the Kitchen Committee have had to raise the price of dinner during the present Session. Therefore we ought to consider whether we are paying a fair price in this matter. We have also to face the fact that Territorials may be quartered or billeted in the future. To a large extent the Territorials are drawn from a rather superior class to that from which members of the Regular P^orces come, and what might be suitable accommodation for the latter would not be suitable for. COMMONS [A i>i{. IG, 1913] COMMITTEE STAGE 30 say, a young clerk serving in the Territorials. You want to make the life as comfortable as possible for these people. If you could have a system of billeting Territorials in various parts of the country, it would be an excellent thing both for the force and for the people at large. It would make the force more popular, and it would make the people in one part of the United Kingdom conversant with the habits and thoughts of the people of another part. For instance the Territorial battalion in my own Division has to go to Runnymede for firing practice. Runnymede is a long way from Enfield, and I suggest that if small parties of men could be billeted while doing their practice, it would be much better than their rushing down in the morning and back again at night. I imagine that we should all wish people to have a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. The inn- keeper simply asks for a fair price for a good meal and a good bed. I suggest that the present prices are bad, and in an Amendment to the Schedule I have put down what I imagine would be, not adequate prices, but at any rate something better than those paid at present. The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Harold Baker) : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at present receiving a deputation, but I hope he will be here shortly. Mean- while as this matter concerns my Department I hope the hon. Member will not mind my replying to him. The hon. Member for Enfield, by his Amendment, has really raised the whole question of the prices set out in the Schedule. As he has very frankly admitted, the subject was discussed so recently as 191 1, and in consequence of that discussion a considerable increase was made in the prices allotted. The effect of the hon. Member's proposals would be to raise the price by a further 6d., but the hon. Member did not give any good reason for supposing that the increase in the cost of living had gone up to any corresponding extent. As a result of the discussion in 191 1 the amount payable was raised by 3d., and if the hon. Member had endeavoured to show that the rise in prices justified the further increase now proposed, he would have found himself in great difficulty. We have received no complaints since that increase from innkeepers or any other persons concerned that the prices are in any way inadequate. The hon. Member stated that these prices were doss-house prices Mr. Newman : For the bed. 40 ARMV (ANNUAL) BILL Mr. Baker : And that there would be great advantages in enabling the Territorial Force to pa3'good prices when they had to be billeted. I think the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that these prices are paid in respect, not of individuals, but of numbers. They are calculated according to the individual, but the innkeeper will receive them in respect of a considerable number of soldiers at the same time. Therefore, in calculating the profit to the innkeeper it must be remembered that it is the profit not on a single person, but on a number of soldiers. The hon. Member also raised the question of forage. I am not at all sure that there may not be some ground for looking into that matter. It is true that the cost of forage has risen, and it is some time since the rates in the Schedule were revised. I do not promise that the prices shall be raised, but I do promise that they shall be investigated, and if we can find good reasons for increasing them I have no doubt that we shall do so. On the general question I suggest that it is rather early to ask for a revision of the prices, seeing that it is only twelve months since they were last revised. While I quite agree that the moment you can show definitely that there has been a permanent increase in the cost of living, it is our duty to increase the prices in the Schedule ; I do not think we ought to take notice of every temporary variation that may occur. The cost of food is showing an upward tendency, but taking last year alone, from the time the prices were raised, I am not sure that a case can be made out — certainly the hon. Member has not made it out this afternoon — for a further increase. The hon. Member must remember that although it is possible for the War Office to raise the prices in the Schedule, it is hardly prac- ticable, in the event of a fall in the price of food, to reduce them. For that reason I think that we are entitled to take into account only permanent changes. Mr. John Ward : I think that on this matter I must support the view suggested by the Financial Secretary. I do not know whether it is generally assumed by the hon. Member for Enfield that under no circumstances whatever should citizens who are specially favoured and who have had conferred upon them a monopoly of a certain kind bear any part of the expense relating to the billeting of soldiers. 1 know from my own experience that complaints have sometimes been made by publicans that they have not had their proper share of COMMONS [Apr. 16, 1913] COMMITTEE STAGE 41 billeting. There is not the slightest doubt that in certain cases, in small country towns, for instance, it is very often a considerable source of revenue for the innkeepers when soldiers have to be billeted upon them. It is not merely a question of the actual sum paid, though that is the only item we ought to take into account here. I am glad that this discussion has arisen, because it shows how anxious militarists are to avoid the personal inconveniences attached to the establishment of a great military force. It is a fact that in other countries those who are put to the inconvenience of having soldiers billeted upon them are not paid on nearly so good a scale as that objected to by the hon. Member. I believe that in the case of the Swiss Army it is a part of the military law that only 6o per cent, of the admitted cost shall be paid. That, of course, is a militarist country, and the people are prepared to shoulder a part of the burden. I am delighted to see, however, from the observations of the hon. Member for Enfield that, although we are all in favour of an Army, yet even those who are very well circumstanced do not want to be put to any personal expense or trouble over the matter. That is a very good sign, because it shows to the country how the militarists stand in this respect. I therefore suggest that one would have to show that other countries in relation to this matter of treating those citizens upon whom the Army is billeted for the time being do worse than we do here. I remember a great discussion that took place here some time ago. The Labour men, with the assistance of the late right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, kept the House up all one night on this very subject of the prices relating to billeting, and such like. The late Sir Charles Dilke, with his extensive knowledge of military affairs, helped us. We did not get much assistance then from hon. Members who are putting this matter forward at the present time. I do not see that there is any com- plaint at all to make. There are other matters which it strikes me it would be much more interesting to look into. If the Army Council, or the Secretary of State, has any surplus money that they wish to dispose of, there are hundreds of ways in which to dispose of it. I am sure that the military Gentlemen opposite, and some on this side of the House, could point out to the authorities where funds could be expended infinitely better for the purpose of 42 ARMY (ANNUAL) BUA. perfecting the organisation of the Army, both the Territorial and the Regular Forces, than in increasing the expenditure in the direction suggested. If the hon. Member goes to a Division, it is because I would prefer to keep my mind directed to the more essential things of Arm}' organisation and the equipment of our voluntar}' forces that I should certainly oppose him. There are other subjects which will be introduced during this Debate where money will be required infinitely- more than in this connection. This, as a matter of fact, is about the last thing that military men who want to see the Army well equipped and efficient, would begin with. I suggest therefore that there is no reason or justification, seeing how recently we have revised these rates, for the matter to be reopened at the present time. Colonel Yate : I think the Under-Secretary stated that there had been a considerable increase last year in the price for billeting. I cannot remember the exact amount. Mr. J. Ward : Threepence. Colonel Yate : Threepence for the whole day ? Mr. H. Baker : Threepence per day per man. Colonel Yate : It was stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I think, that the cost of living showed an upward tendency that was perhaps more or less temporary. The cost of living, I think, is acknowledged by all to have gone up, and it probably will remain up. You cannot expect it to come down. The point I would like to ask about is. Does this Clause simply refer to licensed victuallers — that is, to proprietors of public-houses — or, in the case of manceuvres, such as are coming on, does it refer to anyone in any part of the country in which men may be billeted ? If it is only in respect of public-houses and innkeepers, then I can quite understand an innkeeper liking to have the men in his house, for he possibly makes other money by virtue of their being present which compensates him. But, if men are liable to be billeted on private citizens, I think these private citizens may justly claim to be repaid the money expended by them. Will this scale of billeting apply to the ordinary householders in the villages or to the innkeepers only ? Mr. H. Baker : Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will remem- ber that recently fresh powers were taken in respect of billeting, power being taken to billet the soldiers not merely in licensed houses, but in private houses as well. These powers are confined to certain COMMONS [Apr. 10, 1913] COMMITTEE STAGE 43 occasions. In ordinary times the power of billeting is the same as it was. The scale applies only to billeting of tliat kind. Soldiers will not be billeted in private houses except in case of emergency. The practice at manoeuvres will continue as at present. Captain Jessel : When was the change made ? Mr. H. Baker : In 191 2. Colonel Yate : May I ask if the Under-Secretary considers that this scale is equal to the expense incurred by those concerned ? Mr. H. Baker : I am afraid I have not made myself quite clear. In the coming manoeuvres the billeting will be as under peace con- ditions, and only be on innkeepers and people of that description. Major Stanley : There was one point brought to our notice by the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke. He said he was glad to see this discussion for various reasons. The publicans, he said, would be content. But the hon. Member seems to miss one point — that if you skimp and restrict those who billet the soldiers in any way in their remuneration they will skimp the soldier in the amount of food they give to him, I have known it from experience — not personally. Men of mine when we have been on the march at different times have reported that the publican or innkeeper had given a cup of tea, which he was supposed to give for the men's breakfast, but he would neither give milk nor sugar to put in it. I venture to suggest that if you skimp the money paid for billeting you will run a very great risk of the man keeping the house skimping the soldier. Mr. J. Ward : That might occur whatever figure you pay him ? Question, " That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to. Apiul 22, 1913. {Official Behates. Vol. lii.) FINANCE BILL, 1913. Financial Statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lloyd George) : . . . The Spirit Duties were satisfactory in more senses than one, not merely from the revenue, but also from a social and economic point of view. The effect of the heavy additional duties imposed in 1909 became more manifest last year than it had been in the previous 44 FINANCE BILL, 1913 year. If the Committee will take the four years preceding the Budget of 1909, they include one 3'ear of great trade depression, 1 90S, but the consumption of spirits in tliis country only fell from 39,250,000 to 37,750,000 gals. Since the Budget of 1909, there has been a fall of about 8,000,000 gals, in the consumption of spirits in this country, but whilst there has been this drop in consumption the revenue has benefited to the extent of nearly ^2,000,000. So that it is satisfactory in both ways, in the increased revenue and in the lesser consumption of spirits. Taking the whole four years together, the consumption of spirits is down, it is estimated, by 28,750,000 gals., and the revenue has profited by ^^5,000,000. I think it may be said that in more than one respect this is one of the most successful taxes ever imposed on the community. . . . There were some taxes which we did not profess to be able to form any estimate of. For instance, there were the Spirit Duties. It was quite impossible to make any forecast of their ultimate yield, so much depended upon the habits of the people. . . . Mr. Austen Chamberlain : Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer the figures by which the Whisk}^ Duty has exceeded the estimate of the yield ? Mr. Lloyd George : I thought I had made that clear. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the White Paper he will see that we did not estimate the yield of the Whisky Duty except for the first year. It was quite impossible to estimate the ultimate result because it depended so very much on the habits of the people. We could not form any sort of forecast. The White Paper shows that there is nothing set off against the ultimate yield of the Whisky Duty. We estimated the revenue of last year on the basis of a rosy view. In spite of the holding back at the end of the year ; in spite of the strike, the receipts exceeded the Estimate by ;^ 1,600,000. But for the strike and the holding back we should have received ;^2, 600,000 more than we actually received — not above the Estimate, because we made a deduction in respect of the strike in tlie Estimate. . . . The year 1907 was exceptionally good. Though the consumption of spirits and beer was then falling, in 1907 spirits rose by 1.8 per cent, and beer fell by only .6 per cent. In 1908, which was a bad year, spirits fell by 4.8 per cent, and beer by 2.4 per cent. Thus beer dropped four times as much COMMONS [Apr. 22, 1913] STATEMENT 45 in 1908 as it had done in the previous year. ... I will next examine the Estimates of revenue for the year, and will take first the Customs and Excise. I have already indicated that, owing to special reasons, there will be an increase of about ^1,350,000 in Customs and Excise. But perhaps, before I give the totals, the Committee would like to know what my forecast is for some of the most prominent and important ingredients of that revenue. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) pressed for details last year, and I thought I would anticipate any possible interruption of that nature this year. I come first to spirits. There was an excessive amount of duty-paid stocks in hand at the beginning of 191 2-13. These have been reduced. I have also to take into account the strike of last year. From these two causes the revenue from spirits last year lost about ^'400,000. This year I shall budget for ;^400,ooo more than I received last year. I propose to add to that ;^27o,ooo for normal growth, so that the spirits will produce ;^67o,ooo more than last year. Beer suff"ered a good deal last year from the strike and the wet and cold season. I budget this year for an increase of ;^252,ooo. . . . Perhaps the Committee would like to know what percentage I put on for normal increases. In the case of spirits we are adding i^ per cent., and if hon. Members will cast their minds back to the figures I gave, showing the difference between a good year and a bad year, I think they will find that we are not unreasonable in anticipating in a good year li; per cent, increase. On beer, too, we anticipate an increase of i|- per cent. : on tea i per cent., and on sugar 2 per cent. Liquor licences this year will be down by ;^ 108,000. That is partly due to the fact that houses have been closed, but mainly to the fact that there were substantial arrears from the previous year falling in the revenue of last year. . . . The total from Customs I anti- cipate will be ^35,200,000, an increase of ;{^ 1,7 15,000 upon last year. From Excise I anticipate ;^38, 850,000, an increase of ;^85o,ooo. ^1,500,000 of this increase is derivable from abnormal causes, and ;^ 1, 000,000 from normal growth. . . . This year we propose to introduce or rather to reintroduce a change in procedure with reference to the Finance Bill. It is due very largely to Mr. Speaker's ruling in respect of the Parliament Act. Mr. Speaker ruled, either last year or the previous year, that certain Amendments 46 FIXAXCE RILL, lOia which we had introduced into the Finance Act of 1911 — I am not sure that the hon. Baronet [Sir G. Younger] was not responsible for them Sir G. Younger : I do not think I was the villain in that piece. Mr. Lloyd George : I think he was responsible, and did a good deal of mischief in that direction. Amendments were introduced in 191 1 which had the effect of putting the Finance Act outside the category of Money Bills under the Parliament Act. That, of course, was a very serious ruling. A good many Amendments were moved last year. Some of them I regarded with a favourable eye, but we could not see our way to accept them, because on the analogy of Mr. Speaker's ruling in the preceding year, we felt it would convert the Bill into a Bill which was not a Money Bill. That is a very serious state of things which we cannot possibly allow, and with which we must deal, inasmuch as every year these Amendments are increasing. Some of them are quite good Amendments ; some of them. Amend- ments we are quite willing to consider ; therefore, I do not think it is fair to either the Government or the Opposition that this element should be introduced to disturb the judgment, as it were, of the House, when it comes to reflect whether or not it will add certain Amendments to the Bill. We have therefore decided this year to recur to a practice, which was only abandoned in view of the con- troversy between the two Houses, of having two Bills. One will be a Bill dealing with the taxes which we propose, and the other will be a Bill dealing with all the Amendments to the law which the Govern- ment propose, or which any Members of the House propose. The Amendment introduced by the Noble Lord [Lord Hugh Cecil] into the Provisional Collection of Taxes Bill has rendered this even more imperative. He has imposed upon the Government and upon the House of Commons what is practically a time-table for Taxation Bills. I am not complaining of that, because I accepted the Amendment, and I think, on the whole, it was a very wise suggestion, but it makes it almost impossible for a Government within the time it is laid down by that Bill, to get through its purely financial business and to give full opportunities to the House to move Amendments in reference to revenue proposals. We shall, therefore, introduce two Bills. There are certain Amendments we ourselves propose to the Licensing Provisions of the Act of 1909 and to the COMMONS [Apr. 29, 1913] RESOLUTIONS 47 Land Valuation provisions of the 1909 Act. I have no doubt there are several other Members of the House who would also like to try their hands at amending these provisions. I should also like to point out to the Committee that this is to meet a rapidly growing difficulty, apart altogether from the ruling of Mr. Speaker. I think the Government and the House of Commons are driven to revert to the ancient practice in this respect. About ten years ago the Amendments to the Finance Bill numbered — perhaps it is a little 'more than ten years ago, for I have some recollection of a very pleasant evening being spent in moving a good many more Amendments to a Budget of the right, hon. Gentleman opposite — but certainly, when I came to the House the Amendments to the Finance Bill of the year numbered something like a dozen or twenty at the outside. Now they number anything between 100 and 150. It will be quite impossible for any Government in the future to carry through its taxation proposals, and give facilities for a full discussion of every revenue proposal in the middle of the Session, without completely dislocating every other business. It would have the effect of strangling the business of every Government. For that reason we propose to confine our Finance Bill to the renewal of temporary taxes, and to introduce a Revenue Bill on the basis of a Resolution for the general amendment of the law. . . . April 29, 1913. {Official Debates. Vol. lii.) BUDGET RESOLUTIONS. Considered in Committee. Sir G. Younger : . . . With regard to the Spirit Duties, in which I am interested, not personally, but from the fact that there are some twenty-three or twenty-four distilleries in my constituency, and from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman claims better results on the point than I can quite make out, the right hon. Gentleman says that in the four years before the Budget the consumption of spirits fell from 40,000,000 gallons to 39,000,000 gallons. That is not quite accurate. He has taken the wrong year ; he has taken the fifth year and not the fourth year; he ought to have taken the year 1906. 48 FINANCE BILL, 1913 As a matter of fact he took the year 1905, and in 1905 the consump- tion of spirits was 40,108,599 gallons. In 1906 it was only 39,239, 166 gallons, which was the fourth year before the Budget of 1909-10. The Chancellor also pointed out that in the four years since the Budget there had been a falling off of 8,000,000 gallons. Not only, said the right hon. Gentleman, did that happen, but the revenue had profited by ^2,000,000, for, taking the last four years, there had been a total less consumption of 28,750,000 gallons, while the revenue had profited to the extent of ;^5,ooo,ooo. I positively cannot re- concile those figures with any figures I can find in the Blue Book. Here are the actual figures — I am sorry to weary the House with them, because they are wearisome and not very interesting, but I want, if I can, to see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrives at his figures. In the four years preceding the Budget of 1909 there was a total consumption of spirits of 157,743,685 proof gallons. In the four years since the Budget that figure has fallen to 118,283,219 proof gallons, a difference, not of 28,758,000 gallons, but of 39,460,466 gallons. These are figures taken from the Customs and Excise Blue Books. The revenue in these two periods was, in the first period ;£"86,877,328, and in the second period ;^86, 135,199, a difference of ;^742,i29. You get ;^742,ooo less in the second period than in the first four years, although the right hon. Gentleman says he has five millions. I know it is possible to juggle with figures in almost every possible way, but the conclusion I have arrived at, when look- ing into these figures, is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not express himself perfectly clearly when he made his statement. He has failed to explain how he arrived at these figures. Every- body knows that there were considerable forestalments before the Budget of 1909. I do not know if we ever knew exactly how much they were. If you look at the Report of the Customs and Excise for 1910, you will find that they say that the forestalments up to March 31 amounted to ;{^50o,ooo, and that there was considerable forestalment between that date and the end of April, when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget. What it was he did not say, and no one knows. I do not think that affects the question really because, as a matter of fact, in the last three years, if there were forestalments in 1909, and there was a great drop, as we all know COMMONS [Apr. 29, 1913] RESOLUTIONS 49 in 1910, in the succeeding years when the amount of spirits consumed remained almost steady, the figures were for 1911, ;^30,ooo,ooo ; for 1912, £io,?>^7, 2^7 \ and the estimated figure for 191 3» i^30, 500,000. That is the estimate as nearly as possible for 1913. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have assumed something in making his totals. Supposing this falling off of 39,460,000 gallons had occuri-ed with no change in the duty, the actual loss to the Revenue would be ;^2 1,703,236, but if you take the extra duty of 3s. 9d. a gallon imposed upon spirits since the Budget of 1909, on the total consumption of 118,283,219 gallons, it would mean an additional revenue of ;^22, 172,478, or an actual gain to the Revenue during the past four years of only ^469,242, but that, remember, supposes a perfectly impossible condition, that there would have been a drop of 8,000,000 gallons a year under the old system of taxation. It is the new system of taxation which is responsible almost entirely for the drop of consumption, and I think that is proved by the fact that during the three years preceding the Budget the consumption was practically steady. In 1907 the figures were 39,847o88 gallons ; in 1908, 39,697,166 gallons ; and in 1909, although we are told there were great forestalments, the figures were 38,939,685 gallons. The forestalments were equally large in 1906, 1907, and 1908, in fear of largely increased taxation. In the last three years the average is less by 8,000,000 gallons than in the former averages. How the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes out five millions I cannot under- stand, and I cannot find out anybody else who does. Perhaps he would be good enough to give some explanation to show how this calculation is arrived at, because it would be very interesting to everyone to know, and I can assure him that at the present time no one that I consulted can understand. What about the Budget this year ? The right hon. Gentleman has budgeted this year for an increase of ^670,000. I should be surprised if he gets that. We have had three years of very good trade in which the consumption of spirits has remained practically stationary. The right hon. Gentleman has actually budgeted for 900,000 or nearly 1,000,000 gallons more, which would be an enormous rise as things are now, and as people's habits are now, on the amount of spirits sold last year. Mr. Masterman : Perhaps the hon. Baronet would allow me; 50 FINANCE BILL, 1913 he has not budgeted for that as a normal increase, but after taking into consideration what he allowed last 3'ear for the coal strike and also for clearances. Sir G. Younger : Yes, he has allowed for a normal increase of ;^270,ooo and /^400,ocxd for the coal strike. That is a large figure to take, and as to the question of stocks, I cannot think what he meant. Stocks were reduced to the lowest in 19 10, and they have been kept at the lowest possible limit for the last three years, and they will continue to remain very much the same. He might expect to get more money out of whisky in the future by reducing the duty. I do not think there will be found anyone who would think of getting more money by increasing it. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer claims great credit for the moral effect produced by his Budgets, he was not out for moral effect in 1909. Surely there are other financial losses that must also be taken into account in connection with this loss on spirits. There is the loss of Income Tax in regard to distillation, and there is the loss of employment. I do not know how many people who have emigrated because twenty-three or twenty-four distilleries were badl}'^ hit, and some of them killed right out by this taxation. We have to consider all these facts when dealing with the financial results of such a policy ; and what about the social advantages? There is a great deal of nonsense talked about that. One would imagine that these 8,000,000 gallons of spirits were not now being consumed by the people who consumed spirits before to excess. Of course, the revenue is paid not by the drunkard but by the moderate drinker. These are the men who pay the revenue. Under the new arrangement of 1909 the drinker was extremely annoyed that he was charged a little more for his whisky, and he went on to some- thing else ; but that there is any moral effect, whether a man takes a whisky and soda at his dinner or spirits in some other form, is hardly open to argument. The drop in spirits arose from the annoyance which people felt at the increase they had to pay and which they thought in Scotland was an unfair increase upon their favourite tipple, and they have gone on to something else perhaps lighter, and I have no reason to grumble that they have done so. But 1 think there is a lot of nonsense talked about this matter. 1 am sorry to say that as a result of the increase of the cost of good spirits there has been a COMIVIONS [Ai'i{. 29, 1913] RESOLUTIONS 51 large consumption of substitutes of a very deleterious character. 1 had the other day evidence of that. There are very serious com- plaints of the quantities of methylated spirits which are now drunk by some of the poorer people instead of whisky. It is an extra- ordinary thing how they can swallow it. It is 6o per cent, overproof, and spirits are usually sold 22 or 23 underproof, so that the Com- mittee will realise the difference in strength and potency between the two. And the people are drinking it because they cannot afford to buy decent whisky. That is a very grave matter, and one of the moral results which I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not like to include when claiming success for his campaign. I have no doubt, also, that spirits are now sold not so mature as they used to be, and therefore not quite so wholesome as matured spirits. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will let us know how he reconciles the figures he gave the House on his Budget statement, figures which did not appear to be on the face of it correct. I have only one other subject to bring to the notice of the Com- mittee, and that is in regard to the Licence Duties. I do not think I have made any appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1909-10 to consider the question of Licence Duties. I appeal to him to do so now in view of the very much larger sum he has taken out of those duties than he told the House in 1909 he thought he was entitled to take. The yield from on- and off-licences in 1908-9 was ^^"1,952,293. He proposed an addition of ;^i, 500,000, making ;^3,452,293. During the four years since then he has taken out of these Licence Duties ^^2,060,488, beyond the sum he told the House he would desire to take. He has taken an average of ^515,122 per annum, or 33 1-3 per cent, over the Estimate. That is a very serious matter. Of course, it is a drop in the ocean in the national revenue, and ;^5 15,000 is an inconsiderable amount when taken in connection with the ^195,000,000 or ;^ 1 96,000,000 Budget. But it is a very serious matter all the same. The Chancellor of the Exchequer realised that he was imposing a very heavy burden when he asked a million and a half, and the right hon. Gentleman will remember how he said he fixed the Spirit Duty in order that the publican should have a chance of the extra halfpenny, and that after what he would pay to the Exchequer in increased duty he would have a margin to relieve himself of the heavy strain. Well, of course, he knows now that the 52 FIXA^XE BILL, 1913 halfpenny was no use, because of the reduced consumption, and parti}' because they were not able to get it, and yet this ;^500,000 is taken from those people. It is a matter of life and death for those people, and therefore I think the time has come when we might ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this question. He was pledged under Clause 44 of the Budget to bring into being as soon as possible a new basis of assessment ; that he has failed to do. He has completed his register so far as houses of over ^500 a year are concerned, but that does not meet the case. No attempt, as far as I can make out, has been made to complete the other part of the register, and therefore the old anomalies which he condemned still exist, and so far as I can see there seems to be very little chance of completion. A very strong case for revision can be made out from the figures which he gave, and which the Postmaster-General gave, when these duties were imposed. His expectations have been disappointed, and the register, as far as I can see, is not likely to be completed until some new system is adopted. I hope now that the Chancellor, although he has not got any money to spare, will at least do some- thing. These are the two points I particularly rose to mention. I notice that during the course of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech in introducing the Budget, he made an historical reference, and contrasted the period of 1861 with the present time. If he will carry his inquiry into the dependence of the National Revenue upon these Licence and Spirit Duties and so on a little further, he will, I think, find that he is as much dependent to-day, and more so, than was the Chancellor in 1861 upon that particular source of revenue, and I do think he ought to try and give it a little more consideration than he has done in the past. 4c 4s 4: Mr. Austen Chamberlain : . . . I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the explanation which my hon. Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs [Sir G. Younger] asked in regard to the estimate of the Whisky Duty. I was a good deal puzzled by his figures in regard to the Whisky Duty. Neither I nor anyone I have been able to consult, any more than my hon. Friend, who has great means of knowledge, as his constituency is largely interested in this subject, has been able to follow the calculation of the Chancellor of the COMMONS [Apr. 29, 1913] RESOLUTIONS 53 Exchequer as to the four years preceding the Budget, and the four years following it. I just emphasise the request made by my hon. Friend, that we may have an answer on that point. . . . ■A- :i> * The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. McKenna) : . . . The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of the Whisky Duties, upon which the hon. Baronet, the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), had spoken earlier. Upon that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer states that I can give the assurance that a statement on the subject will be issued. I think it will be agreed that the figures are too difficult to enter into on the floor of the House. . . . Mr. T. M. Healy : . . . The right Hon. Gentleman takes credit to himself for having imposed taxation that has shut up distilleries. I never knew until I heard the tight hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be a moralist. He says, " With regard to this Whisky Duty I have not only reduced the gallons, but I have increased taxation." Why does he not say that about beer? Because English Members would not stand it for a moment. When the tax was brought in the beautiful excuse was made that it is so difficult to tax beer, because you could not get a farthing on the pint. Accordingly the only measure which a tax could be put upon was the gallon of whisky, in regard to which I remember that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, said had already been taxed to its highest point. Although I have noticed recently a good deal of activity on the part of the con- stabulary, we have never been told that there has been an increase in this illicit distillation in Ireland. The old smuggler as a class has died out, and I wonder that more smuggling is not done with this extra tax upon whisky. This is not my complaint. The words of my complaint are the words that were used by the hon. and learned Memlier for Waterford, the hon. Member for East Mayo, the hon. Member for Longford, and by every Irish Member three years ago. Everyone of them uttered this complaint, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford promised the country that in the ensuing year, the year 191 1, the tax would be repealed. So far from the tax being repealed, it has been perpetuated in this way. We shall leave this House with something like sixty of our representatives struck 54 FINANCE BILT., 1018 off, and we are going 'to our own country with this knowledge that so long as grass grows and water runs Ireland is hit by this tax, and the Irish Parliament will have no more power to repeal than it will have to abolish the Irish Sea. . . . June 2, 1013. {Ofjidal Debates. Vol. liii.) SECOND READING. Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time." — [Mr. Lloyd George.^ * * * Mr. H. Terrell : . . . Income Tax depends on a number of Acts. Thelawon the subject, it isno exaggeration tosay, is absolutely chaotic. There are between thirty and forty different Statutes to be consulted if you want to understand the law of Income Tax, and when you have consulted all these Statutes I do not think that any man would get up and say that he understands really what the law is. When we remember that the principal Statutes are practically taken from a very old Statute which was framed at the time when the income was derived from comparatively few sources, and when the state of trade was very different to what it is to-day, it is not surprising that it has become difficult to apply such an ancient Act as that, over lOO years old, to the conditions prevailing to-day. To-day the incidence of the Income Tax bears very harshly upon those who ought to be treated gently by the Revenue, and allows to escape altogether many who derive considerable profits which ought to be taxed. . . . As a matter of common practice . . . when the surveyor suspects that a man has omitted some source of income from his returns, they put in a very big figure as an additional first assessment. The result is that the man has to pay the tax on that large additional figure or he must appeal. If he appeals to the general Commissioners, what is his position ? The general Commissioners are usually men in the same locality as the appellant — they are always men of the same locality except in the City of London ; they are very often men who are engaged in a trade similar to that of the man who has been assessed. If the man wants to appeal against this additional assessment, he must either go to the general Commis- COMMONS [June 2, 1913] SECOND READING 55 sioners or the Special Commissioners. If he goes to the general Commissioners, they are entitled, not directly — because the State does not give them any such power — but indirectly to compel a man to produce all his books relating to his business. There are cases — and I can refer to instances — where men do not wish to expose their business affairs in all their details to the Commissioners or the surveyor. The man makes his return. They have put on a very large additional assessment. He submits to it, and pays it, although it is vastly excessive. Next year they increase it again, and then the man can submit no longer to the assessment, and he is compelled to appeal. He appeals to the Commissioners, who are entitled to investigate, and do investigate, his books and all his private dealings. His whole business is laid bare. Many men will pay a great deal rather than submit to an inquisitorial examination of their whole business, especially by men of their own locality, and in many cases by men carrying on the same trade. What seems to me a further iniquity in this matter is, that the surveyor is the person who opposes the appellant, and he is the person who complains of the insufficiency of the return made by the man. In 99 cases out of 100 the Com- missioners who are the judges know little, or very little indeed, about Income Tax law ; there are few people who know much about it. The Commissioners are guided to a great extent by the surveyor. When they have heard the case, and heard the surveyor, the appellant, and all the witnesses, they retire to consider their de- cision, and the surveyor goes with them. When they are considering in private, under the Statute as it exists as present, the surveyor is entitled to go into the room with the assessors, and the arguments he uses there the appellant is unable to hear, and therefore unable to answer. Nobody knows what they are. That, I submit, is most unfair, and is contrary to our sense of justice. First of all, the men who are judges may be opponents or competitors of the appellant, and they may be men carrying on their business in the same locality ; yet he has to bare the whole of his business to the tribunal so con- stituted. They can indirectly compel him to produce all his books and all the details of his business, while the surveyor, his opponent in the litigation, can go into the private room with them when they retire to decide the appeal. There is another appeal, the man may, if he chooses, appeal to the Special Commissioners. The expense of 56 FINANCE BILL, 1913 an appeal to the Special Commissioners is very great. These Special Commissioners are, after all, simply the nominees of the Inland Revenue Department. They are men, I say at once, who desire to do justice ; I do not say that they do not desire to do justice ; but hon. Members can well understand that, being officers of the Inland Revenue Department and brought up and trained in that Depart- ment, their sympathies, their feelings and their minds are all in favour of the Department, and against the appellant. These are the persons who are to act as judges. They are not men trained as law5'ers ; they are not men who have had any experience in the conduct of this sort of questions ; they simply go there as officials of the Inland Revenue to hear a case which involves questions of the utmost complexity and abstruse points of law. These gentlemen, having regard to the magnitude of the businesses they have got to deal with, are absolutely underpaid. Generally they receive very small salaries. When you consider the magnitude of the matters with which they have to deal, it will be seen that they are not fitted for the duties imposed upon them. They are not trained to the judicial office ; they have not had experience of the administration of justice, yet they have to determine, and finally determine, the most important and complicated questions of law and of fact, Mr. Lloyd George : May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what his suggestion would be ? Mr. Terrell : My suggestion, in the first instance, would be that this whole question of the Income Tax, the law relating to the Income Tax, and the administration of the Income Tax, should be overhauled by a Select Committee, or, at any rate, by some competent body. Nowadays the Income Tax has become practically a per- manent tax. . . . A proper tribunal should beset up composed of men accustomed to deal with such questions as well as with questions of law. The person aggrieved should have a right of appeal to the ordinary Courts of Law, so that when he comes to pay an enormous sum, such as some men have to pay in the way of Income Tax, he may be able to have decided by the highest judicial tribunal in the land the amount which he has to pay and the income in respect of which he has to pay. I venture, respectfully, to suggest that that is what ought to be done when the opportunity arises. If a Select Committee were appointed to investigate this whole matter, I am COMMONS [June 2, 19i;i] SECOND READING 57 perfectly certain that the result would be that you would be able to have a codification of the law, so that it could be put before the public in a clear and simple manner. * * * Sir George Younger : . . . The right hon. Gentleman has issued a White Paper explaining his statement about the Spirit Duty, and explaining that the tax has been a highly successful one in respect to the reduced quantity of spirits sold and the increase in the revenue. That was given by the right hon. Gentleman as a statement of fact, but it was a purely conjectural statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer assumes certain things, and then brings out those figures which are not facts in any sense of the word, and 1 think he ought to qualify those words. So far from there having been an increase of ^^5,000,000 in the Spirit Duty, there has been a loss of £660,000 to the revenue on the figures contained in the Blue Book, and the statement now issued was based upon conjecture and not upon the facts. Mr. Lloyd George : . . . Several Committees have been appointed from time to time to consider kindred questions in reference to the collection of Income Tax. As a result of some of these Com- mittees improvements have been effected in the law, but, on the whole, I cannot say that they have resulted in throwing any very considerable light upon the best method of assessing and collecting the Income Tax. ... I have always thought that it was very hard that men trading in a given district should be compelled to submit their accounts to their trade rivals. That is one of the most unsatisfactory parts of the working of the machinery of the Income Tax, and no doubt many men prefer to pay almost an unfair Income Tax to submitting their private accounts to examination, not merely by their trade rivals, but even to their neighbours in a sparsely populated district. ... I am sure that when there is an alteration in the machinery of the Income Tax the question of District Commissioners ought to be very carefully reconsidered. I am not at all sure that the present system is a beneficial one to the Revenue. I am very doubtful about it. I think that a good deal of Revenue escapes. I will not say that it is the fault of the District Commissioners altogether, but I am certain with, I will not say a more impartial tribunal, but with a tribunal which would not have 58 FTXANCE BILL, 1913 any local bias or personal bias, a purely official tribunal, that whereas now there are some men who are overtaxed, there are a good many men who are undertaxed who would probably be brought into the net. I should ver)' much like to see that question considered by a Committee. ... I will consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member ; it is a very valuable one. . . . The hon. Gentleman the Member for Herefordshire [Mr. Hewins] opened this discussion in a suggestive speech. . . . He first of all objected to the taxation which fell upon the working classes. He said, " Here you are putting fivepence per lb. on tea, and it comes largely out of the pockets of the working classes." Then he came to the middle classes, and objected to taxing them. Mr. Hewins : I referred to the intermediate class of landowners. Mr. Lloyd George : Yes, and he objected to taxing them because, he said, you are eliminating them. He wants to take the burdens off. Where is he going to put the burdens on ? There is really only one way of taking- burdens off the taxpayers, and that is by reducing expenditure. You may reshuffle your taxes and take them off one shoulder and put them on another ; you may lighten the burdens on one class, but, if you do, unless you reduce the expen- diture, 3'ou are bound to increase the burdens on another class. You cannot avoid that. It is very easy to say to one class, " Here, your burdens are too heavy. They ought to be lightened. You are paying too much on tea and sugar." " You, landowners, are paying too much on your land." " You, the middle classes, are paying too much Income Tax." But, unless you reduce the expenditure, you have got to get the money out of some class in this country. ... If you want to raise your revenue in this country, you have got to have it distributed over all classes, and what 3'ou want to do is to sec that it is distributed fairly over them all, and that no class is unfairly taxed in proportion to the rest. . . . May I point out what has happened in regard to spirits. He [Mr. Snowden] claimed that under the Budget of 1909 the contribution of the working classes to the expenditure of the State has gone up by ;^9,ocxd,ooo. In that he included the increased 3s. 9d. on spirits. It had such an effect in restricting consumption that the working classes are probably spending no more now on spirits than they did befoie. The only difference is that they are paying less to the publican and more COMMONS [June 2, 1013] SECOND READING 59 to the Exchequer. The expenditure of the working classes in this respect is no greater than it was before the Budget. They are only getting less spirits. Undoubtedly taxation has had the same effect on tea. In an address to a society that inquires into these matters, a lecturer, whose name I forget, the other day pointed out how very difficult it is really to know what the effect of these taxes is upon consumption. He comes to the conclusion that on the whole it has had the effect of restricting the consumption of tea amongst the poorer classes of the population and to that extent the lower wage portion of the population are not paying as large a proportion of their income as they would otherwise have done. What they do is to reduce the quantity of tea they consume. Is my hon. Friend quite sure that is doing them so much harm ? I am putting that quite seriously because it is the real difference between a tax upon tea and a tax upon bread. Any tax which would have the eflect of restricting the consumption of bread by the working classes would be an unmixed evil. I do not think that a tax which would have the effect of restricting the quantity of tea consumed would be altogether an unmixed evil. Having seen a good deal recently of those who are organising the campaign against consumption in different parts of the country, they tell me that the excessive consumption of tea amongst labourers, miners, and others has a very disastrous effect in regard to the spread of tuberculosis. [Hon. Members : " No."] That is undoubtedly the case. I do not know that anyone who has inquired into the matter will deny that for a moment. I am not putting this as an argument in favour of increasing the tax upon tea, but I want to point out the serious difference between a tax upon bread and a tax upon tea. When you come to the question of the tax upon sugar, I believe the same argument does not quite apply, although medical men say that there might be an excessive consumption of sugar. . . . Mr. Hunt : The right hon. Gentleman, in saying that the taxation of food in this country was less than in any other country was simply saying what was not true. . . . The right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, will not deny that the taxes on food, drink, and tobacco for the working people is higher in this country than in any other great country in the world. Does the right hon. Gentle- man deny that ? 60 FINANCE HILL, 1918 Mr. Lloyd George : The taxation on drink is higher in this country than in any other country except the United States. The taxation on food is lower here than in any other country in the world. August 13, 1913. {OJ/iria/ Debates. Vol. Ivi.) THIRD READING. Motion made and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read the third time." Mr. Austen Chamberlain : . . . I rise to record a protest against the general conduct of the financial business of the Govern,- ment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, on more than one occasion in the course of our recent Debates, that tlic House this year had unusual opportunities of discussing finance. 1 confess that I am wholly at a loss to know what he means thereby. He has not submitted to the House any calculation of the number of days occupied in such discussion. I have not attempted to make it out, and I cannot call to mind the exact number of days which on one occasion or another have been devoted to finance, but what I do think will be in the minds of all the House, and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, is that the real opportunities for the House to consider, and if it desires to make amendments in our financial law have not occurred until the very close of the Session. So late in the year have such opportunities occurred that the moment any differences have arisen in the House itself, even though they were not on ordinary party lines, and did not divide the House at all, one of the great financial measures had to be dropped, and the other has to go through without any attempt at any adequate or useful examination of our national position. We are accustomed under the present Government to the deferment of the Finance Bill of the year to the very latest stages of the Session, and this has often been prolonged into the autumn and the winter. This has meant not merely that we have taken the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, as we are doing to-day, in the month of August, but that we have dealt with it as late as December, or even, I think, in the early months of the next year. Ten years ago such a procedure on the part of the Government would COMMONS [Aug. 13, 1913] THIRD READING 61 have been regarded in all quarters of the House as an outrage, and by no one would it have been denounced more strongly than by the Gentlemen who now sit on that bench, and the party who support them. Yet that has not been due to any accident of their tenure of office, but it is their constant practice, and this year, when our legisla- tive programme consists chiefly of twice-chewed meals, passed under the swiftest and severest application of the Closure that has ever been known in this House, and when no new great contentious measure has occupied our time, the Government could not take the Committee stage of this and the other financial measure into which they divided their Budget until the last week but one of the Session. To complete the picture, I must remind the house that under the legislation carried by this Government, this House has now not merely a special control and interest in, but it has the undivided power over all moneys. This House deprived the other House of any voice in this legislation, and is now deprived itself of any effective power to make its feelings known or convert them into action. That is a grave constitutional innovation ; that is a change so obviously for the con- venience of any Government that a precedent of this kind once set is likely to be constantly appealed to to justify similar actions in the future, and the House, which then thought that it was asserting its own unquestioned right and unquestionable right over the whole realm of finance, now finds itself more restricted within the sphere of finance than it has ever been in her whole Parliamentary history. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government have never dealt frankly with the House on this question. They have never laid all their cards upon the table. They have let us see their hand little by little, but not a hint of all these things was given at the time the Parliament Act was passed. When, owing to the interposition of Mr. Bowles, the practice which the Government had abused, and grossly abused, of collecting revenue without legislative sanction, was checked, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself in consequence forced to produce the Collection of Taxes Bill, not a hint was given, until we had parted with the control of that Bill, oi the procedure which he must have already contemplated as that which he would adopt in the present Session. It was not until the House of Commons had parted with those Bills in succession that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to inform us that, 02 FINANCE BILL, 1913 as a consequence of what had happened, he proposed to divide what we have been accustomed, in my Parliamentary experience, to know as the Budget into two — to take in the Finance Bill only the renewal of annual taxes or the introduction of new ones that might be thought necessary, and to relegate to the Revenue Bill the general amendment of the law which alone gives Members in this House any opportunity of questioning or amending the general system of finance which prevails in this country. The House of Commons has been ridden in blindness, and now we see the result. These two Bills, which we were told were separated in order that we might have more ample opportunities for discussion, and in order that the Finance Bill itself might be dealt with earl}', are brought up in the Committee stage in the last week but one of the Session. The one Bill is sacrificed, though the great bulk of Members in every quarter of the House desire to see it passed, because a little knot of Members in one quarter alone on the Government side below the Gangway object to some of its provisions, and because at this period of the Session the most insignificant minority, without the least shadow of popular support behind it, can hold up the whole business of the House of Commons and destroy the Government's programme. When we come to the Finance Bill let us see what is the opportunity the House has had of dealing with it. The Govern- ment waited so late before they themselves considered the problems with which they had to deal that they find themselves prevented by a well-known and a long-standing rule of the House from carrying out the Amendments which they had promised and which they were expecting to carry unless the Session is to be prolonged into another week or more. Under those circumstances what is the position of the House of Commons? It is reduced in those matters to absolute impotence, at the very moment when it claimed sole and uncontrolled power. I think that is a serious situation. I am not one of those who have ever pretended to look with any liking or sympathy on the Parliament Act, and the whole procedure to which it has given birth. I am not distressed if the Government by their own procedure make that Act ridiculous, and if, indeed, they make it so monstrous an abuse that many who were content to see it passed will be eager to see it repealed ; but 1 do say that for the Government, whose exist- ence in the country and whose reputation were concerned in its COMMONS [Aug. 13, 1913] THIRD READING 63 establishment, to have so treated the House of Commons that Members cannot act, is to stultify themselves and to destroy their own legislation. I say no more on this subject. . . . The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lloyd George) (who was very indistinctly heard) : . . . I come to the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman opened the discussion. With regard to what he said about the late period of the Session at which this discussion comes on, I do not think his criticism was altogether fair. There are two reasons why the finance of the year has been thrown back to the month of August, and we are not altogether responsible for either. The first is the Gibson Bowles decision, which we had to set right. The right hon. Gentleman himself, if he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have had to do exactly the same. His Bill might have taken a different form, but he would have had instantly to set aside everything else in order to legalise the collection of Income Tax for a certain period. We occupied about a fortnight of Parliamentary time in regularising what had been the practice of Parliament for at least lOO years, and, as far as Income Tax is concerned, for sixty or seventy years. That fortnight might very well have been occupied in introducing the Finance Bill and pressing it through Parliament, but during the whole of that time we were at work upon financial matters. The discussions were not confined to technical considerations, but constitutional questions were raised, and the Debates were very wide and far-reaching in many of the considerations that came before Parliament. After that we had a discussion of six or seven days upon finance. I am not sure that I have seen Parliament devote itself so exclusively to the consideration of purely financial questions as it did during that period. There were some subsidiary matters raised, but on at least three or four of those days general questions of finance were ranged over, and I think Parliament discussed them with a greater freedom from party considerations than I have ever seen before. There was a real attempt to face the financial situation. It is the first time in my recollection that Parliament has discussed financial questions in that spirit, and I should have thought that this year was of all years the one when there was least reason to complain from the point of 64 FINATs^CE BILL, 1913 view of the House of Commons being able seriously to consider the financial situation. No one would be better pleased than the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the House of Commons were always to take that line. . . . The right hon. Gentleman I will not say lectured the House, but he did lecture the Government upon the state of their business ; but he must remember when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he was Member of a Government that had absolute command. They made their arrangements for the Session : they decided what laws they should pass. Mr. Austen Chamberlain : But you upset that. Mr. Lloyd George : I did my best to upset it. Had I been born a peer I should have been infinitely more powerful than a mere Member chosen b}' thousands of electors in this country. A peer coming from any part of the country at that time counted for much more than a representative of the people ; but that is by the way. What I wanted to point out is that the right hon. Gentleman was Member of a Government that had most complete command of its business. The Government had only to accommodate the physical needs of their supporters, and to meet the limits, I will not say of their gullibility, but they had simply to gauge what they would swallow, and how much they would stand. All they had to con- sider was whether it was possible to get through a long or a short programme. The moment their legislation passed out of the House of Commons every sort of anxiety was off their minds, and nothing that happened anywhere else dislocated their programme for the next year. They knew when they met in the autumn to prepare their programme for the following year, exactly what they wanted. There was nothing that happened elsewhere which had to be taken into account at all. It is all very well for those who have been Members of a Government of that kind to come and lecture Govern- ments who cannot so arrange their business. We sit long and late, and pass Bills, but they are sent back to us once, twice, until the third time. And, therefore, when they are thrown out, we have got to arrange our programme in reference to conditions and needs which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were never subjected to. It is all very well to criticise us and say, "You are not arranging your programme for the Session as beautifully as you might." If we had as complacent a House of Lords as the right hon. Gentle- COMMONS [Au(i. 13, 1913] THIRD READING 05 man and his Government had, we would not be here now in the month of August passing our Finance Bill. The speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered is one he ought to deliver in the House of Lords, although I hope it will be a long lime before he goes there, and all my Friends behind me are of the same opinion. Still, if he could get someone who would deliver that speech in the House of Lords, I should be exceedingly grateful to him, and if it has the effect it ought to have, then I promise him that next year the Finance Bill will get through as early as any Finance Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite or any of his colleagues. Now that is a fair bargain, and I make him that offer. I agree with him that the Parliament Act is responsible, but it is the only way we can get legislation through. I do not say it is a perfect machine ; I should like to see it very much improved, and it will be improved, and when it is improved the right hon. Gentleman will have no reason to complain of a Radical Government, because they put their Finance Bill off till late in the year. I hope next year to introduce the Revenue Bill and the Finance Bill, and to get dis- cussion on them early in the year. We have got to get our legis- lation through, otherwise Liberal Governments would become impossible, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman in his heart would wish to see a condition of things in which it would be only possible for one party to be dominant in the State. Of course, he knows too much about his own party for that. Therefore I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has taken the line he has with regard to the criticism on expenditure, and I hope he will take into account the representations I have made. * * * Question : " That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to. Ji xi: 20, 1913. {OJ/icia! Debates. Vol. liv.) TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL. Second Reading. Motion made, and the question proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time.'' The Secretary for Scotland (Mr. McKinnon Wood) : In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I propose that it should be proceeded with under the Parliament Act. The procedure under that Act was explained by the Prime Minister, and it is not at all necessary tliat I should now deal with that question, but I propose to say a few words about the form in which the Bill appears. Two courses were open to us under the Parliament Act. Either to put forward the Bill in the form in which it first left the House of Commons, or to put it forward in the form in which it was amended by the House of Lords, so far as the Amendments were agreed to by the House of Commons. It is the latter course we have adopted, and ail the Amendments agreed to in the House when this Bill was returned from another place have been incorporated in the form of the Bill now before the House. I might call attention to one point : Why we were not able to incorporate an Amendment which the Government were willing to concede. Clause i 5, which deals with the limit of population in a ward which is to be treated as indivisible, fixed in the original Bill the figure as io,000. An Amendment was carried in another place making that figure 25,000, and to that Amendment, as far as it went, the Government were prepared to agree, but the Clause was altered in other particulars, and it would not have been in accordance with the rules under the Parliament Act to have inserted that Amendment, because it was not a complete Amendment, and the complete AmePidment was one the Government did not agree to. Therefore the figure 10,000 has been reinserted, but if that is proved to be at any time the only point of difference between us and the House of Lords, I do not think there will be any great difficulty in setting that right. I regret to see an COMIMONS [Junk 20, 19i:}] SECOND UEADIXG 07 Amendment for the rejection of the Bill has been put upon the Paper. Obviously it would not be right to discuss that Amend- ment until it is moved. I can only say that I hoped, perhaps vainly, that a Bill which was passed by such large majorities in this House might be allowed to proceed to its Second Reading, and that some respect might have been paid to opinion which had been expressed in the House of Commons in such a decisive fashion. I do not propose now to enter further upon the Bill. Mr. Clyde : I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word " That," and at the end of the Question to insert instead thereof the words — "This House declines to accept a measure which, while profess- ing to place the regulation of the licensing system in Scotland under popular control, unduly limits the popular choice of the method of regulation, and contains no machinery for securing to those indi- viduals whose businesses will be destroyed the means of reasonable provision against injustice and loss." The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland has announced formally this morning the intention of the Government that this Bill should fall under the machinery of the Parliament Act. Coupled with that announcement the right hon. Gentleman had two things to say. One is that there is an Amendment which the Government is disposed to think a good Amendment, which they cannot embody in the Bill, and the other is that the right hon. Gentleman expresses with a regret which he will pardon me if I doubt the complete sincerity of, that the way to settlement is not open and the way to agreement is barred. He and his Government have themselves shut the door to settlement and barred the way to agree- ment by taking the step he has formally announced this morning, namel}', putting this Bill under the Parliament Act. I had faith in the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman, and I had a hope that the Government might have seen their way to treat this Bill in a different manner. I want to say why I think the Government might pause before they make up their mind to apply the Parliament Act, and apply it particularly in the form of including this Bill in the same Guillotine Resolution as that which is to cover both the Home Rule Bill and the Disestablishment Bill, a Resolution which, in express r.S TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL terms, makes it impossible for anyone, and even for the Government, to discuss or to make or propose the alteration of a comma in the measure as it stands. It seems to me that there are almost all the ditVerences in the world between this Bill and the other two to which the Parliament Act is to be applied. This is a Bill of a different character in the respect that it raises no large or constitutional ques- tion as both the others do. It is different in the subject matter with which it deals, and it is concerned with a question which falls under that category of social reform where our differences are differences of method, and not of principle. Apart altogether from the character of the Bill, this is a measure which differs in its circumstances both as regards this House and as regards the relations of this House with the other House. It differs toto ca'lo from the other two. If you take the relation of the parties to each other with regard to this Bill, I defy any fair-minded man who remembers the discussions we have had about this Bill to say that whatever may have been the cleavage on a vote, that the cleavage of opinion is more marked on one side of the House than it is on the other. It is not so. The fact is that a great many of the doubts and objections have arisen quite as strongly upon the other side as upon this side. I am quite sure that I can say that all the doubts and objections, or, at least, all the salient doubts and objections, which have been urged from either side of the House have found sympathisers on both sides of the House. That is a very different state of things from what prevailed upon the Home Rule Bill, or a measure like the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. Not only that, there may have been questions wide and deep, severing opinion in this House, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot say with truth that as a result of the discussions in the other House last year there was left between this House and the other House any differences with regard to the principles of this Bill. If there was anything which we understood distinctly it was the distinguishing mark about the Parliament Act procedure, which was only intended to apply to measures where the differences of opinion between this House and the other House went deep to the principle of the Bill, and made the process of consideration and settlement hopeless. And yet here, by the time we shall reach the third measure which is to be submitted to this form of procedure, we find that in dealing witii a Bill with COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 69 regard to the principle of which 1 challenge the right lion. Gentleman to say that the House of Lords in the end did not accept the Bill, where the differences, important as they are, are differences of mode and of method and of condition and not of principle, the Government has made up its mind to use exactly the same principle as the other two important Bills, and we can measure by that experience the value of all those professions which were poured upon us to the effect that the Parliament Act procedure would not obstruct, but, on the con- trary, would facilitate and make easier the bridge to conciliation and settlement of a disputed question. Of course, in this matter the Government are entirely in the position of having their way. No doubt it makes our duty com- paratively easy if you meet us with a stark denial of an opportunity for considering our Amendments or considering any Amendment. Under those circumstances, there is only one duty which remains to us, and it is to table as shortly and effectively as we can the points of difference which still remain unsolved, and discuss for a few moments their character and to express our disappointment and regret that the promises made, and they have been many, in the course of the discussions about this Bill of a reasonable and accom- modating spirit are withdrawn and foresworn. The persons who have withdrawn them are the members of the present Government, and in particular I single out the right hon. Gentleman. There were not only promises, but there was something more held out. I looked up this morning the Report of the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, and I find there was then, as now, a Motion before the House the terms of which were not quite the same. I was struck with this point : The Secretary for Scotland, who has to deal with that Motion, pointed out quite correctl}^ that there was one and only one point which could be said to touch the principle of this Bill, and it was that point which put in the forefront as a ground for refusing to accept the Bill the inclusion in its provisions of the No-licence Resolution, or, as it was called in the Motion, Prohibition. The Motion drew attention to other things, and the right hon. Gentleman pointed out before the Committee with regard to every one of them that they were not really things that went to the principle of his Bill,- but, on the contrary, they formed reasonable and appropriate matters for adjustment upstairs. I think he was right in pointing 70 TEMrEKANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL that out. I am not sure that he did not even exaggerate, but he laid such stress upon the objections undoubtedly and strongly entertained on this side to the No-licence Resolution. Although it may be futile now in view of the adoption of the Parliament Act procedure, I think it is perhaps worth while to try and detine exactly what the diflferences are. I do not want to minimise the differences, because that would be futile, but it is useful to define them. If the Government had adopted a different line, instead of the uncompromising one which they now assume, it would not only have been useful to clear our minds, but it would have been the indispensable minimum of any approach to a settlement. Of course, it depends altogether on how you define the principle of the Bill what number or what width of differences you may discover with regard to it. This reflection occurs to me : If you define the principle of the Bill as the admission into our licensing system in Scotland of an element — a large element, if you will — of popular control, then you will be struck at once by this reflection, that neither in the Amendment which was moved to the Second Reading last year nor in the Amendment which is on the Paper to-day is there expressed any objection to the acceptance of that principle. That might have been regarded, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman as a very large advance. I am not suggesting that on this side there is any enthusiasm for the introduction of any popular control into our licensing system. I am not suggesting it, and I observe, characteristic as it is of the attitude of a great many hon. Members opposite, that what they are delighted to hear is that we have not abandoned the view which originally led to practical differences much wider than those which may be said to exist now. I should not for one moment attempt to pose as a person who believes that the introduction of popular control is the proper method of regulating this traffic. Its disadvantages at least outweigh its advantages. I do not for one moment wish to pretend that it is a good thing to introduce into public life an element of discussion of this sort, concerned as it is not with general principles of adminis- tration, but with the method in which each man may or may not be allowed to conduct his own life. I do not want for one moment to appear as if I had any sympathy with the view that so long as drink and its uses is confined within the limits of natural appetite and COMMONS [June 20, 19i;3] SECOND READING 71 outside the limits of abuse, either I or you or the pubhc have the slightest right to interfere with the indulgence of an appetite which is just as legitimate as it is natural, so long as it is within natural limits. These things are one thing, our duty and our attitude to a measure in the House of Commons is another thing. I do not mean to say that our convictions and our opinions are not to regulate our actions ; of course, they are ; but, then, an Opposition or a party in power has got to remember this, that we cannot always have our own way and that when a very general opinion is expressed in favour of a certain kind of thing, although we may not agree with it, it may be our duty to acquiesce in what the majority demand, provided that majority recognise our right, even although we are a minority, to insist upon fair conditions and upon reasonable terms. Accordingly, I say that I .hink it is worth while to reflect that in neither of these Motions was there anything expressed in the form of repudiation of the principle of the Bill, and that the two points which are emphasised in the Amendment I am submitting now are the two points where, if conciliation and settlement had been within our reach, not only might the minority, however unwilling, have acquiesced in the proposal of the majority here, but where 3'ou had the means, because we know the attitude in the other House so far as we can foretell, to ensure the passage of your Bill and to secure the practical application of your principle. What are these two points ? The right hon. Gentleman, when he was dealing with the Second Reading of this Bill, dealt in the first instance with the objections to prohibition, the objections to the No-licence Resolution, objections which I understand the House of Lords at the end of their consideration were not prepared to press provided certain terms were agreed to. Reviewing the Debates about the Bill here, I find that three views have been expressed, and expressed not on one side of the House only. There is not one of these three views which has not been expressed on both sides. One view was that although pro- hibition was an extreme and not an attractive form of repressive legislation, none the less it held no terrors because it never would be used. Both sides of the House said that, but with great respect to the hon. Gentlemen who used that argument, I think that it is a very bad one. If the best reason for putting a provision into the 72 TEM ITERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Bill is that you do not expect that it would ever be brought into operation, then I tliink everybody will agree that it would be better not to put it in at all. The second view expressed was that in view of the small areas with which these Resolutions would deal it was not really a serious repression ; it was not an oppressive instance oi repressive legislation, because anybody who really wanted to be supplied with drink would not have far to go to get it. That came from both sides of the House, and again I think that it was a very bad argument indeed. If you are going so to adjust your areas as to avoid the difiiculty of over-severe repression by giving people the opportunity of being served by taking a journey for it, my only impression is that those who want to drink so much that they will take a journey for it are precisely those who are likely to take two or three more of them than are good for them before they go home. If you let them have the ordinary and reasonable opportunity in their own locality they would be much less likely to make themselves a nuisance, either in Edinburgh or elsewhere. I do not think that is an unreasonable interpretation of ordinary human nature. The third view expressed, again on both sides of the House — and this was the view which I found most frequently expressed in the Second Reading Debate — was, after all, that in regard to the No-licence Resolution its extreme effects on the business of the people whose premises happen to be within the affected area could reasonably be overcome by providing some sort of machinery to safeguard these people from what the Motion described as injustice and loss. Not only was that expressed on both sides of the House, but it was particularly expressed on the Government side. The view was taken that this objection was at least a formidable objection. Many hon. Members went further and said it was one that could be met in Committee upstairs, and this was one of many things which we were told at the time of the Second Reading, when the general atmosphere and attitude of the discussion was very much what I am trying to make it now, not one of resolute or uncompromising opposition — that was the attitude which, throughout the Second Reading, Members on both sides of the House were disposed to take. Speaking for myself, I had no right to believe that there was anything else behind those professions — professions to the effect that a method was discoverable and that the best efforts of both sides COMMONS[.JuNi:20, 1913JSECOND READING 73 would be used to find a settlement of this difficulty. It was, I confess, in that opinion, so far as I am concerned, that this Bill left the House and went upstairs. But how are matters with regard to those right hon. Gentlemen who expressed the views of the Government about this Bill ? The Secretary for Scotland himself has never disputed that there was a strong demand for some machinery which would enable these people to insure themselves. He stated on the Second Reading in so many terms that there was a very strong demand — I am not sure the word "very" was used — but a strong demand for such a scheme. His colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate net only admitted that there was a demand for some such machinery, but himself manfully adhered to the opinion which he had consistently expressed, as to the means by which that demand could be met, namely, that some machinery of that kind was not only demanded — I will use his own words — was indispensable to the fair treatment of the dispossessed publicans, and with the view to finding a smooth path for a No-licence Resolution. These were the opinions expressed by the responsible heads of the Government in this House, and certainly the general view which both sides had was that these were not mere expressions of pious opinions, but that we should find them given practical effect to in the actual business of moulding the Bill upstairs. I may add this, for it is only fair to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, it was in that speech he said he thought that a voluntary compensation scheme might meet the case. He will not I think dispute this, that he certainly had, at that time, represented himself to the House as not having, and I do not believe he actually did then have, a closed mind on this question. At any rate I am entitled to say if he did intend to indicate to the House that he had a closed mind, his words simply failed to convey the meaning. What about the other point ? The other point which was dis- cussed on the Second Reading Debate was the question whether it was right for popular control to be admitted into the regulation of the licensing system in the limited direction in which popular control may come. One of the arguments which was pressed and used very strongly by those who supported the no-licence Resolution on its merits — they were not many, they were very few — but one of the 74 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL arguments by which it was defended, and quite logically defended, was this : if you are to ignore the demand for popular control, that popular control ought not to be fettered by a form of regulations, however experimental, which would not reasonabl}' conduce to the settlement of this much vexed question, and indeed might not meet a cr^'ing evil. That is an argument which is irresistible, but none of the lion. Members who have used it in this House had the courage of their opinions when it came to giving them any practical expression or practical effect in any direction other than the no-licence Resolution. You cannot logically dispute this, that if the popular voice is to be entitled to say that the licences in an area are too many, the popular voice ought also to have the right and power to say that the licences in another area are too few. I do not impute motives to anybody, but it is not a reasonable thing to stand by as the advocates of popular control of the traffic if the only kind of control you are going to give to them is either to maintain the s/a/us quo of magisterial regulation or to insist on the wholesale cutting down of licences. That is not popular control. It is the setting up of an engine on the throttle valves of which those who have extreme views about this question want to get their fingers. When you come to the question of popular control and the question of limitation, I want to know what line of argument was used to defend the no-licence Resolution and what objection you have to allow popular control to choose other experimental methods of dealing with this question ? One method of fair and popular control is to leave it with the magistrates ; another is to cut down the licences by 25 per cent., and another is to cut down the licences altogether. The proposal which was so much discussed during these Debates was the proposal to provide means by which popular control might have at least one other alternative — certainly not an alternative of the kind which I alluded to for purposes of argument, namely, the alternative of being able to increase the licences, but an alternative which would enable the local authority to apply popular control in the form of the system so much discussed under the name of disinterested management. I am not going to re-raise a discussion in the merits of that or any other of those methods of regulation, but what I am going to say is this. lion. Members opposite arc very keen about this Bill, and in particular the right hon. Gentleman COMMONS [Junk 20, 191.3] SECOND READING 75 the Secretary for Scotland has sold himself into tlie hands of the extremists on this question. Tiie right hon. Gentleman I see challenges that, but I would point out that we are all of us at times subjected to conditions of considerable political exigency and stress, and I know of nothing to account for the right hon. Gentleman's attitude, which is not derived from the argument post hoc propter hoc. All I say is based on that impression alone. His present uncompromis- ing attitude so far as I have had any opportunity of becoming acquainted with his views — and his enthusiasm for this particular form of regulation — dates from a certain election not very many years ago. But whether that be so or not, what I want to point out is this, that so far as the alternative of no-licence and the alternative of option or prohibition of option is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman, and those who support him through thick and thin in this Bill, are said to have fixed their minds on option. So far as this country is concerned that is an experiment. It has not been tried in this country at all. It has been tried elsewhere, though not quite under the same conditions. So far as experience of that form of experiment has gone elsewhere, I defy any fair-minded man to say that it has come through the ordeal of experience with a fully satisfactory certificate as to its efficiency. But the other opinion, of which he will have nothing, the option of disinterested management, is also, at least under anything like the same conditions, new in this country. It is untried. But it has been tried elsewhere, not quite under the same conditions, but in all essentials and in all principles exactly the same thing has been tried elsewhere — Mr. McKinnon Wood expressed dissent. Mr. Clyde : Yes, it has been tried on a large scale elsewhere, and both in the order of its application and the time during which it has existed I defy any fair-minded man to say with regard to it that it has come out of the ordeal of experience with any certificate but that of success. What are you doing ? You are insisting upon putting within the popular choice an experiment that has, no doubt, been tried elsewhere, and has earned a certificate not of a good character, and you will not hear of this other policy, which is an experiment not tried here, but which, upon the whole, has earned, if not a good character, certainly not a bad one. 1 quite agree that, alike for the option of disinterested management and the option of a No-licence 76 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) HIEE Resolution, you have to provide certain machinery, and there is something you have to do for a time hmit and compensation, but there is no excuse either with regard to the poHcy of your Bill or with regard to the nature of these two options compared the one with the other, and there is no difference in respect to the difficulty of making them practicable in a Bill. There is no difference whatever between them, and the only reason why you accept the one and refuse the other is that those who are in command of this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, are led by those who take extreme views upon this subject, therefore he will listen neither to the logic of his own proposals nor to the inherent reasonableness of any other experiments and the other operations which ought equally to be within the region of the popular choice. The truth is that we cannot disentangle, when you come to discuss for practical purposes a Bill of this kind, these various things the one from the other. You cannot disentangle the propriety or impropriety of a No-licence Resolution from the question of what you are going to do in relation ' to a time limit, in relation to compensation, or in relation to one or the other. Indeed, to some extent, although I regret it, because I do not think it helps the discussion of this question, disinterested management is to some extent involved in the question of compensa- tion, but the entanglement is no greater. It is undoubted that so far as the party upon this side of the House is concerned, its opposition, if I am entitled to speak for them, which I believe I am, to prohibi- tion in any shape or form, though it would never be given up as a matter of principle, could be overcome, even in this Bill, if the conditions with regard to the time limit and compensation were reasonable and fair. I do not for a moment suggest that they can be given up as principles. They remain, but for practical purposes and with regard to a practicable Bill they not only were not empha- sised here upon the Second Reading, but they were not pressed in the discussions in the other House. It was in these circumstances that the Bill went upstairs to Committee. What happened in Committee ? How much disposition was shown on behalf of the representatives of the Government — I am thinking particularly of those who officially represented the Govern- ment to entertain cither of these two questions upon which sub- stantially the real differences turned? How much disposition was COMMONS [JiTXi: 20, 1913] SECOND RRADTNG 77 shown by the Secretary for Scotland to entertain some form of eftective scheme of the kind which his colleague, the Lord Advocate, up to that point said was indispensable as a measure of common justice to the dispossessed publican, and as a means of smoothing the way to a no-licence Resolution ? Those who went through that Committee cannot but have a perfectly vivid recollection of the circumstances in which our discussions took place. The right hon. Gentleman showed that he had never given the question of a compensation scheme any practical consideration whatsoever from the point of view of drafting or framing one. He might have told us some of its difficulties. If he had it is just possible that his opponents might have been of some assistance in solving some of those difficulties. But he gave us none. I know quite well that the most enthusiastic supporters of the Bill would have been very sorry if he had. I know that, because I know the experience of the Bill which immediately preceded this one. It is not too much to say that if you go back into that little bit of history you see a repetition of very much the same experience. The procedure on that Bill was ship- wrecked on the absolute refusal of the enthusiastic supporters of popular control to allow any scheme of compensation whatever to enter into the fabric of the measure. That is where it broke down. I gather from what he did and said at the time that nobody regretted that more than the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ure) : That was upon insurance. You said " compensation." Mr. Clyde : It is quite true that I did use the word "compensa- tion," but what I had in my mind was insurance. The proposals have been various, and sometimes they have been made under the name of compensation, and sometimes of insurance. Mr. Leif Jones : They aie interchangeable terms. Mr. Clyde : The hon. Member who interrupts me at once shows the cloven hoof. One understands at once his uncompromising attitude. I can assure the hon. Member that, although he is courteously listened to, his opponent is speaking without the slightest expectation of being able to move him by any appeal, however reasonable. All the same, I say there are a good many Members upon that side of the House who did not take up the same unreason- able and extreme attitude. 1 am quite certain the Lord Advocate 78 TRMPERAXCR (SCOTLAND) HILL did not. What did the Secretary for Scotland do upon this question in Committee? He certainly gave it no help, and opposed nothing but an uncompromising resistance to any proposal which we had to lay before the Committee. He may say — I will be the first to admit — that our proposals may have been imperfect, but was it not worth his while to see if he could not liave made them better? He would have expected us to do that if he had made the proposal. And with great deference to the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot believe that it is a proper discharge of the duties of the Minister in charge of a Bill which left the House of Commons in the atmosphere and in the position that this Bill did to treat proposals of the very kind we were told could be adjusted upstairs, of the very kind which he knew and we knew might have paved the way to the ending of the whole business, at least for the time being — I do not think it is an effective discharge of his duties simply to look at the proposals of his opponents, tell them that they are very poor and imperfect things, and therefore he cannot have them, and then take no further responsibility about the matter. If that is going to be the attitude of the Government no settlement is ever possible of a disputed question, though you have the principle of the Bill admitted in the fullest and most ungrudging terms. But that is their attitude. Though I have said, and said very gladly, that I think this particular question owes a great deal to the emphasis and the firmness with which the Lord Advocate stated his own views about it, views which certainly were not out of sympathy with those that I entertained, I want to say that I did not see on the Lord Advocate's part any echo in his conduct in Committee of the admirable principles which he had so stoutly defended up to that date. On the contrary, they evaporated into the thinnest of thin air, and not only did he vote against it in Committee, but neither did he show any symptom of having applied his own mind to the question in order to leach a practical proposal. It is a great pity he did not. What is more, when we reached the Third Reading here he had either become converted to different views or at least he not only did not find it convenient to re-emphasise the views which we had always listened to with such approval before, but he found a variety of subterfuges for adopting precisely the opposite view and refusing to have anything whatever to do with it. It seems to me that that is to the last degree to be regretted and deplored. But we must accept the CO]\rMONS[JiTNE20, 1913]SECOND READING 79 situation as it is. We were promised much on going upstairs last time. There is no upstairs ever again for this, and I suppose the Secretary for Scotland may have had it in his mind that if he presented an uncompromising front last time he would never have the unpleasant duty — I do not think he altogetlier liked it — of presenting an uncompromising front again, though he might say, " You will never have a chance of another Committee stage, and neither I nor anyone else shall ever have an opportunity of proposing or entertaining an Amendment to this Bill again." Is this a reasonable or a desirable result ? Political differences are hard enough to settle and there are perhaps not so very many Bills where differences in principle have existed and are not removed where the opportunity arises and so far overcoming objections to principle as can be done by adopting what not only the Lord Advocate has said so often was an indispensable adjunct, but what a very large number, at all events, of the supporters of the Government themselves were not only ready and willing to concede, but so firmly persuaded of the indispensability and the expediency of conceding, that they gave the Secretary for Scotland one of the most uncomfortable quarters of an hour he has ever gone through in this House. These are the fruits of the Parliament Act. The result is that the right hon. Gentleman has shut out the possibility of overcoming our objections, and has deprived both himself and us, and those of his supporters who were not wholly favourable to him, from reaching any possibility of agreement. I said on the Third Reading last year that so long as this Bill was disfigured by the injustice and by the imperfections which disfigured it then, and disfigure it still, the passage of this measure would do nothing to secure a satisfactory solution of the problem the solution of which is aimed at. I said then, and I repeat now, that in place of advancing a satisfactory solution of this question you will leave it more embittered that you found it when you first touched it. That will always be the result of trying to carry out a measure of social reform regardless of the injustice that 'you do to .individuals, and social reform carried under those conditions not only loses all its grace and all its benefit, but it does worse than that. It flouts those who are willing to lend a hand to this beneficient work, and it makes many people see in it only an engine of injustice. Speaking for myself, if I were ever called upon, as I suppose I may so TEMTERANCE (SCOTEAND) HIEE be, to record my vote at one of these polls, were I to be asked, it may be, to say to my fellow citizens who live or work in my neit^hbourhood that they are to conduct their lives in this respect as I and others think, and not as they think, or if I am asked to exercise my vote with the effect of depriving, without any reasonable opportunity of defending themselves, either in time or in insurance, a considerable number of people who earn their bread and v»'ho own their property in this particular trade, then I say frankly I shall make a point of voting, and I shall cast my vote for the No-change Resolution every tine. I dare say the Secretary for Scotland thinks that is very funny, and I hear him say that that is an instance of a compromising attitude. No, it is uncompromising to the last degree, and if you find in your opponents on this question an uncompromis- ing attitude, whom have you to thank but yourselves? If you give me an opportunity under this Bill of voting where I think there is an excessive number of licences or an abuse of those that are there, if you give me an opportunity of casting a vote where my conscience shall be rid of the burden that by giving effect to my views I am going to destroy the property of other people, I shall vote in a different way. But I feel perfectly certain that to every nine out of ten honest, plain, fair-minded people, the plan that you are going to force on Scotland in this Bill, by means of your Parliament Act, is one which will alieniate some who are willing enough to be friends of your cause and make your second state a good deal worse than your first. Sir Walter Menzies : The hon. and learned Gentleman has performed his task with the greatest ability — an ability which we have a right to expect in the case of one of his well-known learning. But he knew, and everyone on his side of the House knew, that he was thrashing a dead horse, that he was throwing water on a drowned rat, so far as his Amendment was concerned. He accused the Secretary for Scotland of having very extreme views on this matter. I am sure no one will accuse me, at any rate, of being a fanatic in the matter of temperance. I have always taken some alcohol, and will probably continue to do so whether this Bill passes or not. Sir George Younger : And yet you wish to prevent other people from getting it. Sir W. Menzies : What 1 am perfectly sure of is that the people COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 81 of Scotland neither want another option in this Bill nor disinterested management. The tendency in Scotland, as indeed all over the world, is to reduce the number of public-houses. There is no necessity whatever for increasing them except in very exceptional cases, and unless there is an increase of population. If our proposi- tion in this Bill is unfair to the publicans, then I hold, and hold strongly, the disinterested management is more unfair to them. It drags another factor into their trade — another kind of public-house is foisted upon the public instead of theirs. I rose principally to mention that I have received a number of reasons from the Scottish Licensed Trade Defence Association against this Bill, and I am bound to say that if there are no stronger reasons against it than are shown here, we can with a clear conscience and easy mind vote for the Second Reading, and against all the opposition Trom the other side. The first reason is : — " It substitutes for a licensing authority, acting in accordance with the forms of law and on sworn evidence if required, the chance verdict of a popular 30 per cent, of a restricted register, the vote representing about 5 per cent of the population." I would ask Members of this House who know the terms of the Bill to say whether that is or is not a fair description of the option we give. My own opinion is that a Court of Justices of the Peace is the worst authority you can have for licensing or anything else. [An Hon. Member: "That is not the present Court."] Well, it is restricted in respect of the condition as to county councils. What has been the rule where public-houses have been brought into existence first of all ? If any person wanted a licence in the north of the licensing district, those justices in the south, east and west would vote for the licence, the people in the district probably abstaining altogether. The next reason against the Bill as formulated by this associa- tion is : — " Its avowed object is prohibition, and a prohibition which will not prohibit . . ." I do not know that this Bill does not prohibit. When a district or a parish does not want a public-house, it need not have it. There is no doubt that there are places in our country where, unfortunately, the population is decreasing. A decrease hi the number of public- F 82 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL houses is coming about there by the mere fact of that decrease of population. There is no trade for the public-houses now in exist- ence. The third reason is the most extraordinary of all : — "... The time notice of five years from an arbitrarily imposed date (June 1912] is grotesquely inadequate . . ." I do not know who formulated that, but it is positively untrue to say that the licensed trade in Scotland have only had five years' notice. They have had notice of a change in the public mind of Scotland for the last thirty years at least. In 1892 particularly temperance reform was part and parcel of the propaganda of every Liberal candidate upon the platform. Besides all that, we in Scotland have held for a very long time that the law is with us in this matter, and that the publican has only a yearly licence and nothing more. The majority of the House and of the Scottish representatives propose to give five 3'ears' notice entirely ex gratia. There is no necessity for it from any other point of view. The fourth reason is : — " Apart from the inadequate length of time run, any such proposal is a farce which does not give reasonable security during the time run. . . . " I suppose the county council justices will be licensing justices, and they will undoubtedly keep before them the fact that the vote of the majority or the minority of the voters in any given district will decide whether a public-house may or may not exist in the future. Then we are told in reason five that " the Bill is essentially different from the English Consolidation Act, 1910. . , ." We have never acknowledged that the licensing law in Scotland is the same as that in England, and I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would be the first to acknowledge that that is so. The sixth reason is that " the Bill is aimed solely at the retailer as a class. . . ." The Bill gives the parish or district the right to choose whether it will have a licensed house or not. I should be the last to aim at any l)articular class, but we want the temptations which are placed before our working people, particularly in large towns, to be lessened. COMMONS [JcNE 20, 191J3] SECOND READING 83 Sir Henry Craik : Why do you not remove the temptation from yourselves as well as from working men ? Sir W. Menzies : I have not succumbed to any temptation to my knowledge. I have lived in a tenement of houses where there was a public- house at the entrance — a public-house at the close mouth — and you could not come down the stair without feeling the smell of liquor from that public-house. And I say that the smell of liquor exposes the poor workman when coming home at night or going out in the evening to temptation which it would be very desirable to take away from him. Then it is said that this is a Bill for the promotion of clubs and shebeens. I do not believe that for a moment. Then it said that the manufacture, distribution, and consumption of intoxi- cating liquor is legal, and those who supply the need for such are legitimate traders. Of course it is legal and there are some highly respectable people in the trade, and it will continue to be legal ; but what we want to do is to restrict this trade by a vote of the people if they wish to restrict it. There is no question of the trade deserving the protection of the law. They get the protection of the law. We are altering the law at the present moment, and I trust that it will be altered in a short time. Then it says that Licence Duties have been increased by 58 per cent, in Scotland under the Finance Act of 1909-10. I have always understood that the cost of these Licence Duties have been trans- ferred to the consumers in most cases. However, the Finance Act of 1909-10 taxed more people than licence-holders. We have all had to pay additions to our Income Tax. It says in the eleventh reason that the subject of the Bill has never been a test or even a prominent question in any General Election in Scotland. I am sorry to think of the number of elections in Scotland through which I have passed, but I am quite certain that in every election through which I have passed it has been a test, and a great many members of my executive — and I am sure I speak for most Liberal Members here — would not work with you if you were not in favour of this Bill and its options. Sometimes, also, you are asked if you are in favour of disinterested management and compensation, and if you were, they would have nothing to do with your candidature, and you could not be a Member of the House of Commons for a good many places in Scotland. There may be hon. Members who have a different class of executive 81 TEMPER ANCE SCOTLAND) lULL and constituents, but so far as I am concerned I could not have stood as a candidate unless I was in favour of this Bill. It has, therefore, been a test through all these General Elections. The twelfth reason is that the postponement of the hour of opening until ten in the morning is an unwarrantable interference with the rights ot licence-holders, for which they pay heavy Licence Duties. I have heard licence-holders themselves say that they have never sold a gill stoup until twelve o'clock. There is no reason why they should, and this will be a very proper alteration in the law» supposing the Bill does pass, which I will support with the utmost pleasure. Mr. Mackinder : The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down described the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh as a dead horse, and then he was not satisfied with that, and he went on to describe it as a drowned rat. We are dis- cussing a Bill which we are told is to be put under the Parliament Act. We have been told by the Prime Minister that any Bill which goes under the Parliament Act is to stand the conflict of discussions during two years, and, if it can survive that, then it ought to become law. The spirit in which the hon. Gentleman approaches the dis- cussion of this Bill is brought before the House on this second, not even the third occasion, when he says that the Resolution, which does not affect the whole principle of the Bill, but merely deals with certain, as we consider, details of the machinery of the Bill, is the same as a dead horse and a drowned rat. The hon. Gentleman is content with his position, and I commend it to those who are watching the attitude of him and his Friends in regard to this Parliament Act. The hon. Gentleman went on to tell us that if a district does not want a public-house he would give it the power to get rid of it. That is to say, that if those who agree with his view happen to be in a sufficient majority, then he identifies them with the district. They become the district in his view, even though you are dealing not with questions of general legislation, but with a question which is one ot detailed administration with regard to the deprivation of private property and the denial of private opportunities. The individual citizen in this country is supposed to have his rights secured even though he is in the smallest minority. That is a pride which we usually have in our institutions. That is the spirit in which hon. COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SFXOND READINC; 85 Gentlemen find themselves when once they embark on the line oi policy which is implied in the Parliament Act. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to describe to us the executive ol his association and to tell us that his executive was of exactly the same character as himself, namely, that it is already imbued with the spirit of the Parliament Act, which is the spirit of riding roughshod over minorities and individuals. The question which is the root principle of the Bill, local option, is not at stake. The House of Lords is willing to accept that principle. By the Resolution which we tabled last year and by the Motion which my hon. Friend has just now made we do not oppose a negative to this policy. To what is it you are going to apply the Parliament Act ? Not to a question of principle, but of detail. Before you do that there is one argument in regard to local option which at the present moment is perhaps a little more possible than it would have been up to recent events some little time ago. The whole principle of local option is that you are going to remove, either in large measure or practically wholly in certain cases where a No-licence Resolution is carried, from a judicial authority decisions which are bound to involve personal questions, and you are going to assign those decisions to a popular electorate. Those questions are bound to involve personal considerations. You have decided in opposition to many wishes expressed on this side of the House to have small areas, in many cases single parishes. It is quite inevitable, therefore, that the decision of the local electorate of a single parish should frequently take a form in which no principle and no question of the public good will be under consideration, but in which the livehhood and position, which might be ruined, of individuals may be involved. It is quite inevitable that the conduct of the public-house and the mode of life of its proprietor will be canvassed in the whole district. We have recently seen within a Committee room of this House a remarkable example of the application of the principle of trial by a non-judicial authority on questions where personal character and personal estate are involved. You are going to convert the small parishes of Scotland into Marconi committees. Though I am willing to support the Resolution put forward by my hon. Friend, for at this time of day personal opinions ought not to be pushed forward strongly since we now have a position on this matter which is accepted by the 80 tk.mim:ua\ce (Scotland) bill Opposition, both in the House of Lords and here, yet I wish to say, in all frankness, that in supporting that Resolution I am not in the least converted to the wisdom of local option. In my own Con- stituency, among many of my supporters, I have a few who differ with me on this question, but I am thankful to say that they are broad-minded individuals who recognise that this is not the only political question before the country, that our differences are only differences as to machinery, and that they, as well as I, would do all that is possible and justifiable to get rid of the evils of drunkenness. But, in fairness, it is necessary that I should make my position quite clear. I am not converted to the principle of local option. I believe myself that though vindictiveness will be rare indeed in an area under this Act, that charitable motives will intervene again and again to prevent the decision of this question in the tem- perance interest, purel}' as a question of public interest. But what justification have you for applying the Parliament Act to a measure, the fundamental principle of which is not at stake ? We on this side recognise that there is a demand from Scotland for temperance legislation. We are willing so far to sink our opinions and our convictions as to what is wise. To agree to a principle to which wc are not converts, in order that we may give effect to this demand for temperance legislation. In that situation, because we diff"er with you chiefly on a couple of questions of machinery, you decide to ride roughshod over us by applying the Parliament Act, telling us, on a Friday afternoon, in the second and not even the third year, that our position on those questions of detail is to be compared to the discussion of dead horses or drowned rats. I can understand your applying the Parliament Act to that which apparently you are not willing to apply it, namely, the reform of the Second Chamber ; I can understand your wishing to apply the Parliament Act to the Home Rule Bill because you could not carry that measure in any other way ; I can understand its application to the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, but I fail to see, on the principle announced by the Prime Minister himself, what possible moral justification or electoral mandate you can have for applying this revolutionary condition of the Constitution to the passage of a Bill upon which there is a difference merely in questions of machinery. What evidence have you that you are united even within your own CO]\rMONS[.TuxE20,1913]SRCOXD READTXG 87 party by any such mandate as would justify this course of action ? In my own constituency, I have said it before, and I repeat it, so far as the evidence goes it is directly in the teeth of any such presump- tion. A very large majority of the constituency voted either for myself or for my Liberal opponent, who is now the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. He, like myself, was opposed to any Bill which did not allow the option of disinterested management. And when I turn to the question of insurance or compensation, or the question of justice to the individual, I find that a Glasgow leader of the Labour party, the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division, as everybody remembers, supported the view that some compensation or insurance should be given to the man who is deprived of his property in the public interest. Therefore, so far as the evidence goes, it is dead in the teeth of this Bill, and there is no mandate whatever which would justify the revolutionary procedure of applying the Parliament Act for the purpose of carrying a measure of this description. Even in this House you are not united. I am not going to refer to past differ- ences of right hon. Gentlemen opposite ; I am simply going to remind hon. Members of a scene which we on this side of the House will not, at any rate, soon forget, a scene during the passage of this Bill through this House last year, when man after man on the benches opposite rose and appealed to the Secretary for Scotland to take off the Government Whips and leave Members free to vote as they wished on the question of disinterested management. We will not readily forget that long sitting. Apart from your steam-roller methods, you have no such unanimity as would justify you in applying the Parliament Act to this Bill ; you have no such evidence of unanimity in the electorate of Scotland. The hon. Member who spoke last referred to a long list of what 1 call steam-roller instances of unanimity on the part of the Temperance Societies in Scotland. We are told that they want the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, and they ask for unanimity in order to apply the Parliament Act to this measure. That does not impress me very much, for this reason : You are dealing with the temperance question in which there is no black and white — [Mr. Kilbride : " Hear, hear."] I am glad to see that hon. Gentlemen on this side ot the House below the Gangway applaud. They were the people whom I should have expected to have seen the point. 88 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL You have no real opposition on this question of direct affirmative or negative. You have not got certain people who advocate temperance and certain persons who advocate drunkenness. You have simply got differences of machinery. You have got, if I may be allowed to describe the matter from my own point of view, zeaflots of ordinary moderate public opinion. Is it not in human nature for zealots to organise, and will you not have a great movement splendidly officered and splendidly disciplined on behalf of those who advocate those measures ? Are you likely to have, or is it human nature that you should have, similar countervailing organisations to represent the ordinary man who is not in favour of drunkenness, and, therefore, does not organise for that purpose, but simply differs from you as to the wisdom of the methods which you are asking for in order to achieve the same object. Therefore, I am not in the least impressed by that which I call the steam-roller unanimity with a view to the Parliament Act on the part of advocates from temperance societies. I received also a paper, not from a very extremist point of view, the journal which represents those who are advocates of disinterested management, in which certain statements are made with regard to a scheme for insurance which was included in the Bill as it left the House of Lords last year. We are told in that journal that there is now a new situation. That is rather extraordinary when we are face to face with a Bill not one line or comma of which can be altered. We are told in regard to insurance that one great trade organisation in Scotland, the Scottish Licence Mutual Insurance Association, has circularised the trade, drawing attention to the necessity for voluntary insurance at the present time, in view of something like ruin which is implied in this Bill which it is proposed to put under the Parlia- ment Act. It is argued that, therefore, there is a breaking in the ranks in the trade on this question, and that there may be a re- consideration of this method of insurance or compensation in the light of these new events. 1 venture to say that is hardly fair to the threatened interests. If there are those in the trade defence association who think it is not the wisest course to fight to the end, is it generous when some of them say that the time has come to take such poor shelter as they can find to rely upon that fact in order to rule out one portion of the opposition which is against you to justify yourselves in the drastic COMMONS [JiNE 20, 1918] SECOND HEADING 89 and ruthless action you are taking. I venture to say, if you take a course in the public interest, and that is your point, which may involve individuals in loss and even in ruin, then you cannot throw off responsibilty by saying, " Here is a sporting society," sporting in the sense that it is willing to take chances, which says, " We have a scheme," you cannot throw off on them, because they make the offer, your responsibility. Those of us who went into this question last year in the Committee Room know what immense difficulty there is in formulating any scheme which will stand actuarial examination with a view to compensation, but it is because you have a short period of five years, and it is because you refuse compulsion to those who frame the scheme, that you render, in our opinion, practically impossible the establishment of any scheme which will stand actuarial investigation. We doubt whether any society, however much it may come forward at the present time and in these disastrous circum- stances, can really make good on a sound financial basis the offer which this society is making. The hon. Baronet [Sir G. Younger] reminds me that in the offer itself they do not even pretend it to be sound. The paper is the May and June "Monthly Notes" of the Temperance Legislation League which was issued only a short time ago. I have not gone into the general merits of this question. If we are " drovv^ned rats and dead horses," it is useless. Sir W. Menzies : Not the hon. Member. I referred to the Amendment. Mr. Mackinder : I identify myself with the Amendment. For the purposes of argument I am the Amendment itself. If that is the position, then all that we can do is to protest against your uncon- stitutional and violent methods. We say that you have no mandate from Scotland to apply the Parliament Act to questions of mere machinery in face of the fact that we are agreed to the principle, and that we sink our own convictions and are ready to do business with you and you refuse. We say that this is simply another piece of your half-baked, hurried social legislation, the results of which will turn against you. The Tudor sovereigns, Henry VIII. and Eliza- beth, were tyrants, but they tyrannised over great individuals, and the people cared little ; but you are doing what other tyrants failed to do, you are making legislation which inter\'enes in the homes of each individual in every corner of the land and affects the rights of 90 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL property of private citizens. You are taking a course which will not tend to the promotion of temperance. That may not be a popular thing to say at present, but I venture to say it will be said and con- siderably' voiced in a few 3'ears hence. You are taking a course as to which all we can do is, with thankfulness, to say you are putting nails into your own Government's coffin. Mr. Ure : I would not have intervened in this Debate, since the arguments on both sides are familiar to every Member of the House, but that the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amend- ment and the hon. Member who has just sat down have challenged me and challenged the Government to defend the course which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland is taking in apply- ing to this measure the force of the Parliament Act. They chal- lenge our right to do so on the ground that there is no difference, they sa}', between the two sides of the House upon the questions of principle involved in this Bill. I rejoice to hear it. It is news to me that any hon. Members opposite can lay their hands on their hearts and say that they are seriously impressed with the desirability of transferring the rights and privileges now exercised by the licensing bench to the electors in the various areas. Has anyone ever heard any hon. Member on that side of the House say that he approves of that principle ? It has been opposed in every Debate we have hitherto had. I do not rely on the fact that we are faced by hon. Members who do not challenge the principle of this measure : we are faced by hon. Members who attach so much importance to certain details that unless they have their own way in regard to those details they will not accept the measure at all. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh told us plainly and frankly that if this measure passed in th& particular form in which it now lies on the Table of the House he would, on every possible occasion, give his vote for the continuance of the present system. He is perfectly logical, but that proves my point. I say that here is a detail which goes to the very root of the Bill, and it is splitting hairs for hon. Members opposite to say, " We do not differ from you in principle ; we only differ upon detail," when, unless we accede to their view and abandon our own, they will have nothing to do with the measure. Sir G. Younger : The hon. Member has waived that. Mr. Ure : 1 have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for COMMONS[J(Ni: 20, 1913] SECOND READING 91 West Edinburgh said, for the purposes of this Debate, that lie does not challenge the principle of the measure, but he has never at any time, nor have any other Members on tliat side of the House, expressed any approval of that principle. If you challenge us upon a detail which goes to the very root of the measure, that is equivalent to challenging the principle of the measure. The whole argument seems to me to overlook entirely the fact, which is well known to us all, that this Bill is in the nature of a compromise. Can any man here say that if he sat down to frame a temperance measure — or. I will say, a Liquor Bill, in order to avoid an expression which seems to give rise to dispute — this is the measure he would frame ? Is there a single shade of temperance opinion in Scotland that would put forward this particular Liquor Bill ? Do we not all know that this measure is one which has passed through the House on more than one occasion and through the Scottish Grand Committee upstairs, where the promoters surrendered a little here and a little there in order to meet the views of different sections of objectors, so that as it stands the measure is not the one that any shade of tem- perance opinion in Scotland would prefer ? Accordingly, I hold very strongly that it was impossible for the Government to give way upon any of these important details, which had been thoroughly discussed before. We believe still that the overwhelming public opinion in Scotland, as voiced in this House and outside, is in favour of the Bill as it stands. I agree that while it has all the merits, it has also all the demerits of a compromise. Let the House consider for a moment what is the theory which underlies this measure. The theory is that it is desirable in some areas in Scotland that the present licensing system should continue, that in other areas there should be no public-houses at all, that in still others there should be a limited number of public-houses, and that the people who should pronounce upon the wisdom or unwisdom of having any of these alternatives in the various areas should be the electors on the municipal roll. The Bill also provides an oppor- tunity to the electors concerned of expressing an opinion on the subject. Does anyone say that that is the Bill which the}'^ would have framed if left to themselves ? Of course, obviously, it is not. Accordingly, I say we have here a compromise which at the present moment has in its support the vast and overwhelming majority of 92 TEMPERANCE (SC OTLAND) BILL the people in Scotland, who are really interested in the question. Let me turn to the criticisms made in the House of Lords, to which the Government found themselves entirely unable to give effect. The first is the absence of a compulsory insurance scheme. It is said that I have expressed my opinion strongly in favour of insur- ance. So I have. I am strongly of opinion that that is desirable, and for the very reasons which the hon. Member opposite has indicated. I think that insurance is an essential preliminary to doing justice, or rather to obviating hardship, to dispossessed parties, and, secondly, what from my point of view is more important, in order to remove obstacles which strew the path of licensing reform. The hon. Member opposite omitted to note that when speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill last year I said that the Government was far from satisfied that it was impossible to create an insurance scheme by voluntary effort, or that the proposed scheme afforded reasonable compensation to dispossessed parties, so that they might be quite sure when the occasion arose of obtaining the benefits for which they had contributed. I also said that it was not for the promoters of a temperance Bill to bring forward a compulsory insurance scheme. That is a matter pre-eminently for the trade itself. I am not making any complaint against the trade. I dare say the difficulties were greater even than I anticipated. But we are not satisfied yet — indeed, I am less satisfied now than before — as to the necessity for compulsion in the matter. I am not blaming the trade. It is a very difficult thing to secure the views of a trade widespread throughout the countr}'. But there was no evidence before the Committee that the trade were unable by the voluntary methods to secure all the objects that a compulsory scheme would enable them to obtain. I think the House will agree that there was no scheme put forward which any business man would have been disposed to accept as offering fair and reason- able compensation to the dispossessed publican — very far short of that. The opinion I have held and (|uite freely expressed, my own individual opinion, was that if that scheme had been embodied in the measure it would have been an additional grievance. Those con- cerned would have said : " Wc have been forced into this scheme which gives us nothing like the compensation to which we are entitled : if we had been left to ourselves we could have done much better." COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND HEADING 93 Sir G. Younger : They could not. Mr. Ure : They would have said so, and would have said that here was a scheme in the Bill which afforded them nothing like com- pensation to which they were entitled. I would add this further, that there is a large body of opinion in Scotland, with which I am agreed, which is opposed to the principle of compulsory insurance being inserted in this Bill. You may say that these are very vexa- tious and unreasonable people. That may be, but nobody can deny that if it were not for these people we should have no temperance reform at all. [An Hon. Member: "And a very good thing."] Well, perhaps the principle of the Bill is opposed to the fundamental convictions of hon. Gentlemen opposite ; but it is perfectly certain that if temperance legislation is to be put on the Statute Book, it will never be brought into active operation except by the aid of these people. The House must never forget that temperance reform, unlike other reform, is not only viewed with torpor, but with positive antipathy by many of those for whose benefit it is intended. You have got to keep that steadily in view. Unless these people who are called vexatious and unreasonable are enlisted in your aid, temperance legislation will be a dead letter. The second inroad is that made by the House of Lords in the Bill, and is the insertion of a scheme for disinterested management. In other words, it is to put to the municipal electors an additional question. On principle I was in favour of that and I am in favour of it still, but the House cannot dispute the suggestion that we are here in the region of social reform rather than a change in the habits and customs of our people. Wherever success in a particular proposal be required it is desirable to have a strong force of public opinion at the back. I can speak with more authority than most upon this question of disinterested management, though I am bound to admit that my propaganda met with a conspicuous lack of success. I was not able even to persuade my own constituents. I still hold firmly by my views. All I am saying is that public opinion did not support me. 1 ask whether there are any hon. Members opposite, whose new-born zeal for disinterested management has amazed me, who can say that they have attempted propaganda in the country by way of arousing and^ then strengthening public opinion upon the question ? So far as I am aware there is not a single hon. Member opposite who has taken the smallest trouble to arouse or 94 TExMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL strengthen public opinion so as to secure a solid and substantial body of public opinion in its favour. I have done my best. I dare say it was very poor. But I do not intend to relax my efforts, because I still believe in the soundness of the principle. But it is no use for the moment arguing the question one way or the other, or of quoting examples and illustrations derived from other places and other countries. I find in m}^ own country quite sufficient to satisfy me. It would be a commonplace to say that if the dis- interested management public-house is well managed it is a success. Sir G. Younger : So is another one. Mr. Ure : I recognise that there is a vast body of public opinion that is opposed to disinterested management on principle. They say, and support their views with very sound arguments, that they object to the public-house being carried on by anybody, whether they have an interest in the profits of the business or not. Everybody, I think, is agreed in this region that if we have to promote a body of satis- factory legislation, it must be legislation demanded and supported by a solid body of public opinion. That solid body of public opinion, so far as I can judge, we have not at the present moment in support of the alternative of disinterested management. I support this Bill because I still feel that I myself am in honour bound to hold out against any material inroad in the Bill. Sir G. Younger : None at all ? Mr. Ure : No material inroad in the Bill. I am not saying that a single one of my colleagues in this House is bound by any sentiment, honourable or otherwise. I say, and I frankly recognise, that the Government having taken up this Bill after it had passed through the hands of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie), we know the views of the various temperance societies in Scotland upon the fjuestion. Therefore, I am honourably bound to go forward. Sir G. Younger : Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the supporters of the Bill did not want a time limit? Mr. Ure : I am not saying one word about the time limit. I have never myself been able to understand the meaning of the time limit. I have never been able logically to explain why there should be a time limit. I tell the House frankly I was amazed at the temperance people, tho.sc who are called the extremists, for ever assenting to a time limit. It is not compensation. Throughout the whole of the five years the publican gives the whole of his energy to the business ; COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING t)5 therefore it is preposterous to talk of it as compensation. He has no notice to quit, for who ever heard of a live years' notice to quit ? The difference is that he has faithfully paid his deposits, and his affairs are in the hands of his neighbours Sir G. Younger : That is the whole difference in the world. Mr. Ure : It is not all the difference in the world. Far be it from me to hazard any conjecture as to what may happen when the municipal electors have the discretionary powers now enjoyed by the magistrates, and I suspect that every hon. Member is in like pre- dicament with myself. We may hold our own opinions, but none ot us can speak with any certainty ; but what ground is there to justify a time limit? I have discussed it with publicans, and they tell me they attach no importance to it. They attach great importance to insurance, and I do not wonder. At the present time they are insured ; and when you pick out a sentence of my speech on the Second Reading Debate never forget I was speaking of insurance. Insurance is indispensable, but not compulsory insurance. Why should we postpone the operations of this question for ten long years ? Can any man give a reasoned opinion why we should postpone the options which the municipal electors are to exercise under this measure for ten years. Some of us, and I am one, who have devoted a good many years of our lives to temperance, are anxious to see something done before one passes away, and I for my part, perhaps more resolutely than my colleagues, am most strongly opposed to extending this time limit. And if that was the only inroad made by the House of Lords, I for my part would have stood out firmly against it, and would have opposed it without any hesitation, in a measure which has secured the overwhelming ascent of this House and of Scottish Members, and a measure in regard to which many of them have surrendered dearly cherished convictions in order to see it pass into law. Mr. Hugh Barrie : I make no apology for intervening in this Scottish Debate, because both in the House and in the Committee I have always deemed it my duty to oppose this Bill, and I desire very briefly to restate the reasons that have actuated me in taking that course. I have perhaps as large a knowledge of Scotland and Scottish conditions as regards the licensed trade as, shall I say, the bulk of Members in this House at the present time. This Bill for 00 TEMrERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL which the zeal of tlie Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate has been displayed this afternoon, was originally a private Member's Bill, If this Bill had been fathered by the Government, when they had a majority independent of our friends, the Nationalist Members below the Gangwa}', then I think we might fairly and legitimately acclaim that they were consistent in bringing forward this extreme and drastic measure of temperance reform for Scotland. As I am always sympathetic towards temperance reform, I am bound, and I say it advisedly, when a measure of this kind is being forced forward in Parliament, to consider and to recall to the House what is the record of this Government in other parts of the country which are still, happily, parts of the United Kingdom. I have been a Member of this House since 1906. In 1906 we had a Bill anxiously called for in all parts of Ireland for entire Sunday closing. That Bill passed the House by the enormous majority of 200, but our cause was betrayed in Committee by a Member of the present Government, and we failed to get what men, not extremists on the temperance question, had been advocating, and which temperance organisations in Ireland had been advocating for years. When the Children's Bill came before the House, one of its provisions was that children shall not be supplied or allowed to go into public-houses, but, under the pressure of our Friends below the Gangway, that particular Section was struck out of the Bill so far as it applied to Ireland. Then we came to the famous Budget of 1909. We know that the Licence Duties were substantially increased under the terms of the Budget. Had these duties been applied to Ireland, a great many of the 17,000 undesirable public-houses would have been wiped out, because they could not profitably pay the increased Licence Duties. What happened ? Again, under Nationalist pressure, the Government abandoned the terms of the Budget as regards its application to Ireland, and we still have the minimum rate that was in existence before. What happened under the Shops Act — a still more recent piece of legislation ? Under the same pressure, the hours for public- house assistants in Great Britain, which were fixed at sixty, were fixed for Ireland at seventy-two. I am glad to see in the House some hon. Members who supported me in the Committee to defeat tliat projiosal. But wliat happened later ? The Home Secretary stated fioni his place in tlic House that he had made a bargain, and, COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 97 under the same pressure, seventy-two hours were set up as the number of hours per week that assistants in Ireland were to work. Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Maclean) : Perhaps the hon. Member would enlighten me a little more as to how he proposes to make this line of argument applicable to this Bill. Mr. Barrie : I am impugning the sincerity of the Government in pressing upon one part of the United Kingdom a drastic measure of this kind, while in all those years they have been following quite a different principle, under certain pressure, in another part of the United Kingdom. I claim it is in order that I should do that on this occasion. In the last two years we had a Bill before the House entitled the Dublin Police Bill. No one would suspect from its title what it meant. It has not so far appeared upon the Paper this year, and if it does not appear, that happy result will be due to the fact that we have in opposition to it the help of many Members upon the benches opposite. What did one of the Clauses of that Bill contain ? It contained a provision to re-open, on Sundays, in an important and prosperous suburb of Dublin, public-houses that had been closed for twenty-eight years. Need I say more to show the utter inconsistency of the Government's record on this so-called temperance legislation. Now a word as regards this Bill. I said I thought I knew probably as much of Scottish opinion as any other Back Bench Member upon either side of the House. I am old enough to remember that the policy of the Glasgow licensing authority for the last thirty-five years has been steadily to avail themselves of every opportunity of justly and equitably reducing the number of public-houses in that great city. I state, subject to correction if I am in error, that although the population of Glasgow has more than doubled there are 500 less licences than there were thirty-five years ago. Under this Bill if it passes into law one result is inevitable, and it is that you will stop all progress in the reduction of licences until this Bill becomes operative. I should have thought that sincere temperance advocates would have been anxious to get this measure placed effectively on the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment. Under the terms of this Bill it would only be reasonable and honest that licensing authorities, who for so many years have been gradually reducing licences, should pause, knowing that such legislation as this would come into operation five years hence, before they proceed further on G 98 TEMPERA XCE (SCOTLAND) BILL the reasonable lines upon which tliey have been acting for a good man}- years. I differ from the suggestion that there is any substantial volume of opinion in favour of this Bill in Scotland. I have looked for a considerable time to find references by hon. Members opposite to this Bill when they were addressing their constituents. I have observe 1 long speeches made about various other important matters before the House, but the references to the Temperance (Scotland) Bill have been as microscopic as the references of the Prime Minister to Home Rule at the last General Election. Mr. McKinnon Wood : No. Mr. Barrie : The Secretary for Scotland differs from me, and he is an honourable exception which was very fittingly and properly referred to by the Mover of the Amendment. We know the reason why the right hon. Gentleman is an exception. In what I tliink for him was an unguarded moment, he committed himself to the . extreniists in his Division on this subject and promised them the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. What effect had that rash promise upon his majority when he returned to his constituency ? [An Hon. Member : " We shall turn him out the next time."] His majority fell from something like 4000 to 400. [An Hon. Member : " Nothing like it."] I know he had an extraordinary majority,[and the result showed a sharp falling off amongst those supporters who had hitherto voted for him. You can hardly blame the right hon. Gentle- man for making a mistake in this matter. I do not think we have ever been favoured with a Scottish Secretary who confessedly and admittedly knew so little about Scotland. I do not desire to say any- thing offensive, but, after listening to the Debate during the last two years since he was appointed to his present high office, our chief entertainment on the Scottish Estimates has been the attack levelled by Scottish Radical Members against the Secretary for Scotland, The reason is because he is autocratic in his methods and is not prepared to listen to suggestions made by Scottish Members. The House has not forgotten that when we were considering the Lords Amendments to this Bill there was a revolt amongst the Scottish Members on account of his drastic methods, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to be sent for in a hurry, and he made a pathetic appeal to the Scottish Members to support the Govern- ment. Repeated appeals had been addressed to the Secretary for COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 99 Scotland that the Government Whips might be taken off in order that we might have a free expression of opinion with regard to this Bill. We are under no illusion as to why this Bill is being put forward. It is a little more window-dressing on the part of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman evidently thinks that he is still filling up the cup against the House of Lords. I represent the moderate temperance opinion which is very largely prevalent in my con- stituency in the North of Ireland, and we are in favour of the people controlling the liquor traffic, but it must be on equitable lines ; it must be exercised by a majority that would prevent intriguing and wire-pullers reversing verdicts arrived at by small majorities, which would lead to a very unhappy state of affairs when the recurring periods of consideration came round. I think I truthfully represent that opinion when I say we also desire that no licences should be taken away from the trade without compulsion, because no one knows better than the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland that Unless you have compulsion in a matter of this kind it is impossible to compel all members of the trade to become contributors to the fund, and that is necessary in order to make it a success. I hope those sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman are absolutely sincere in their desire for a forward step in this matter, and I hope that it is not too late even yet by joint action to impress upon the Government that this view, which is largely held, that they are in favour of dealing justly by the trade, no matter how much they disapprove of it, will prevail. It is almost superfluous for me to sa}^ that I have no personal connection with the trade, never had, and never intend to have, but that does not make me less anxious to see my fellow countrymen getting a real reform on honest lines, free from injustice. The Lord Advocate has tried to explain his change of attitude. Mr. Ure : 1 have never changed my attitude. Mr. Barrie : The right hon. Gentleman said that without com- pensation an injustice would be perpetrated upon licence-holders. Mr. Ure : That is not what I said. Mr. Barrie : I can quote the right hon. Gentleman's exact words. Mr. Ure : I said that compulsory insurance was an indispensable act of justice to a dispossessed public. Mr. Barrie : I will leave it to the House to judge whether the right hon. Gentleman has not substantially changed his views. 100 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Mr. Ure : I adhere to them. Mr. Barrie : Under Parhamentary necessity we can only conclude that the right hon. Gentleman adheres to the principle, and the only change that has taken place is that he is now going to go into the Divi- sion Lobby in absolute defiance of his previous expressions of opinion. Mr. Dundas White : I have listened with considerable attention to the various speeches which have been made, including the remarks of the last speaker. At the conclusion of his speech the hon. Member who has just spoken referred to the fact that this had been a private Member's Bill in b3'gone years, and he appeared to condemn the Government for having taken up this Bill on that account. If this had been a new Government Bill, brought in for the first time, no doubt the Government would have been condemned in a similar way for starting a new Bill and forcing it through the House. I can fancy no greater tribute to the hold this Bill has in Scotland than the fact that in bygone years it has been a private Member's Bill which has gone on steadily being brought in, and has obtained increasing support year after year; that it has got further year after year, and that it has a solid majority at its back which abso- lutely justifies the Government in taking the action they are now taking in bringing this measure under the Parliament Act. The hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. Mac- kinder) spoke in a way that seemed to imply, as the basis of his whole argument, that the licensed trader had an absolute right to the continuance of his licence. He spoke as if we were interfering with that right and dispossessing him of it. The House knows perfectly well that the licence is only a licence for one year, that there is only an expectation of renewal, and that in giving these five years to elapse before this Bill comes into operation we are following not only the lines of Lord Peel's Report, but, more than that, we are making no deduction for the years that have passed in the meantime. After all that we have been told by the other side that there is a chance of a general agreement on the principle of the Bill, if I were inclined to be hypercritical I might ask, "Why did you divide against the Second Reading of it last year?" If we are agreed upon the principle and the differences are only matters of detail, then why will this not be given a safe passage through another place with a view to amend- ing it at some later stage when hon. Gentlemen are in power? COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 101 The principles of this Bill have been before Scotland for a very long time. They are very simple and fundamental. We say that the people of the locality ought to have some right to say whether they will have a licence or not, that they should be entitled to say that licences may remain as they are, or that they may be reduced, or that they want no licence in the locality at all. In this Bill we have absolutely safeguarded liberty by requiring a sufficient and indeed an overwhelming majority for each one of these Resolutions. I can say, as a private Scottish Member who is keenly interested in this subject, that these are the principles which have been before Scotland. The idea of complicating it with a further option has no support in Scotland. Anybody who has followed Scottish opinion and what has happened since this Bill last passed this House, knows that Scottish opinion has steadily strengthened against the increased option, and that the proposal for disinterested management, so-called, has no popular support whatever in Scotland. With regard to compulsory insurance, I do not myself see how that can be effectively put in this Bill. We have already had the admission from the other side that along the projected lines it is very difficult to see how any absolutely satisfactory scheme can be made out, and, unless we can make out a satisfactory scheme, it is very difficult indeed to see what justification there is for compelling people to insure in a scheme which we cannot ourselves guarantee. Indeed, if this House does intend to make people insure, it ought in common fairness to make sure that the scheme is a safe scheme and sufficient for the purpose. I have said that Scottish opinion has steadily hardened in favour of this Bill. The proposals of the Bill are perfectly simple. Nothing is to happen for five years, and at the end of five years the people in the locality are to have certain rights of exercising these three options. Why in the world they should not have these options it beats me to know. We have heard some talk about majorities. The hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow seemed to be very much surprised at the idea that the affairs of the district should be controlled by the majority in that district. He seemed to think that majorities had possibly smaller rights than minorities. I know of no other way of managing the affairs of a district. We are not afraid of trusting our own localities to decide what are their own needs. Various allegations have been urged 102 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL against my right hon. Friend about the Parliament Act and steani- roHing this Bill through the House. We have alwaj^s been inclined to smile at accusations like that. There has been a good deal of steam-rolling, but it has been done by another place. Liberal Bill after Liberal Bill, whether good or bad, has been flattened out, even although ihey had the support of the people behind them. Thanks to the Parliament Act, we hope that process will soon pass, and that, whether good or bad, the people may have an opportunity of judging for themselves and making their voice felt in this matter. We are not discussing the Bill merel}' on its merits. We have got to consider the feelings of Scotland on this question. The feeling in Scotland is unanimous. I cannot agree with what was said about this not having been put before the electors. It has been put forward by every Scottish Liberal Member. Speaking for myself, at election times as well as at other times, I have put it forward in speech after speech and in election address after election address. The thing has been perfectly well known to Scotland. It has general Scottish support, and all those who are interested in temperance reform in Scotland will be glad to see it pass this House a second time, and will be glad to see it become law this Session if it can, and, if not, they will look forward to the third time of asking and to its successful application. Captain Campbell : The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and the Secretary of State for Scotland have both at little length enlarged upon the point that the majority of the Members in this House have been for some considerable period in favour of this Bill. The Secretary for Scotland particularly made that a point. I do not dispute for one moment that a majority of the Scottish Members of this House are in favour of the Bill, but does that mean a great majority of the people in Scotland ? The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that they do not represent anything like the vast majority of the people of Scotland. The majority of the people in Scotland on the Liberal side are not anything like pro rata the majority of Liberal Members in this House, and the right hon .Gentleman must not bolster up his con- fidence by looking back upon the serried ranks of Liberal Members behind him and imagining for one moment that majority represents the majority at the present time which exists in Scotland. Further, COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READINCi 103 I venture to say that this Bill does not materially interest 20 percent, of the people in Scotland to-day. I hear the right, hon. Gentleman dissent from that. As far as I know he said, "Oh, rot!" or some equally polite words such as we are accustomed to receive from that Minister. Mr. McKinnon Wood : What does the hon. Gentleman say that I said ? Captain Campbell : I understood that you said, "Oh, rot ! " Mr. McKinnon Wood : I never said anything of the sort. I made a private remark to a Friend behind me and nothing to that effect. Captain Campbell : I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and I regret that I misunderstood him. I made the state- ment that I believe that not 20 per cent, of the electors of Scotland take any material interest in the Bill, and I shall attempt to prove it in this way. Any hon. Member who is accustomed to addressing public meetings in Scotland knows that when he is handed over to the tender mercies of the heckler the questions he is asked upon this Bill come from only one section of the hall, namely, the faddist temperance partisan. There is no comparison between the questions that are asked upon this Bill and the questions that come from all parts of the hall upon Tariff Reform, Home Rule, the Insurance Act, or any other subject engaging the attention of the electors and people of Scotland at the present time. After my short experience of public meetings in Scotland — and I dare say the Lord Advocate would be able to do the same thing — I am able to go into a Scottish meeting and before any question is asked I can pick out with exactitude who are going to ask questions on these temperance matters — and who are not. The questioning is entirely confined to a few faddists. I do not wish to be misunderstood ; I do not mean to say that the Scottish people are not keen on the question of tem- perance reform ; I do not mean to indicate for a moment that the majority of my constituents do not desire reform in this direction, but that does not necessarily mean the reform laid down in the various Clauses of this Bill. Of the three main points embodied in the Bill there is only one with which I wish to deal, and that is the question of local option. I do not intend to labour that point, because it has been argued and 104 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL explained far better than I am capable of doing. But, in the first place, I object to local option because I believe that by it you would drive people from one area into another, and you would do no good to the area into which they are driven. I should like to give a few instances of ni}' personal experience, because I believe that an ounce of fact in matters like this is worth many tons of theory. I have had an opportunity on two separate occasions in Canada, in the district in which I live, of seeing the operation of local option and of the local veto scheme. As far as my recollection serves me, about four years ago, in a small village situated five miles from where I live, taking advantage of the privileges of the local option scheme in the province of Ontario, this village did away with the retail sale of all liquors. What was the result ? I was informed by the municipal authorities there that after the introduction of local option there was more drunkenness in the village than had ever before existed or been seen. Mr. Charles Roberts : What village was that ? Captain Campbell : It is the village of Waterford, in the county of Norfolk, in the province of Ontario, situated about seven miles from the place which I honoured with my residence, and if the hon. Member will take the trouble to write to the Reeve of Waterford — he is the deputy-mayor — and ask him for statistics as to what led them to eventually throw over local option by a greater majority than that under which they embraced it, I think the hon. Member will be satis- fied as to the accuracy of the statements I am now making. Not only was there more drunkenness in Waterford, but there were greater profits and increasing power to the monopoly holders in a town only seven miles distant. Local option in Waterford was repealed on the very earliest opportunity. Now I come to the question of compensa- tion. I always felt that if ever I should be fortunate enough, or it may be unfortunate enough, to become a member of a board which has the power of granting or refusing licences, I should feel that my hands were very much freer if I could take away a licence from a man for the good of the community without doing any injustice to the man himself. I have become very tired, and so I dare say have many hon. Members on these benches, of being told so often that we as a party, and as a class, are unalterably opposed to temperance. Nothing is further from the truth. But in order to secure reform, the people must be educated up to it. You must not proceed on the COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 105 lines of senseless oppression. Let me give another Canadian instance, this time of senseless oppression. Perhaps the hon. Member opposite, in his study of the temperance question, has searched for precedents. He will remember that some thirty years ago an Act was passed in Canada called the " Scott Act," doing away with the retail sale of liquors in the province of Ontario. Does the hon. Gentleman remember what was the result of that Act ? ■ Mr. C. Roberts : I know that a much greater portion of the province of Ontario is now under prohibition than was the case when that Act was first introduced. Captain Campbell : That has nothing to do with the questions I am raising. But perhaps I may incidentally remark that the towns to which the hon. Member refers will probably have the same experience as Waterford. I am simply making a statement of fact. The Scott Act was introduced in order to do away with the retail sale of liquor in the province of Ontario, and I again ask the hon. Gentleman what was the result of that Act ? The result, as reported by the municipal authority, was that drunkenness very largely increased. The only places in the town near which I lived where liquor was allowed to be sold in retail quantities were the drug shops — the chemist shops — and I can remember, as a boy of six, being astonished at the length of the queue — it was like a theatre queue — standing outside the drug shop, and I was equally astonished to think there should be so many cases of cholera requiring an internal application in so little a village in the province of Ontario. The fact remains, the Scott Act was repealed as being ineffective and having as its ultimate result an increase of that traflfic which hon. Members are so anxious to put down. Clearly the growth of temperance must be brought about by education, and I believe that education in this matter is proceeding upon right lines at the present time. I believe that it is not only in the castles of the more fortunate that drinking day by day is becoming more and more unpopular, but I believe it is descending at the present time to the homes of the less fortunate, and I think that if hon. Members opposite would devote their undoubted talents and their efforts to doing by educational methods those good things for the democracy, they would be doing belter than prating so glibly on public plat- forms in the country that they and they alone are the friends of that democracy. lOG TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Mr. Eugene Wason : Tlie hon. Member who last spoke claims that where local option has been in existence in Canada there has been an increase of drunkenness. If that be so, and if more drink and more liquor is sold in those places where they have local option than in places where the ordinary licensing system prevails, how is it tliat every person connected with the trade in this country does not declare in favour of local option ? Captain Campbell : The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. The consumption of liquor may not be so great, but there may be far more drunkenness. The people who bought drink and were accustomed to take daily their two glasses of honest beer, might, under local option, be prevented from indulging in such consumption, and might upon a Saturday night walk five miles and take several drinks, so as to make it worth their while to walk five miles. Mr. Eugene Wason : I need not deal with that subject further, because 1 have not been to Ontario. The hon. Member said that there were not 20 per cent, of the people in Scotland in favour of this measure. I controvert that entirely. I can say for myself that having fought nine contested elections in every one of which I put forward the question of local option, as the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) knows, and as the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. ClydeJ knows, for I had the honour of fighting them both and beating them both. Sir George Younger : That is an easy thing to do in Clack- mannan and Kinross. Mr. Eugene Wason : Local option had a good deal to do with it. Sir G. Younger : Nothing. Mr. Eugene Wason : I shall be quite glad to fight the hon. Baronet upon local option in Clackmannan and Kinross. Sir G. Younger : Will the right hon. Gentleman come and fight me in Ayr ? Mr. Eugene Wason : Ayr is a very different place. Sir G. Younger : I will give the right hon. Gentleman the chance if he likes. Mr. Eugene Wason : I am quite content with the seat I have. The hon. Member (Captain Campbell) made an extraordinary statement. He said that when you went to a meeting, when you COMMONS [J(NE 20, 1013] SECOND READING 107 looked round, you could tell at once from the countenances of the people present who were going to put questions on temperance. I wonder, if I had been at a meeting of his, he would have looked at me ? It is one of the jo^'s of going to a public meeting that 3'ou never know what questions you are going to be asked, and very often, if no questions are asked in Scotland, your own chairman will turn round and heckle you, which is a very pleasant process. The lion. Member who moved the Amendment, in a speech of great force, complained more than anything else that this Bill should come under the Parliament Act. We rejoice that it is coming under the Parliament Act. He did not complain so much of the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill coming under that Act. All he said about them was that we should have no chance of passing them if we went to the country. I believe that those Bills have the support of the country at the present time. I am satisfied that the people in Scotland understand this Bill, but they do not understand and do not care twopence about disinterested management. I say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), whose zeal in temperance reform we all acknowledge. So far as the people in Scotland are concerned, I have letters by the score entreating me as chairman of the Scottish Unofficial Liberal Members to have nothing whatever to do in any shape or form with the question of disinterested management. So far as insurance is concerned, that is another story. I have never been able to understand why the trade should not arrange this matter among themselves. I should have thought that with the great wealth they possess — one scarcely takes up a paper without seeing that some wealthy brewer has left ^^300,000 or ;^400,ooo ; there is one in the paper this morning — they would be able to make an arrangement with regard to insurance among themselves. Siv G. Younger : This Bill does not interfere with brewers. Mi. Eugene Wason : I know, but they might assist the retailers who sell their liquor. So far as this Bill is concerned, it is a Bill the Scottish people want. They want power in their different localities to say whether they will have the sale of liquor or not ; if they wish to have prohibition, that they shall have it ; if they wish for reduction, that they shall have it ; and, if they wish things to remain as they are at the present time, then that ought to be the case. 108 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Mr. Croft : Will you agree to their having an increase if they want it ? Mr. Eugene Wason : I do not think anyone wants that, or that is a serious question at all. Whatever views hon. Members from Scotland may have with reference to the question of disinterested management, I am sure that so far as the Amendment is concerned they will reject it and will stand by the Bill, and will see to it that this question, which for the last thirty years has been so prominently before the Scottish electors shall at last be settled, and this Bill become the law of the land. Sii" G. Younger rose Mr. Outhwaite : May I ask your ruling. Sir, upon a point of Order, as to the propriety of an hon. Member intervening in a Debate upon a question of the restriction of the sale of liquor, when he himself is interested in its promotion ? Sil' G. Younger : On the point of Order, May I submit that this is a Bill to increase, and not to restrict, the consumption of liquor, if it results, as it has resulted in other places — whatever may be said about drunkenness — in the increased sale of liquor, owing to the introduction of local option. This measure in no way affects myself. It does not affect my business. I am a brewer, not a retail seller, and if I may say so, I think it is rather an impertinent question. Ml". Deputy-Speaker : I know nothing in the usage, practice, or Standing Orders of the House which in any way precludes the hon. Baronet from taking part in the Debate. Sir G. Younger : I take no further notice of the interruption. I have already characterised it. I have listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite [Mr, Eugene Wason]. It is a speech which I have often heard before, and I am bound to say that he has always been thoroughly consistent when he opposed me, as at other times. I desire to say a word or two about the position of this Bill with regard to the Parliament Act. I fully agree with the admirable speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh [Mr. Clyde]. I think his view was quite unanswerable that this Bill differs in such important respects from the other two Government measures which have been placed under the Parliament Act, that there is no warrant or reason for COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 109 placing- under that autocratic measure a Bill of this kind, the principle of which has been fully accepted by the House of Lords, and in regard to which it is only upon questions of detail there have been any very strong differences of opinion. The other day, in justifying the placing of the Home Rule Bill under the Parliament Act, what did the Prime Minister say ? He said, on June 9, about the Home Rule Bill :— " This was met in the House of Lords by a blank summary, uncompromising negative. These are precisely the conditions with which the Parliament Act was intended to deal." They are the very converse of the conditions under which we are working now with regard to this particular Bill, and by inference one is entitled to say that if these were the conditions intended — I accept frankly the Prime Minister's statement ; that exactly follows out what he said during the progress of the Bill — I think the right hon. Gentleman is very wrong in placing this measure under the Parliament Act. I do not care whether it is a Temperance Bill or anything else. It is not the fact that it is a Temperance Bill which makes me say that. If it were education or anything else in which there were differences of opinion with regard to machinery, if the principle of the measure had been accepted by the House of Lords, it was never contemplated by many people who supported the Parlia- ment Act that it would be used for the purpose, and it is wholly wrong to do so in this particular case. I tried to tempt my right hon. Friend opposite to resign his seat and come and fight me in Ayr, I wonder if I could tempt the right hon. Gentleman to resign his seat for St. Rollox. If he will I will resign mine in Ayr Burghs and we will ask them whether this is the kind of thing they think ought to be done by a free and unfettered assembly. I will fight an election there. I have an opponent in the field, so I suppose has the right hon. Gentleman. Some time ago he referred to his election and he taunted me that his majority was bigger than mine. The odds, therefore, are considerably against me. I am perfectly ready now to resign my seat in Ayr and test the question if the right hon. Gentleman will resign his seat and test it also. I cannot say anything fairer than that. Mr. Pringle : Is that not a gambling transaction ? Sir G. Younger : So far as that is concerned, it would be a very 110 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL interesting and sporting thing on the part of both of us to do, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman a week to think over it. As far as I can make out the Parliament Act, the House of Lords is left with two important privileges. One is the power to delay a measure, and the other is the power to amend it. They have not sought in this case to delay the measure in the sense of rejecting it. In the case of the Home Rule and Disestablishment Bills, they have exercised that option. In this particular case they passed the Second Reading. They accepted the principle and sent down certain Amendments which this House rejected. They recon- sidered them and sent down a smaller number of Amendments dealing with only three or four points. They were not even considered. The right hon. Gentleman did not even move them. I went to Mr. Speaker to ask whether it would be possible for me to move them so that they might be considered in the House, but Mr. Speaker said it was impossible because the whole time of the House belonged to the Government, and no one but a Member of the Front Bench opposite could move those amendments. There- fore, they were not considered at all. Does anyone suppose for a minute that if the Prime Minister had been in his place the result would have been exactly as it was ? He never is here on a Scotch debate — I have had to complain of it often before. I sympathise with the stress under which he has been placed in the last few days, and there is some excuse for him to-day perhaps. But this is an important matter. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Scottish Member for twenty-five years. He owes a great deal to his constituency and a good deal to Scotland, and I believe if he had been in his place on that day and heard the debate and realised the temper of the House, he would not have given the decision which I understand he gave from his bathroom when he was asked what was to be done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, at all events, showed very clearly how it affected him on that occasion. We all saw it, and I believe if the right hon. Gentleman had been here the situation would have been different, and we should not have got into such an impasse. Therefore, I think one is entitled to say that where the differences of opinion are after all not very great, and where any reasonable and compromising attitude is shown by the Secretary for Scotland on one or two of these points agreements could be ariived COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 111 at, and I do not believe agreements will be arrived at, and I do not think any good will be done unless there is some amount of compro- mise in the matter. I now come to the Lord Advocate's speech. It was an interesting speech, but there were in it many statements with which I am afraid I cannot agree. The Lord Advocate seems to think the transfer of authority in this matter makes no very great difference. Mr. Ure made an observation which was inaudible. Sir G. Younger : I know. But he rather made out that it made no very great difference, or rather did not call for any protective Clause in the interest of those who would be placed under the new authority. Of course, we know he wants insurance with a view to smoothing the action of the Bill, but he did not think there was any need for an extended time notice or anything of that sort, and he still says so. Does he really seriously say that a change of authority of that kind from a representative body elected for the particular purpose to a chance vote of the people, is not so important a change that we ought in some kind of way to safeguard the interests of those who are affected ? Mr. Ure : No, I do not say that at all. Sir G. Younger : Then what on earth did you say ? That is the point of the whole speech. Mr. Ure : The hon. Baronet begs the whole question when he talks of a chance vote. Sir G. Younger : A vote of 30 per cent, on the parish roll is nothing more than a chance vote. In the first place it is too small a vote — too few people are permitted to vote. Then a great many of these get no chance of voting at all. Ten per cent, of the population in any particular district could carry prohibition. The thing is monstrous and absurd, and to say that the change does not involve the necessity on the part of those who make it to do something to see that it is carried out in a fair and reasonable way is a propo- sition which I am surprised that he should advance. Why is it that a time notice is asked for ? Why is an extended time notice wanted. Because it is the only thing that hon. Members opposite will give. They will not give any other kind of compensation. It has not been asked for. These people realise that even within ten years they could not insure the whole value of their premises. They 112 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL have never pretended to do so. The scheme of insurance was only partial. It never was said to be anything else but partial. It was my dut}' to put it forward in our Debates last year on the Report stage in this House. I said it was merely a solatium, a partial protection. It gave them a chance of an average, because they were not all going to lose their licences, and it gave them something at all events out of the wreck to start with again, because the whole of their capital must be embarked during the time the time notice runs, and they do not get the advantage of an ordinary compensa- tory scheme. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see the advantage to a man who is going to lose his licence at the end of ten years by a popular vote ? If he cannot see it, it is no good my arguing the question further, because it seems very plain to me, and I think must be to anyone who takes a fair view of the situation. We maintain our view as strongly as ever. The administration of a matter of this kind ought to be in the hands of selected people who can be trusted to exercise the power in a judicial manner and in a fairly consistent and reasonable way, and not as the result of some popular feeling or popular prejudice, or something of that kind by which votes are very often controlled in elections ; and I retain my objection, therefore, to the change. But the House of Lords accepted that. We have not sought to reintroduce any objection to it in our Amendment to-day ; and we have therefore confined that Amendment within the limits which have been set by the House of Lords themselves in the case of the one or two Amend- ments which were sent down at the end of last Session, and which were not considered by the Secretary for Scotland or by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman further told us that the Bill was a compromise. I suppose that was to a certain extent true, but it was a compromise between the extremists opposite and the more moderate Members like the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs and the hon. Member for Aberdeen. All of them desired the adoption of some measure of licensing reform, though some of them entirely objected to the carrying out of the proposals in the Bill as originally intro- duced. Therefore, in that respect, it cannot be said to be a com- promise as between those on this side of the House who oppose the Bill and those who wish to carry it out in full. The right hon. COMMONS [June 20, 19ia] SECOND READING 113 Gentleman also made a remark which amused me immensely. He said the Bill had the support in Scotland of those who are interested in the matter, but who are a comparatively limited number. That statement was supported by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire [Captain Campbell]. It is really only a limited number who have forced this question upon Liberal Members, but they are the balancing factor in many of the constituencies. Many hon. Members have in the past accepted the position of supporting these proposals as to licensing, just as many have accepted the position of supporting the proposals for Women Suffrage, never thinking that they would be called upon to carry them out. Now that the Bill has been brought forward, they feel bound to carry out their pledges though they object to such changes. I was myself responsible for the proposal of some of the changes which were carried out in the Act of 1902, and no one therefore can charge me with being an opponent of reasonable changes. No one can say that I have not had a fairly decent record in that matter, but notwithstanding that, I am supposed to have an interest in protecting the trade. I am not objecting to reasonable changes, but I say that we who are opposing this Bill are entitled to say that any changes that are made should be fair and reasonable, and that they should have regard to the justice of the case. As to the question of insurance, I disagree with what was said by the Lord Advocate, who seems to think that it is possible for those traders in Scotland to voluntarily insure themselves. I do not think that is the fact. No doubt certain groups of them can do it, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the success of an insurance scheme depends upon the largeness of the area from which the contributions are drawn and the amount of the claims that may be made upon the funds. If you do not embrace the whole of the trade, you very much lower the average, and therefore a volun- tary scheme would not work well. There is another point. There are certain areas in Scotland inhabited largely by people of the class of whom it may be truly said that they would not vote for local option under any circumstances. In those areas not one of the licence-holders .would insure himself voluntarily, because he knows that, if a vote were taken, there would be no chance of the people taking away his licence. You may therefore rule out the possibility of such licence-holders being included in a voluntary scheme. You H lU TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL thereby' reduce the average and increase the risk. That is why a voluntary S3'stem is no good. An hon. Member referred to the offer of a pohcy by a mutual licence company, but that offer is not of much account. It is the offer of a policy which would insure people against the loss of their licences by certain payments. It is very much the same thing as the scheme of compulsory insurance which was rejected last year. In last year's scheme, however, you had the whole of the trade involved, and, of course, you had the advantage of that. In this case you will only have a few licences insured. It is a counsel of perfection to sa}' that people can insure themselves voluntarily against the risks in this trade. It is quite a mistake to suppose that that is possible, and if the Lord Advocate truly believes, as I think he does, that it is indispensable in the interest of justice, and for the smooth passage of the Bill, I think he takes up a very unfortunate attitude in refusing, as he did last year, and as he proposes to do again, to consider any proposal for insurance which may be made, either in this House or in the House of Lords. I do not think it is any use at this stage of our consideration of the matter to go into the question of the Bill itself. It is not in the least necessary to do that. We all know it from top to bottom. Like the curate's egg, it is good in some parts and bad in others. I still hold a ver}' strong opinion that this measure is very unjust, and that far too much stress is laid on the argument adduced to-day and in previous Debates that a licence only lasts a year. Far too little consideration is given to the fact that custom in this matter is stronger than technical law. A custom which has grown up in long generations is not to be lightly or ruthlessly set aside without reasonable consideration for those who have embarked their money in this enterprise, who have conducted their business in a proper manner, and who will lose their all if they are deprived of their livelihood, unlike traders in England, where public-houses are largely owned by big corporations, and where, if the licence-holders lose part of them, they probably improve the remainder. In Scotland the licence is the property of the man who runs the public-house, and if he loses his licence he loses his all. Therefore he is all the more entitled to be protected and considered in the matter. If we recall what was said when the Budget of 1909-10 was under discussion, it will not be denied that the Government committed themselves over COMJMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND RKADING 115 and over again, through the mouths of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to the obhgation to consider tliat the position of the free Hcence-holder was different from that of the tied house licence-holder. There is no sign of that in this Bill. You cannot say that five days notice is anything like adequate notice. I see that the right hon. Gentleman brings back the date of 191 2, so that if the Bill were to pass it would be four years' notice from now. I do not think that was a wise or generous thing to do, but there is no use saying more about it, for there it is. But does it preclude him, or does it preclude tlie House, from making suggestions which would make the Govern- ment consider in a fair and reasonable spirit any Amendment that may be sent on from another place when the Bill goes there, and deal with those with an open mind and in a reasonable way ? This appears to be the only chance that the Bill will pass into law this year. Although by the Parliament Act you can force it into law next year if you are still sitting on these benches, that is a gamble as to whether or not the Liberal party will be in power this time next year and will be able to pass it a third time. Personally, I am inclined myself to gamble on the belief that they will not, though I may be quite wrong; but in any event I would earnestly like to see this question settled somehow. I have had far too much of it all the time I have been in Parliament. It is no pleasure to me to have this Bill recurring year after year. I am only too anxious to have a settle- ment if we can get a chance, but so far as I am individually concerned, I do not think that the Bill as it stands is fair or just, and there ought to be some compromise on the matter and some reason- able adjustment in order that it should pass. Mr. Munro : I have listened, as I always do, with very great attention and respect to the hon. Baronet who has just sat down. I do not propose to follow him in his controversy with the Lord Advocate, but I do not quite understand the attitude which he takes up with regard to the Motion moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Edinburgh. I do not yet know whether the attitude of those who support my hon. and learned Friend is to approve of the principle of the Bill. I should have thought, reading the terms of the Resolution on the Paper, that the view of my hon. and learned Friend was that if the Bill contained the options which his Resolution desiderates, and if the conditions under which the Bill 116 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL was to work were favourable he would not oppose the principle of it. Sir G. Younger : I hat is so. Mr. Muiiro : If that be the position, I find it a little difficult to understand how the hon. Baronet and those who sit near him, who have described the Bill as tyrannous and unjust, are, nevertheless, prepared to sacrifice their convictions upon these vital matters in order to avoid challenging the principle of the Bill. Sir G. Younger : The hon. Gentleman is really misrepresenting us. I think that this Amendment expressly covers those very points. We are willing to waive our personal opinions and objections to the principle only on condition that these things are put right. Mr. Munro : I think we are at one in this matter. I rather understood from the terms of the Motion that if the limits were not undue and the conditions upon w'hich the Bill were to work would be favourable the Bill would not be objected to. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment said he desired to avoid taking up a resolute and uncompromising attitude with regard to this Bill. Then he put down a Motion which really involves the rejection and destruction of the Bill. I do not understand how he can reconcile the statement in the early part of his speech with the Motion which he has moved. I am not surprised that the principle of the Bill is not seriously challenged because it is a principle which cannot be gainsaid. I am not going to discuss it in detail at this time of the day. It has been discussed in this House over and over again. But everyone knows that drinking facilities exist for the convenience of the public, and surely it is just and fair that the public should settle the extent to which their convenience requires these drinking facilities. As someone has put it rather picturesquely, there should be a judg- ment in this matter straight from the hearthstones of the people. That is the view which at least in this part of the House we entertain in regard to the principle of the Bill. We go further, and in spite of what has been said in this Debate, we maintain that the Bill has behind it the support of the people of the country from which we come, and that it has ranged behind it the full force of the progressive movement in Scotland. Let there be no mistake about this. There have been a gi eat many gibes flung at the temperance party on this subject in this COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 117 Debate and in other Debates, and it has also been customary to deride the organisations of the party, but the temperance party is really the backbone of the progressive movement in Scotland, just as those who are opposed to the principle which they asperse are the most formidable foes of that movement. Accordingly, so far as the principle is concerned it]; is well founded and well supported, and we are justified in voting for the Second Reading which substantiates it. I understand from my hon. and learned Friend's speech in the opening of the Debate and subsequent speeches that hon. Members opposite challenge the application to this Bill of the provisions of the Parliament Act. My hon. and learned Friend seemed to suggest that unless you have a question which is a large constitutional question, on which there was no division on this side of the House, and a Bill the principle of which the House of Lords had rejected, you ought not to apply the terms of the Parliament Act. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side did their very best to prevent our passing the Parlia- ment Act. Now that we have got it, they seek to restrain its operations in a way which the Statute itself does not contemplate, because there is not a word in the Parliament Act, which I have looked up in connection with my hon. and learned Friend's sugges- tion, to the effect that it should be limited to large constitutional questions, and that if any difference of opinion is expressed by a single Member on this side of the House the Parliament Act should not apply, and that if the Bill is not rejected on a Second Reading in the House of Lords, the Parliament Act should equally not apply. On the contrary, the Statute clearly states that a Bill shall be deemed to be rejected if Amendments in the House of Lords are not agreed to in this House, and accordingly' I submit that the present Bill comes within the purview of that Act, and that that Act may properly be applied to it. There have been three matters of complaint. The first is the suggestion that another option should be included in this Bill — disinterested management. It has been said that it is only logical to include disinterested management as an option, but I pray the House to observe that this Bill does not purport for a moment to deal with anything but the number of licences. It has nothing whatever to do with the type of licences. It does not interfere with the existing 118 TEMPEKANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL jurisdiction of the Licensing Courts in Scotland, except in so far as it may say, " You sliall not have so many Hcences," or "you shall have the same system as prevails now," or "you shall have no licences at all." It settles one matter, and one matter only, namely, the number of licences. When you suggest the intro- duction of disinterested management you suggest the importation into this Bill of an alien idea, namely, the type of licences, and, if you are going to insert disinterested management, why should you not insert the municipalisation of licences and the various types of disinterested management, which are many ? Those who support the insertion of this option have said they want to get freedom of choice. There are many types of disinterested management. Why should not they be included in this Bill as an option if you are going to depart from the safe anchorage of number and leave to the electors the decision of questions of this type ? You would remit to the electors to treat of matters which are reserved to the justices under this Bill, namely, the suitability of the applicant and the suitability of the premises, by introducing the option which has been suggested ; in other words, you would remit the whole matter of the suitability of the premises, of the applicant, and the needs of the neighbourhood to the decision of the electors. No one suggests that that should be done. I leave that point, simply putting it to the House to consider whether there is anything in the argument that it is only logical to introduce the option of disinterested manage- ment, when, in point of fact, the only thing which the Bill now contains, or purports to contain, are points dealing with the number of licences alone. Apart from that, we have on the admission ot the hon. and learned Member who moved the Motion from the Front Bench opposite, the statement that disinterested management in Scotland is a new and untried thing. I am not quite sure that that is exactly accurate. It has been tried in certain places, but the results do not seem to have been altogether satisfactory. But assuming that it is new and untried, is that not a reason why it should not be applied in Scotland until there has been more experience of it, and when that experience has been obtained and it has stood the test of time, then it might be included in a Bill devoted to disinterested management COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 119 alone and applicable to the whole country. I do not see, however, why Scotland should be singled out for the experiment. Sir G. Younger : You are singling Scotland out for local veto. Mr. Munro : It the hon. Member considers for a moment, he will agree that the question of local veto occupies a very different position in Scotland from that which disinterested management holds. It has been widely supported for years. As to the question of the time limit, it really comes to this: According to the decision of the House of Lords, the proposal is that there should be a time limit of ten years, instead of five years, as inserted in the Bill. The position of the unfortunate publican in Scotland seems to me assimi- lated to the position of a gentleman residing in the north-east of Ireland under the Home Rule or a Welsh curate under the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. I do not think it is quite so bad as that, or as bad as it has been represented to be, because after all one must remember that this is a matter which the publicans of Scotland have had many opportunities of considering. Local veto has been ringing in their ears for thirty years, and probably they are haunted by it in their dreams. Sir G. Younger : Fifty years. Mr. Munro : I think thirty years. Sir G. Younger : I say fifty years, and I have never thought anything about it. Mr. Munro : Observe what is involved in the suggestion of the limit of ten years. That would carry us through two General Elections, as regulated by the Parliament Act. I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I predict that at the ensuing General Election, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, a strong attempt will be made to secure, if not the repeal, at least the drastic modifica- tion of this Bill, before it comes into operation at all. We have got to take the risk in regard to the first General Election, but we are not prepared to take it in regard to two General Elections. So far as compulsory insurance is concerned, any business man who looks at the subject must be clearly of opinion that the scheme proposed is not a business one. It is nothing better than the constitution of what I might term a statutory lucky-bag or till. If the till is full at the time when a No-licence Resolution is passed you may get some- thing, but if it is empty at the time you will get nothing. I think I 120 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL can hear what the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs [Sir G. Younger] would say in the event of a No-h'cence Resohition being passed, and the till being found empty. I cannot pretend to his elo- quence, but I think he would say, " This is a Government measure and you put into your Government measure a scheme which you call insur- ance, and you compel every publican in the land to go into that scheme, and now, when there is no money in the till, you seek to evade liability by the mean, shabby, and paltry excuse that you are not liable for the solvency of the scheme." Sir G. Younger : I hope I am an honourable man ; and I would point out that when I produced my scheme last year I distinctly committed myself to admission of the fact that it might happen that the till would be empty, and it could not be helped; certainly I should make no such speech as the hon. Member suggests. Mr. Munro : The hon. Baronet does not always remember what he says, and he might, on the occasion which I suggested, forget the speech he has referred to. I hope I do not do him any injustice, for I should be sorry to do so, but I can see the possibility of the hon. Baronet making a speech on those lines, though with very much greater eloquence than I can command. I put it to the House that this Bill is one which the people of Scotland have wanted for a very long time, and though they have not so far realised their wishes 3'et they are determined on this occasion not to be disappointed. What the Government of 1906, with a huge majority, were unable to do, this Government, with its modest majority and with the leverage of the Parliament Act can and will achieve. Sir H. Craik : This Debate has pursued the course to which we have become accustomed. We have had the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, who was satisfied in his reply to my right hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench, to use certain arguments based on a document which he had received by this morning's post. One of his chief arguments in favour of the Bill was that if he supported all the arguments against the measure contained in that document, it would be hopeless for him to expect to be accepted as a Liberal candidate in Scotland. We have had the usual intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan [Mr. E. Wason] who, according to his accustomed method, assumed the role of the heavy father, who blessed ail round, and bade us accept everything COMMONS [June 20, 1013]SECOND READING 121 for the best in this best of all worlds. He referred to arguments adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire [Captain Campbell], who had referred to his experience of the prohibition regulations in certain parts of Canada. What was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman ? Surely, he said, if those regulations led to an increase of drinking, then those on this side of the House ought to be standing up and supporting them. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to impute to the Members on this side that it is our object to engage in increasing drunkenness throughout the country ? Does he think it worthy of himself, even as a joke, to use such an argument ? Mr. E. Wason : The hon. Member is entirely mistaken as to what I said. I was not alluding to what hon. Members of the House would do or say. What I said was that if, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire said, where there was local option that meant increase of drinking, then those of the trade and those interested in the subject of drink should support local option. Sir H. Craik : That is even worse. Does he impute to myself personally or any other Members the smallest connection with the drink traffic ? If he does not, what is the appositeness of his argument, what has it to do with the question ? It is all very well to stand up and declare in a sort of attitude of superiority that we ought to accept everything this great Government presents to us. We do not accept that, and we resent the argument by which he imputes to us an interest in associating with those who are dealing with the production of drink. The most interesting speech, I can say for my own part, which has been addressed to us from the other side is that from the hon. Member who spoke last. He always has thoughtful arguments to address the House, and they naturally impress even his opponents. I want, however, to clear up one point at the beginning of his speech. He wished to know whether we were not on this side of the House inconsistent in supporting the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend if we still adhered to opposition to the principles of this Bill ? Let there be no doubt at all about this. I am as strong now as ever I was in opposition and shall continue to be, root and branch, to the principle of this Bill. I wish to have no doubt whatever on the subject. I am opposed to all this sort of legislation to make men moral by Act of Parliament. I disbelieve in it. I look upon it as a discredit to my fellow country- 122 TEMrEKANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL men, and it makes me indignant to hear an lion. Member like the hon. Member for Lanark say he himself retains his own freedom and is perfectly free to make use of alcoholic liquors, but he wishes to deprive his fellow countrymen of the working classes of similar independence and liberty. Sil* W. Menzies : The hon. Member has made a distinct accusation. I said nothing of the kind. This Bill does not prohibit any individual in Scotland from buying drink if he wants to. Sir H. Craik : What grounds has the hon. Member for his interruption ? Docs he not see this Bill gives to him and the majority, as he tells us there is a majority, power to deprive the working man who wishes to have a glass of beer of the liberty of doing so ? What else did I say, and what is the use of the hon. Member rising to make an inapposite interruption ? Let him stand up and be bold enough to adhere to what he says. I dissent from it. I think, in saying what he said, he was insulting his fellw citizens. I am opposed to the principle of the Bill. I am opposed to taking this question out of the hands of magisterial and judicial authority of whatever sort, and placing it in the hands of those who vote only according to their caprice. Constitute your judicial and magisterial authority any way you think best. If it is wrongly constituted that is the fault of the Front Bench and of our Govern- ment, and let them change it, but do place this important matter of the regulation of the life of the community in those who act not with caprice and only according to their own tastes and judgment, but in the hands of those who are bound to exercise judicial deliberation in coming to a decision. Upon what grounds do hon. Members wish to impose this regulation — not, mark you, a regulation for keeping due order and proper police observation of those places where drink is sold, but a regulation for interfering with their fellow citizens in a matter in which those fellow citizens are the best judges. On what grounds do they base their right to do this ? I presume upon the ground that all alcohol is detrimental and evil in its results to the constitution. I pay all respect to those who, by their own inquiries and by their own conscientious convictions accept that view. I can only say, in the first place, that it is not established by anything like scientific unanimity, and that there are many scientific men of quite equal rank and standing to the others who deny it. COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 123 Be that as it may, I come to a much more personal and more important consideration. Do the hon. and right hon. Members who are supporting this Bill apply that principle to their own conduct and their own Hves ? I can understand a man who is a conscientious teetotaler supporting this as a necessary part of what he thinks is closely connected with the health and physical well-being of his fellow citizens, but I do not understand the action of those who support legislation of this sort, and who yet in their own lives, and according to their own habits, show that they have no such belief in the detrimental effect of alcohol as implied in this Bill. I cannot distinguish their conduct from what in ordinary parlance we are accustomed to call hypocritical cant. I have used these arguments and I have explained clearly and with absolute frankness my own position. It is unaltered. I wish to show how much in deference to general opinion and how far we who hold these opinions have gone when we are prepared to support the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend. We do this for the sake of peace, because we understood that under the Parliament Act a measure would only be passed after every attempt at compromise had been tried. We do it because we think that in the face of a large majority of opinion we may, while holding conscientiously our principles as strongly as ever, yet as common-sense men try if some compromise is possible. Is compromise possible ? Will compromise ever be possible in a measure like this if it is forced through by the Parliament Act ? Why, if compromise were ever possible, it would be in a case like this, where half of your own Members protested against it last year and asked you to — [Hon. Members : " No, no ! "] — a very large number, and half at all events of the arguments and conscientious convictions were on the side of something like compromise. That was refused, and we have not had a single word of protest from those Members who resisted the Government's action last Session. What is the reason for it ? Because they know that this measure cannot be altered, that compromise is impossible, that it must go through by the mechanical process of the Parliament Act. We all know how that mechanical process will work. On Monday next we are to carry the time limit for all the three measures which this log-rolling system is to carry into law. The Home Rulers in Ireland must be satisfied with the Home Rule Bill ; the Non- 124 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL conformists in Wales must be satisfied with the Welsh Church Bill ; and the extreme teetotalers in Scotland must have their dole handed out to them. So the coalition will be held together, and by the mechanical process of the Parliament Act you will hope to bring your three measures upon the Statute Book. We have attempted to compromise. We have offered large concessions. We have offered, for the sake of peace, not to yield, but to waive principles to which we are closely attached, in order that you should introduce at any rate some sort of moderation into your proposals. We ask two things : first, that the popular voice which you wish to put highest should not be restricted in its choice, that it should not be bound to give its judgment simply as you wish, but that it should be freely able to choose another method which has worked well in other countries, and which, mark you, removes what we all admit to be the one great blot upon our licensing system, namely, that it gives an interest in extending the trade to those who hold the licences. We wish to have the possibility of establishing a system under which that interest in the increase of the liquor traffic would be separated from the trade. That is a sound principle. Whether it is a sound principle or not, we ask you to prove the strength of your conviction in the sovereignty of the people by giving them freedom to choose that system if they wish. The other principle upon which we insist is that if you are to carry out a great measure of reform, as you think it, it should be at the expense, not of one class, not of a trade which has been recognised by the State, which has paid taxes to the State, which is practically in partnership with the State, but at the ex- pense of those taxpayers who are responsible for it. When England abolished slavery it did not do it at the expense of the slave owners, it took the expense upon itself. Are you fallen below the moral standard of your grandfathers ? Are you prepared to carry out a sort of second-hand philanthropy which will work great benefits, not at your own expense, but to the detriment of those who have equal rights in their property with those which you possess ? We are told that there is no claim for compensation because, forsooth, licence-holders have had long warning. Is it to be under- stood that if a few hairbrained politicians tell us that there is a possibility of all property being abolished, of men being taxed to poverty, we are to date our right to any property we possess from COMMONS [Junk 20, 1913] SECOND READING 125 the time of those utterances ? Hitherto we have acted upon Acts of ParHament. We have thought that until ParHament chose to deprive us of our property we had a right to possess it. Now, for- sooth, the doctrine is set up that because someone chooses to threaten the property of the hon. Member or myself, we are from the date of that utterance to consider that our property is perfectly insecure and that we must provide compensation for ourselves at our own expense. Is that what political argument has come to ? I wish to support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend because it offers a fair compromise — a compromise in which by far the greater part of the giving is on our side and very little on yours, and even that small part, although urged to do so by his own supporters, the right hon. Gentleman is unable to concede, because he knows that he cannot change a line of this measure without endangering the automatic process of the Parliament Act. My own position is perfectly clear. I dislike and disbelieve in this sort of legislation. I think it no com- pliment but a derogation of the respect due to my fellow countrymen. I disbelieve in it because I do not think it will have the effect desired. But for the sake of peace, for the sake of a settlement, we will even go the length of accepting this Bill if you will, first, give free scope to the choice of the people, and, secondly, enable the change to be carried out on lines of justice and righteousness and not of plunder and spoliation. Mr. Adamson : I desire on behalf of the Labour Party to sup- port the Second Reading of this Bill. Whatever the Bill may contain with which we may not be in complete agreement, in contradistinc- tion to the sentiments so clearly expressed by the hon. Member who has just spoken, we on these benches believe that the basic principle on which the Bill rests secures for the people of Scotland the prin- ciple of self-government in connection with the control and conduct of the liquor traffic, and with that principle we are in unanimous agreement. Whether it is the conduct and control of the liquor traffic or any other matter connected with our national life, it should be left to the will of the people to decide the issue involved for the time being. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh [Mr. Clyde], in the course of a speech delivered in his usual eloquent and emphatic style, informed the House that, so far as he personally was con- cerned, if ever he had an opportunity of exercising his vote in con- 126 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL nection with this measure, he would vote every time in favour of the " no change '' option. I could not help thinking that if the circum- stances under which the hon. Member lived had been less favourable, if he had had to live in the circumstances in which many of the Scottish people, particularly the workers, are placed, if he had had to live in a locality surrounded by too many licensed houses, it would h.ave had some weight with him before he gave expression in such an emphatic manner to that intention. I venture to suggest — I am sorry the hon. Member is not in his place — that if he had lived under cir- cumstances such as I have described, that he would be like us, who claim on behalf of our people the right to have some say in the con- ditions that obtain in the locality where we live, and it should not be left entirely to those who desire the opportunity of saying whether or not they desire to drink. As a Scottish Member I am pleased that this Bill gives us the means of making some progress in the direction of temperance reform. I thought before we heard some of the speeches which have been delivered to-day, that in all parts of the House there was a considerable measure of agreement, at least so far as the various sections of the Scottish Members were concerned. As a matter of fact the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment to the Second Reading of this Bill last year professed to be strongly in favour of temperance reform. The hon. Member for East Renfrew- shire, in moving the Amendment, said : " I am ready to admit that in Scotland there is great room for iniprovcment in the direction of the control of the trade, and for advance in the direction of temperance." The hon. Member for Camlachie, who seconded it, said: " We on this side of the House take as serious a view as hon. Members opposite of the evils of intemperance." The speeches delivered to-day from the opposite side have not been as sympathetic towards temperance reform as those I have just quoted. There is no shadow of doubt but that for a long number of years the question of local option has played an important part in nearly every Parliamentary contest in Scotland. It would be too much for me to claim that the whole of the Scottish people are in complete accord with the provisions contained in this Bill. But as a step in the right direction I think there is no doubt but that a majority of the Scottish people are ready to accept the Bill. There COMMONS [June 20, 1 913] SECOND READING 127 are other good reasons why I personally, as one who has been keenly interested in temperance reform, support this Bill. There are two reasons which I think are of as much importance from the stand- point of labour, as from the general democratic principle contained in the Bill. The first is that because of the great amount of damage that is done to the physical well-being of a considerable section of our people this Bill is of great importance. We believe that the greatest asset that any nation can be possessed of is a healthy race of men and women, well able to fulfil the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, a race of men and women'fable to enjoy life with a minimum of pain and with the greatest amount of pleasure. My second personal reason for supporting this Bill is because I believe that the money invested in the liquor traffic brings a very poor return in the shape of wages to the workers. We on these benches do not believe that the drink traffic is the greatest cause of poverty. We hold the opinion that the greatest cause of poverty is the unequal distribution of the wealth earned by the country. At the same time we are strongly of opinion that the money invested in the liquor traffic brings less return in the shape of wages than an equal amount invested in any other industry. For these reasons and on behalf of the party which I represent, I support the Second Reading of this Bill, and hope that it will be passed. Mr. Sherwell : I am not sure that I should have attempted to intervene in the course of this Debate this afternoon — which I do not regard as the critical Debate in connection with the future of this measure — but for the misgiving that if I do not frankly state or restate my attitude concerning this Bill my position and attitude may be seriously misjudged elsewhere. May I at the very outset express quite plainly my personal regret that we have not had a fuller attend- ance of the Cabinet at this Debate. I do not say that with one shadow of disrespect either to the important position held by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, or for the influence and position of his right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate. But I express my regret that we have not had a more abundant and influential representation of the Cabinet at this Debate because this measure happens to present the first real test of the Parliament Act since it came into operation. It is a mere accident of circumstances that the particular Bill which is to furnish the first efficient test of 128 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL the Parliament Act is the question of temperance. I wish to say quite frankly that the position I take up on this point this afternoon is precisely the position I should take up if the measure before the House dealt with any other subject than that of Licensing reform. It is perfectl}' well known to the House that so far as the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill are concerned, there can be no sort of use in prolonging discussion or any shrinking from the effective uses of the powers of the Parliament Act in reference to either of these two measures. But in this particular case we happen to be dealing with a set of circumstances which it seems to me were specificall}' contemplated by the Prime Minister in the course of the Debates of this House upon the Parliament Act. The Prime Minister and his colleagues again and again were careful to assure the House that under the powers of the Parliament Act the opportunities presented to another place for exercising delay, revision and amendment, would not be restricted, but would, if anything, be enlarged. Now it is an open secret that there has never been for a single day one atom of dispute, so far as the House of Lords is concerned, concerning the principle of this Bill. This is a Bill the principle of which has been accepted by both Houses. The whole dispute between the two Houses has turned upon the reasonableness or otherwise of certain proposed Amendments which everyone must admit in no way infringed the underlying and radical principle of this Bill. Therefore I very greatly regret that we should have to enter upon the further consideration of this Bill this afternoon without one word of guidance as to the novel suggestion stage at which we have been led to suppose there will be an opportunity for adjustment. I am quite in the dark, as I believe all my colleagues are in the dark, as to what this suggestion stage is to be, and when the suggestion stage is to occur, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, in moving the Second Reading, gave the House no en- lightenment as to the points which might be open to reconsideration by the Government in connection with further stages of this Bill. The position would be very easily explicable if we had any sub- stantial reason given to us for supposing that the points upon which difference has arisen between the two Houses were from a radical and essential point of view material points. 1 quite frankly admit that the Secretary for Scotland, in February COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 129 last of this year, speaking in Glasgow, referred^ to the changes suggested in another place in this Bill as changes which made the Bill absolutely useless. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman on what sort of evidence he based a very grave statement of that kind. In the speech to which I refer, in which the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase, he gave no sort of evidence to sub- stantiate the gravity of that particular statement. What actually are the material changes suggested and interpolated by the House of Lords into this particular measure ? I select the most material and critical of these Amendments. The first, as we have been reminded, was the extension of the time limit from five years to ten years, and we have heard to-day for the first time, in perfectly definite and explicit language from the Lord Advocate, that in his view, at least, this extension he, for one, speaking for himself, could not consider favourably for a single moment. I am not here to say one word either for or against that particular Amendment extending the time limit from five to ten years, but does the right hon. Gentleman suggest seriously to this House that that particular Amendment made by the House of Lords makes this particular Bill absolutely useless, to quote his own words ? Even if the time limit be extended from five to ten years, the operative powers of the Bill with regard to local veto and clubs, and so forth, remain precisely as they are to-day. But, as a matter of fact, is it really the case that the Government have never been prepared in this Bill to reconsider the question of the term of the time limit ? Is it really the fact that the Secretary for Scotland himself has never contemplated the possibility of a reasonable ex- tension of the time limit in reference to the option of local veto ? In a previous Debate is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan [Mr. Eugene Wason] expressed his per- sonal willingness to consider an extension of the time limit ? Is it not a fact that the hon. Member who represents one of the divisions of Aberdeen, to whom tlie promoters of this Bill are under a deep obligation for what he has done in previous years in regard to this nieasure, speaking as a representative Scottish Member, stated that he was prepared, in order to secure the passage of the Bill, to contemplate a time limit of eight or ten years ? What I protest against is that the right hon. Gentleman should refer to an Amend- ment of that kind as one which would make the Bill absolutely I i;30 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL useless to the people of Scotland. Is it a wrecking Amendment ? It may be expedient or inexpedient ; it may be just or unjust, but is the extension of the time limit proposed by the House of Lords a wrecking Amendment, or one that makes the Bill absolutely useless ? Take another Amendment. There was the insurance scheme inserted in another place, which, in all its essentials and broad features, followed the lines of the insurance scheme inserted in this Bill, I am not an advocate of the scheme of compulsory insurance. The insertion or otherwise of such a scheme is quite immaterial from the point of view of the interests which I personally may have in this Bill, but I have alwa3's been prepared to support proposals for compulsor}' insurance on precisely the same ground as the Lord Advocate himself was prepared to support it. In my judgment the inclusion of such an arrangement would be a most substantial advance in regard to the options of this Bill. Will the Secretary for Scotland tell the House that he regards the inclusion of the insurance scheme as an Amendment which makes the Bill useless ? Let me take that which, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, is a most important option in the Bill, the option of local veto. What change did the other place make as regards that ? The Radical provision in that option is unquestionably the proposal that a fixed proportion of 30 per cent, of the electors must vote before the veto can be carried. That is a most important provision in the Clause relating to a no-licence proposal. The House of Lords left that entirely un- touched. What they did was to substitute two-thirds for three-fifths as the number of those who voted in favour. [Cheers.] Do my right hon. Friend and hon. Members who cheer that remark really think that the difference between two-thirds and three-fifths con- stitutes a wrecking Amendment, and makes the Bill absolutely useless ? I respectfully submit that there is no seriousness in a proposition of that kind. Three-fifths may be better than two- thirds, but it is immaterial because the governing factor is the proportion of the electorate which you require to endorse the vote. If anybody suggests that the difference is important, then I confess that I do not take their proposal with very great seriousness. I now come to the question of the limitations. What was the alteration suggested by the House of Lords in regard to that? Under the Bill, as proposed by the Government, and as introduced, COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 181 supposing no-licence were not carried, the votes accorded to no- licence might be transferred to the credit of the votes cast for hmitation. On the whole, I am inclined to think that is a perfectly reasonable proposal. It has ahvaj's been my view that when a man votes for no-licence it must be assumed that he is in favour of limiting the number of licences. Therefore, I should not personally grudge any proposal to allow the non-effective votes cast for no-liccnce to be credited to the votes for limitation. But what is the objection taken by man}' people to that proposal ? The objection is this — and it cannot be dismissed summarily — that if you carry out an arrange- ment of that kind you give the advocates of no-licence two chances against the one chance held by the supporters of no-change. After all, that is an objection which has a certain amount of reasonable force in it, and the pressure of that reason cannot be considered in the nature of a wrecking Amendment. I turn to another proposal, which, after all, has been at the back of the minds of almost every Member who has supported this Bill this afternoon. Running through the speeches delivered here to-day by my hon. Friends there has been a concentrated opposition to the further proposal inserted in another place to enlarge the options given in this Bill by allowing an option of so-called disinterested management. That reall}'^ is the crux of the question so far as a number of my hon. Friends are concerned. Whatever view we may take concerning the merits or demerits of disinterested management, there is no man in this House who can get up and say that the extension of the option to disinterested management invades by one jot or tittle the fundamental principle of this Bill, which is to confer powers of self-government upon local communities, and I still wait for an answer to my question again and again put in this House and in the Committee upstairs. No one who pleads on democratic grounds for the extension of the power of local veto or a limitation to localities can resist the, to me, perfectly logical extension of the same principle in the direction of another restricting proposal. There is, of course, the suggestion — it has been made here again to-day — that we who support the extension of the principle of this Bill to disinterested management are not prepared to give to localities freedom to increase the number of licences. As a matter of fact, I have no very great feeling on the subject at all, hut I should unhesitatingly vote against 132 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL any such proposal, on the ground that it is incompatible with the fundamental principle of this Bill. The object of this Bill is a restricting object ; and it cannot be said that you can logically apply a restricting principle to the extension of the facilities for the sale of liquor. Therefore, there is no gravamen in the suggestion that some of us who advocate the extension of the principle of local self- government are not prepared to give to localities the power of increasing the number of licences. One hon. Member asked : What about municipalisation ? The question of municipalisation was never put to the vote at any stage in the progress of this Bill. I have always said, and I say it again to-day, that I have no fear of municipalisation under certain conditions. So long as my hon. Friend or any pro- poser of municipalisation — I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division [Mr. Barnes] proposed it — safeguard two condi- tions, I have not the least objection personally to giving localities the power of municipalising the liquor traffic. But it would be in my judgment contrary to the objects of this Bill to give the localities the power of municipalising the traffic by allowing the profits made from it to be allocated to the relief of the local ratepa^'ers. My impression is, and long has been, that to allow a form of munici- pal. sation under which local rates will be relieved by the profits of the liquor traffic would be fatal as an obstacle to the objects sought to be obtained by this particular proposal. No one has suggested here that disinterested management in itself is undesirable. The hon. Member for Wick Burghs [Mr. Munro] invited us to introduce a special Bill dealing with the whole United Kingdom, and thereby seemed to betray a somewhat curious idea of the English and Welsh Licensing Laws. But no one has suggested that disinterested management is itself undesirable. But it has been suggested again and again in connection with this Debate that it is inconsistent with the particular framework and proposals of this Bill. When the question was debated here last the only real objection brought by the right hon. Gentleman against the proposal was that the particular scheme inserted in another place was unworkable. I agreed to some extent with that criticism, but I also felt that in co-operation with the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley [Sir T. P. Whittaker] anything unworkable in the details of the scheme could have been rectified in half an hour. We are told with the utmost confidence by my hon. COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 133 Friends that the people of Scotland are opposed to disinterested management — thehon. Member for the Tradeston Division speaking of theopposition as being unanimous on the part of the people of Scotland. Mr. Dundas White : I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I did not speak of unanimity ; I spoke of a " strong majority." Mr. Sherwell : I accept the correction of my hon. Friend, but I happen to have in my notes in inverted commas the phrase '' unanimously in favour," and a further phrase, " No support what- ever in Scotland for disinterested management." My right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan [Mr. Eugene Wason] said the people of Scotland did not care twopence for disinterested manage- ment. There cannot therefore be a very active organised opposition to it. When my hon. Friends refer to " the people of Scotland," whom do they mean ? Is there any hon. Member who has spoken on behalf of the people of Scotland to-day who has any title or right to speak for the people of Scotland? My hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs used that phrase. Does he pretend that the electors of Wick Burghs have always been on the side of these proposals in this House ? Is the history of that particular con- stituency any testimony of the favour in which these proposals are held by the people of Scotland ? Did he secure election for that constituency on the merits of this particular proposal ? Mr. Munro : I put it in the forefront of my speeches, and, I think, of my election address. Mr. Sherwell : Is my hon. Friend entitled to speak of the opposition to disinterested management as a matter of ancient history ? His connection with that constituency is a recent one, and it is certainly a tribute to his powers of persuasion that he has converted the electors on this particular question. May I ask my hon. Friend how he interprets the General Election of 1900 ? I believe that, so far as the Scottish representation went, there was a Unionist majority of two in the 1900 Parliament. Is it to be supposed that in 1900 the people of Scotland were overwhelmedly against this Bill, and that since 1900 they have been overwhelmedly in favour of it ? Let me take another fact. Who are the people of Scotland for whom my hon. Friends speak with such confidence ? I notice that at the recent assembly of the Church of Scotland last month the proposal was referred to in this way : 134 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL ** The option of disinterested management was one of which the General Assembly had for many years expressed approval, and the committee, therefore, could not but regard as satis- factory the addition of this option to the Bill in the House of Lords." That recommendation of the Temperance Committee of the Church of Scotland was unanimously endorsed by the General Assembly. Mr. Dancan Millar : May I interrupt the hon. Member with regard to a question of fact ? There was substantial dissent in the Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Although it did not go to a vote, there was dissent expressed. Mr. Sherwell : It would be very difficult to find any assembly in the world in which, in any discussion upon the temperance question, there would not be some notes of dissent. But it is an important record that the Church of Scotland has for years passed a resolution in favour of disinterested management. I would remind the House that the Church of Scotland has 715,000 members, and represents at least one-half of the religious life of Scotland. Are my hon. Friends prepared to say that the Church of Scotland, representing one-half of the religious life of Scotland, is not entitled to consideration in this matter, and that the only voices that can tell in connection with a decision of this kind are the voices of those parts of the electors who vote for them ? My hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs gave the whole situation away a moment or two ago, when he said that the members of the temperance organisations were the backbone of the Progressive party in Scotland. If instead of the Progressive party he had said the Liberal party, I would have agreed with him. The point illuminates the whole situation in reference to this par- ticular proposal. Those who are opposing any extension of the principle of local self-government in the direction of disinterested management are the officials and committees of certain prohibitionist organisations in Scotland and in England. The best prohibitionist workers in Scotland happen to be also the best Liberal workers in the constituencies so well represented by my hon. Friends. I quite appreciate the difficulty and delicacy of the electoral position of so many of my hon. Friends when they are quite responsive, and properly responsive, to the electoral pressure exercised by some of the best workers in their constituencies. But I want my hon. COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 135 Friends to remember that although they are justly entitled to claim that they are voicing the opinions and judgment of those who at the polling-booths have recorded their votes for them, they are not justified, on the strength of that support, in claiming to speak for the whole of the Scottish nation. I also claim to have some knowledge of the opinion of Scotland upon this matter, and I say quite frankly and emphatically that it is an entire illusion for any hon. Member to suggest that there is no strong body of opinion in Scotland itself in favour of an extension of the principle of this Bill in the direction to which I have referred. I am not going to argue the question further to-day. I do sincerely regret that upon this occasion, the first real testing time of the powers of the Parliament Act, we should have had no enlightenment given us concerning the way in which these powers are to be applied to this and other measures. Those of us who supported the Parliament Act have a right to expect that it shall not be used as an instrument for forcing upon the Statute Book Bills which are not complete or in the judgment of many who are otherwise inclined to support them, not adequate as solutions. I certainly hope that before this Bill passes again to another place the Government will see to it that they keep the spirit as well as the letter of the provisions of the Parliament Act by giving this House some fair and just opportunity of recon- sidering some of the questions which are at issue between ourselves and another place. Mr. McKinnon Wood ; I do not quite understand the complaint of my hon. Friend with regard to the Parliament Act. It is rather a curious complaint to come from that quarter, because it is not very long ago that the Prime Minister explained at this very box what the provisions of the Parliament Act were and in what manner they were to be carried out, and there is no necessity to repeat the same thing with regard to every Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman [Mr. Clyde] rather failed, with all his skill, to conceal the hollowness of the position taken up by hon. Members opposite. There are two points they make, first of all that this is a Bill which ought not to come under the Parliament Act, and secondly, that it is a Bill in regard to which all sides were agreed in principle. Let us take the first point. I can only speak for myself, but the great ground upon which I vindicated the Parliament Act when it was before the 136 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL electorate and before it was passed into law, was that it was absolutely necessary, if the Liberal party was to carry social reform upon Liberal principles, that we should have some means of over- riding the opposition of another place, and I think I may say that that was the line on which it was defended by most of my Friends. The idea that it was confined to constitutional questions never entered anyone's head. But it is rather interesting to find to-day that when we are dealing with Scotch temperance it is all right that the Parliament Act should apply to Irish Home Rule or Welsh Disestablishment, but it is monstrous that it should apply to Scotch temperance. I think I recollect hearing how extremely monstrous it was that it should apply to Irish Home Rule not very long ago, and how much more monstrous it was if applied to Welsh Dis- establishment. Then for what object do hon. Members think we passed that Act ? Mr. Pringle : Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the three Bills are in the same category ? Mr. McKinnon Wood : I am not called upon to make that suggestion. It is not the basis of my argument at all. Let us look at this very subject. Does anyone think, looking at the experience of 1908, not so very long ago, there is much chance under the Parliament Act of carrying legislation in another place? It is one of the very cases brought forward on every Liberal platform to support the Parliament Act. It was perfectly hopeless to carry Liberal legislation, so great was the strength of the trade and so great its influence in another place. That was the argument we brought forward. That that argument should be used for the Liberal side suggesting that this is not a proper thing to come under the Parliament Act fills me with the most utter amazement. Mr. Sherwell : I made no such suggestion. What I said and what I strongly insisted was that the Parliament Act ought not to be applied arbitrarily to this until a fair opportunity had been given to see if agreement could not be arrived at. Mr. McKinnon Wood : That is quite another question. That is a question of policy. This is a question of whether there is a chance of getting an agreement. I wish to know what offer has been made. What suggestion has come from the House of Lords for an agreement ? The House of Lords made an enormous COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 137 number of Amendments in the Bill. They have never offered to meet me on this Bill if 1 would accept some simple change. Never! The hon. Member for Huddersfield challenged me as to the justification I had for saying that this Bill was useless after the Amendments of the Lords. 1 confess that he went through the Amendments, or some of them, and he did so quite fairly. What were they ? They altered the proportion of votes necessary to carry the veto. Has anybody appreciated the difficulty of getting a three-fifths majority ? Who of us would like to be required to get a three-fifths majority in order to get returned to this House ? Will it be any more easy to get that majority under this proposal with all the wealth and influence that can be brought to bear against its operation ? It was proposed to raise it to two-thirds, so that nothing was more important from my point of view. Then there was the power as to reducing the number of licences. I am sure there is hardly anyone in the House who will not admit that there are many districts in which there are too many licences. The power of reduction and limitation is one of the most valuable powers in the Bill, and I say that was destroyed by the Lords Amendment, because the Lords would not allow the votes given for the veto to be trans- ferred to be the milder option of reduction. I challenge anybody to contradict me when I say that you never would have carried Veto under the Lords Amendment, and certainly you would never have carried reduction. That is what I call making the Bill useless. Perhaps the hon. Member for Huddersfield does not believe in the veto. His votes have been a little varied. I think that Amendment of the Lords strikes at a vital principle of the Bill. A most re- markable thing in this Debate to-day which must have struck everybody was the hoUowness of the arguments on the other side. Member after Member rose and with great emphasis — it was put skilfully by the hon. and learned Member [Mr. Clyde] — said that, they were all agreed in principle, and then they said that they utterly abhorred the principle of the Bill, and declared, " If we have the chance under the options of the Bill, we shall vote for ' No change.' " That is to make the Bill of no eflfect. We know that they dislike the Bill. There is not a single Member opposite who did not say so. We know that the Bill is disliked by the trade. We 138 TEMPERAXCE(SCOTL AND) BILL know that it is detested by the trade, not only in Scotland but in England. Mr. Clyde : 1 never said one single word, nor was any word I addressed to the House inspired in any shape or form by any special brief for anybody. Mr. McKinnon Wood : What the hon. and learned Gentleman said was that they were agreed in principle, but that they disliked the principle of the Bill. It is not that they dislike disinterested management so much, but that they hate local option the more. I hope that opinion is not uncharitable. Disinterested management has been supported by people who do not care for it because they think it is the simplest method of killing the Bill. Three Members have referred to what they called a tremendous scene in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs told a beautiful story about the Prime Minister, who v/as appealed to in the bath- room, hurriedly giving a wrong decision. I can assure the hon. Member that is a pure myth. Sir G. Younger : I said he gave a different decision to what he would have given if he had been in the House. Mr. McKinnon Wood : Does my hon. Friend assert that it was in the bathroom ? Sir G. Younger : Certainly. I was told he was in his bath. He would not have done it if he was in the House. Mr. McKinnon Wood : I am glad to be able to reassure my hon. Friend on that point. He was not in his bathroom. I mention that picturesque detail to show how fables grow, because a lot of fables have gone round about this scene. He was in an adjoining room. Man after man arose, in denunciation of the Government I suppose, and let me remind my hon. Friend who knows all about the circumstances of that afternoon that it was understood for the convenience of hon. Members opposite that we were to deal with that Bill in a particular time. The advocates of the Bill restrained them- selves and did not take part in the Debate. Therefore it was undoubtedly that three or four Members who opposed the Bill rose and spoke one after the other, but the hon. Member knows quite well why that happened. What was the result of this extraordinary scene ? It was that the Motion, from the view of the Government, was supported by a majority of J 17, and in that majority there was COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 139 the enormous number of four Scottish Liberal Members. I am told that I steam-rolled my friends. That is another myth. Sir G. Younger : I did not say that. Mr. McKinnon Wood : 1 did not say you said it. Other people have spoken this afternoon. It was said this afternoon that the action of the Government on that particular question was in accordance with the decision at which the Scottish Members had arrived, and before expressing their opinion on the subject they communicated to me as representing the Government. So little was it a personal matter, as has been attempted to be made out. The hon. Member for the Camlachie Division advanced a very curious argument. He said that the mutual insurance scheme was unsound. That is the scheme which the Amendment asks us to accept. I can imagine, if the Government had put forward a scheme like that, what the publicans or the representatives of the publicans would have said about it, and how we should have been denounced from one end of Scotland to the other as putting forward a bogus scheme, a delusive mockery and so on, and I think it would have been perfectly justified. In the whole course of the Debate there has been nothing save vague generalities about enlarging option and finding compensation for the persons who are dispossessed. There was not a single Member to rise and say, " We think that the scheme put forward by the House of Lords was fair and reasonable, well thought out, and one which we could recommend this House to adopt." No one has ever recommended this House to adopt that scheme. Take the com- pulsory insurance scheme. When that was put before the House ot Lords it was rejected by them, and then another scheme was got up, and so the position has altered ever since then. I am quoted as having said that there is a strong demand for insurance in Scotland. So there is. So strong is the demand among hcence-holders that about 1200 are already insured, and that with one society. There is a society which has offered to take over all the others, if they like to come in. There is no necessity for compulsory insurance nor is there any demand for it. That is proved up to the hilt. I saw a comment from a trade source in which they denounced the very idea of compulsory insurance, and the trade are absolutely divided on the question. A very large proportion of the trade object to it, yet we jire asked to reject this Bill because the Government will not adopt UO TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL this scheme of disinterested management. On that subject there was disagreement in the House of Lords on two essential points — first, tlie element of monopoly, and, secondly, the element of com- pensation — whether disinterested management should pay compensa- tion to the publican. Lord Lansdowne and Lord Salisbury, who took great interest in the matter, objected to compensation, and made strong speeches — I think very forcible speeches. They obiected to monopoly, and made strong speeches — I think very forcible speeches. They said, what an hon. Member said here this afternoon, that it was not fair to take away licences in a district and give them to people to carry on the trade under a new and untried experiment. Other influences prevailed, and a scheme of dis- interested management was carried through with considerable difficulty. Take the question of compensation. Lord Balfour, who introduced the scheme, did not want any compensation — does not now, so far as I know. Other peers. Lord Salisbury in particular, said that compensation was fair and reasonable. I am not going to argue it. I am only saying that these are schemes which we are asked to adopt, but on which there is the gravest disagreement, in another place, as to fundamental points. Ls there agreement among the upholders of this measure? The hon. Member for East Edin- burgh, who is a joint secretary with the hon. Member [Mr. Sherwell], he does not agree about this scheme, and objects to any compensa- tion being given. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Huddersfield is in favour of it, but I am not entitled to assume that he is against it. Yet liere we are told that we must not have a Second Reading of the Bill, which has been before Scotland, the hon. Baronet says, for fifty years, at any rate for a generation ; which has been approved at General Election after General Election, with only one exception, by a large majority of Scotch representa- tives ; and those who support the majority of Scotch representatives, the Liberal associations in Scotland — even the hon. Member for Huddersfield practically admits it — have sent up resolutions of support. Are all these things to be counted for nothing ? Are we back again to the old days when the House of Commons did not count? I think the hon. and learned Gentleman unintentionally and unwittingly no doubt, brought forward evidence in favour of two things which I do not think he could support. One related to COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 141 Home Rule for Scotland, which we all agree, if Scotland had had its way, would have carried the Bill something like six years ago. [An Hon. Member : " Not a bit of it."] How do hon. Members account for the fact that Scotland returns Members who support the Bill ? Sir G. Younger : They think it less important. Mr. McKinnon Wood : I see ; that is a juggle with the mandate. Sir G. Younger : It is the fact. Mr. McKinnon Wood : Did you ever hear of a Liberal can- didate going to a Liberal association and recommending himself by stating his opposition to local option ? No. Of course that is all a quibble. It is perfectly well known that the majority of Scottish representatives are in favour of this Bill, and have been for a great many years, and in that they are supported by their constituents. We heard a great deal about Scottish opinion from the hon. Member for Huddersfield. I think the Scottish Members should know a little about it. We are heckled at meetings, and can say something about opinion in Scotland. We have to meet the people there, and to submit to close examination. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Huddersfield knows whether people in Huddersfield are in favour of disinterested management, and I really do not care whether they are or not, but I know the people of Scotland are not, and I took every means to make myself acquainted with their opinion. My hon. and learned Friend opposite [Mr. Scott Dickson] desires to address the House, and I will conclude my speech and give him an opportunity, I submit to the House that the case is not made out for rejecting this Bill. It is all very well to talk about agreement as to principles, but you have got to be agreed also in the practical carrying out of an Act of Parliament because good principles do not make up for thoroughly bad machinery. I submit to the House that the machinery of insurance and the machinery for creating a monopoly of disinterested management are not defended even by those who advocate the principle. Indeed, no attempt was made in the debate to do so, and under the circumstances I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. If the Lords have any suggestion to make to us the matter is in their hands. Of course, the Parliament Act gives the Lords many opportunities. They had the opportunity of considering the Bill last Session, and 142 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL they sent it back to us. They have another opportunity this year of making an}' proposals they choose to us, and they will have their opportunity again next year to consider the Bill, though I should have hoped this whole controversy might have been settled without farther delay. I cannot help thinking it is a bad thing, even for the trade, that this matter should be left in a state of uncertainty and unsettled for a longer time, and which, too long, has been left unsettled. Mr. Scott DickriOn : I notice that in the Second Reading Debate last year the Lord Advocate stated that he welcomed with great gladness the assurance that I and my Friends did not desire to challenge the principle of local option. That is still our position. [An Hon. Member: "Not all.''] No doubt the hen. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University [Sir H. Ciaik] said he was per- sonally not in favour of the principle. Many of us may be in that position, but we do not intend to challenge, and we expressed that distinctl}', the Second Reading of the Bill. I think the reasoned Amendment last year and this year shows it is not the principle of the Bill we are against, but the details. I should like to ask the House to note the position in which they now find themselves in with regard to this Bill so far as the Parliament Act is concerned. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, who, I think, everyone in the House will recognise, is one of the pioneers, if not the pioneer, of this kind of legislation, so far as bringing it to its present position is con- cerned, said last year, and said truly, that in his view it would be very detrimental to the best interests of temperance on both sides if this Bill were to become law under tlie Parliament Act. I think that is a very wise expression of opinion. It is significant that on the very day when we are discussing this Bill there should be put down in the name of the Prime Minister a Motion to be discussed on Monday to the effect that when we have finished our discussion to-day the Committee stage shall consist of nothing at all — "... the Chairman shall forthwith put the Question that he do report the Bill without Amendment to the House, and no other Question, and that Question shall be decided without Amendment or Debate." Therefore we have been placing at Parliament all day. It is a COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 148 farce — ^just as if little children were allowed to say, " We will have a Parliament of our own and talk about things, although we can do nothing." That is the position to which the Parliament Act has reduced the House of Commons. When the right hon. Gentle- man's refusal to consider the Lords Amendment last Session was mentioned in the House of Lords, the representative of the Govern- ment said : — "There will be in the next Session, which begins all too soon for many of us, ample opportunity for discussing the Bill. When it comes before this House again, your Lordships will be able to propose Amendments and to discuss it for such length of time as may seem desirable to you." That is a pretty contrast between the freedom of the House of Lords and the freedom of the House of Commons under your precious Parliament Act. They may propose Amendments ; we are never to have a chance of doing so. The whole Committee stage is struck out. If that is what Liberal Members commend as the result of the Parliament Act, if that is the kind of free Parliament in which they like to take part, I confess I do not agree with them. The right hon. Gentleman had the courage to say that any action of the House of Lords will only delay the Bill for another year. There are many Members, on that side as well as on this, who think that if you have to wait another year you will never have it proposed from that side of the House. Nothing shows that more conclusively than the fixed determination of the Government that there shall be no resignations or elections, general or otherwise, if they can avoid it, and the sporting offer of my hon. Friend will not be accepted in Clackmannan or elsewhere. Question put, ** That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided; Ayes, 248; Noes, 135. AYES Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Acland, Francis Dyke Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Adamson, William Barnes, George N. Ainsworth, John Stirling Barton, William Alden, Percy Beale, Sir William Phipson Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) Beauchamp, Sir Edward Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Benn, W. \V. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Bentham, G. J. U4 TEMPEKAXCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Black, Arthur W. Boland, John Pius Booth. Frederick Handel Bradv, P. J. Brocklehurst, W. B. Brunner, John F. L. Brj-ce, J., Annan Burke, E. Haviland- Burns, Rt. Hon. John Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Byles. Sir William Pollard Carr-Gomm, H. W. Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Hey wood) Chancellor, Henry George Chappie, Dr. William Allen Clancy, John Joseph Clough, William Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Condon, Thomas Joseph Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Cotton, William Francis Cowan, W. H. Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Crooks, William Crumley, Patrick Cullinan, John Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) Dawes, James Arthur Delanj-, William Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Dillon, John Donelan, Captain A. Doris, William Duffy, William J. Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Essex, Sir Richard Walter Esslemont, George Birnie Falconer, James Farrell, James Patrick Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Ffrench, Peter Fitzgibbon, John Flavin, Michael Joseph Gill, A. H. Gladstone, W. G. C. Glanville, Harold James Goldstone, Frank Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Greig, Colonel J. W. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Griffith, Ellis Jones Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke ) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Hackett, J. Hancock, John George Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Havelock-Alan, Sir Henry Hayden, John Patrick Hayward, John Evan Hazleton, Richard Healy, Maurice (Cork) Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W ) Higham, John Sharp Hinds, John Hodge, John Hogg, David C. Holmes, Daniel Turner Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Hughes, Spencer Leigh Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) John, Edward Thomas Johnson, W. Jones, Rt. Hon. SirD.Brynmor(Swansea) Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Jones, WUliam S. Glyn- (Stepney) Jowett, Frederick William Joyce, Michael Keating, Matthew Kellaway, Frederick George Kelly, Edward Kennedy, Vincent Paul Kilbride, Denis King, Joseph Lambert.Rt.Hon.G. (Devon, S.Molton) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Lardner, James C. R. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Lundon, Thomas Lynch, A. A. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) McGhee, Richard Maclean, Donald Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Macpherson, James Ian MacVeagh, Jeremiah M'Callum, Sir John M. M'Curdy, Charles Albert COMMONS [June 20, 1913] SECOND READING 145 McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald M'Laren.Hon.F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding) Manfield, Harry Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Marks, Sir George Croydon Marshall, Arthur Harold Martin, Joseph Mason, David M. (Coventry) Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Meagher, Michael Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Menzies, Sir Walter Millar, James Duncan MoUoy, Michael Molteno, Percy Alport Mooney, J. J. Morgan, George Hay Morrell, Philip Morison, Hector Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Muldoon, John Munro, Robert Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. Neilson, Francis Nolan, Joseph Norton, Captain Cecil W. Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Nuttall, Harry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) O'Brien, William (Cork) O'Doherty, Philip O'Dowd, John O'Grady, James O" Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) O'Malley, William O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. O'Shee, James John O'SuUivan, Timothy Outhwaite, R. L. Palmer, Godfrey Mark Parker, James (Halifax) Parry, Thomas H. Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Pointer, Joseph Ponsonljy, Arthur A. W. H. Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Pringle, William INI. R. Radford, G. H. Raff an, Peter Wilson Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Reddy, Michael Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Richards, Thomas Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigs) Robinson, Sidney Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Roche, Augustine (Louth) Roe, Sir Thomas Rowlands, James Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Scanlan, Thomas Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Sheehy, David Shortt, Edward Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe) Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Snowden, Philip Soames, Arthur Wellesley Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Sutherland, John E. Sutton, John E. Tennant, Harold John Thomas, J. H. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Toulmin, Sir George Trevelyan, Charles Philips Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Wadsworth, J. Wardle, George J. Waring, Walter Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Webb, H. Wedgwood, Josiah C. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) White, Patrick (Meath, North) Whitehouse, John Howard Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. Whyte, A. F. (Perth) Wiles, Thomas Williams, J. (Glamorgan) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) Wing, Thomas Wood.Rt.Hon.T.McKinnon (Glasgow) Young, W^illiam. (Perthshire, East) Yoxall, Sir James Henry Tellers for the Ayes. lUingworth and Mr. Gulland. -Mr. UC TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL NOES Agg-Gardner. James Tvnte Amery. L. C. M. S. AnstrutluT-Grav, Major William Ashley, \V. W. ' Baird, J. L. Baker. Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Baldwin, Stanley Balfour. Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) Banbury. Sir Frederick George Baring. Ma j. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Barns^on, Harry Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Bigland, Alfred Blair, Reginald Boles, Lieut. -Colonel Dennis Fortescue Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Grififith- Boyle, Willam (Norfolk, Mid) Bridgeman, W. Clive Burdett-Coutts, W. Burgoyne, A. H. Burn, Colonel C. R. Butcher, J. G. Campion, W. R. Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Cassel, Felix Castlereagh, Viscount Cator, John Cave, George Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Cecil, Lord'R. (Herts, Hitchen) Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Clyde, J. Avon Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Courthope, George Loyd Craik, Sir Henry Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Croft. H. P. Dalrymplc, Viscount Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Denison-Pender, J. C. Denniss, E. R. B. Dewar, Sir J. A. Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Dm Cros, Arthur Philip Eyres- Monsell, B. M. Falle, Bertram Godfray Fell, Arthur Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Fleming, Valentine Forster. Hcnr>- William Gardner, Ernest Gastrell, Major W. H. Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. Goldman, C. S. Goulding, Edward Alfred Gretton, John Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) Gwynnc, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Haddock, George Bahr Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Henderson, Major 1 1. (Berks, Abingdon) Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) Hewins, William Albert Samuel Hope, Harry (Bute) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Hope, ]\Iajor J. A. (Midlothian) Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Ingleby, Holcombe Keswick, Henry Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Lane Fox, G. R. Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Lee, Arthur H. Lewisham, Viscount Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay) Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Mackinder, H. J. Macmaster, Donald Malcolm, Ian Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Newdegate, F. A. Newman, John R. P. Newton, Harry Kottingham Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Nield, Herbert Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Paget, Almeric Hugh Perkins, Walter F. Pollock, Ernest Murray Pretyman, Ernest George Rawlinson, J. F. P. Rawson, Col. R. H. Remnant, James Farquharson Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail) Rothschild, Lionel de Royds, Edmund Salter, Arthur Clavell Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) Sanderson, Lancelot Smith, Harold (Warrington) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Starkey, John R. Staveley-Hill, Henry Steel-Maitland, A. D. Stewart, Gershom Strauss, Arthur (Paddington North) Swift, Rigby Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) Terrell, G. W. (Wilts, N.W.) COMMONS [June 23, 19i:J] PROCEDURE 147 Terrell, H. (Gloucester) Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) Tobin, Alfred Aspinall Wood, John (Stalybridge) Walrond, Hon. Lionel Worthington- Evans, L. Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart- Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, JM ::) Yate, Colonel Charles Edward Wheler, Granville C. H. Younger, Sir George White, Major G. D. (Lane . f outhport) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.) Tellers for the Noes. — Lord Wills, Sir Gilbert Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Wolmer, Viscount Pease. Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next (23rd June). — [Mr. McKmnon Wood.'] June 23, 1913. {Official Debates. Vol. liv.) PROCEDURE MOTION. The Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) : I beg to move : " (i) That on the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill, the Established Church (Wales) Bill, and the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, the Chairman shall forthwith put the Question that he do report the Bill without Amendment to the House, and no other Question, and that Question shall be decided without Amend- ment or Debate. * H: * (6) On a day in which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House." The Motion, I am perfectly sure, carries out the procedure which I have on more than one occasion, particularly on the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, outlined to the House. . . . . This Resolution, although I agree novel in form, is really the necessary consequence of the provisions of the Parliament Act. In this the second Session in which the three Bills referred to have come under consideration, we have had the question before us whether or not they should be read a second time and debated under the ordinary conditions of Parliamentary procedure. I think that in only one of 148 TEMrEKAXCE (SCOTLAND) BILL the three cases — there has been no allocation of time regarding any of them — was it necessar}' to move the Closure. These three Bills in this the second Session they have been before the House of Commons, have been respectively carried on the Second Reading by majorities of 98, 99, and 113. 1 think, without going into any of the more con- troverted questions, that seems to show that they still receive the support of overwhelming majorities of this House as far as the prin- ciple of each Bill is concerned. Assuming that under the Parliament Act a Bill which has passed through this House in all its stages in the first Session and has been rejected by the House of Lords either, as was the case with two of the Bills on the Second Reading, or, as was the case with the third, that tlie Amendments made by the House of Lords were not assented to by the House of Commons — assuming that these three Bills coming here a second time in the second Session have been carried, as they have been, on the Second Reading, what is the procedure under these conditions which is con- templated and prescribed by the Parliament Act? To come under the operation of that Act when they go up a second time to the House of Lords they must be the same Bills as those which received the assent of the House of Commons in the earlier Session. In other words, they cannot take advantage, if that be the right expression to use, of the provisions of tlie Act unless they are identical as they leave this Hoi se in the second Session with the Bills which left the House in the first Session. Anything, therefore, which destroys that identity prevents the Bills, or any of them, from coming under the operation of the Parliament Act. Let me remind the House of the language of the Act itself. Section 2, Sub-section (4), in so far as it is material, is in these terms : "A Bill shall be deemed to be the same Bill as a former Bill sent up to the House of Lords in the preceding Session if, when it is sent up to the House of Lords, it is identical with the former Bill or con- tains only such alterations as are certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former Bill, or to represent any .Amendments which have been made by the House of Lords in the former Bill in the preceding Session. . . ." So that, subject to these exceptions, namel_y, the formal alterations of dates ."'ud the acceptance of Amendments made by the House of COMMONS [June 23, 1913] PKOCEDURE 149 Lords, the Bill as it goes up to that House a second time must be in the strictest sense of the term identical with the Bill which passed this House in the preceding Session. If that is so — and clearly it was within the contemplation of the framers of the Act and of Par- liament that passed it — a Committee stage in the ordinary sense of a Committee stage, except for agreed Amendments, cannot have been contemplated as part of the normal procedure on Bills to come under the Act. It is quite obvious, and it is admitted already, that it would be a waste of Parliamentary time to propose Amendments which ex hypolhesi cannot be adopted without destroying the identity of the Bill, and that clearly was contemplated when the Parliament Act was passed. But at the same time I must lay stress upon this : It was part not only of our expressed intentions when we supported the Parliament Act as a Bill in its passage through this House, but it was part of the declared policy of the Act itself that there should be an opportunity, if the House desired — there was that limitation — both in the second and in the third Sessions for submitting and discussing, and it might be for Divisions, in the House of Commons, changes in the Bill consistent with its governing purpose and seen upon reflection to be improvements, either as correcting inadvertencies and mistakes, or as mollifying and making more acceptable its substantial provisions. It was for that reason, not by way of Amendment while the Bill was passing through the House, but as part of the original proposals of the Government, that the proviso to Sub-section (4), Section 2, was inserted. That proviso is as follows : " Provided that the House of Commons may, if they think fit, on the passage of such a Bill through the House in the second or third Session, suggest any further Amendments without inserting the Amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested Amendments shall be considered by the House of Lords, and if agreed to by that House, shall be treated as Amendments made by the House of Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons ; but the exercise of this power by the House of Commons shall not affect the operation of this section in the event of the Bill being rejected by the House of Lords." You have therefore in that provision an enactment to this effect, that Amendments which in the case of our normal procedure in regard to ordinary Bills could only be made in Commiltee will, without actual 1.50 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL incorporation in the Bill, without destroying its identity with the Bill previously passed, be taken in the second or third Session and be presented by this House b}' wa}' of suggestion to the other House. I know it will be said that in this Resolution that I am about to propose we are destroying, not only the Committee stage but the opportunity of discussing details, but what I have said is a complete answer to that argument. [Hon. Mkmibers : "No."] I agree that it would not be a complete answer if it had been contemplfited or intended that in the second and third Sessions these Bills should gothrough the ordinary procedure of the Committee kind through which they have already gone most carefull}' and laboriously. [Hon. Members : " No."] Yes, line by line, and word by word. [Hon. Members : "No."] And, be it observed, exposed to Amendments, the intention, avowedly or thinly. disavowed, was not to improve the Bill, but to wreck it altogether. I remember I quoted before, a speech made at a time when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was sitting on these benches, by one of the greatest Parliamentarians who ever sat in this House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and in that speech, in reference to this very matter, he says that you must dis- tinguish between the two classes of Amendments, those which accepting the principle of a Bill, are designed to modify or to improve its practical working, and Amendments which, though they appear because they are made in Committee, to proceed upon the assumption that the principle of the Bill as passed upon Second Reading is being assented to, are Amendments, the object of which is to wreck it, destroy its effect, and make it unworkable. Nobody who has followed the course of our proceedings with regard to, say, the Irish Govern- ment Bill, which I take as an example, and, least of all, the authors of the Bill, can doubt that many of the Amendments proposed were of this character. I am not complaining of this. It is a perfectly recognised form of Parliamentary procedure. We have resorted to it in the old days, and very likely we shall resort to it again. [Hon. Members: "Very soon."] I do not care whether it is sooner or later. As far as I am concerned, it may be soon or late. I will not say that. I should not be sorry if within a measurable distance we had an opportunity of showing what we can do, but I go back to what was said .so truly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham as to those two classes of Parliamentary Amend- COMMONS [June 23, 1913] PROCEDURE 151 ments which everybody recognises as being within the aciinow- ledged categories of Parliamentary procedure. It was certainly never intended under the Parliament Act to expose a Bill which had gone through the whole of this procedure to a similar ordeal in the second and third Session. It was intended to give the Mouse of Commons, if they chose to take advantage, full opportunity in the second Session by way of suggested Amendment, to improve the Bill and correct the Bill consistently with its governing provision, without being incorporated in it, to accompany it when it passed this House and be submitted for the judgment of the House of Lords, and that procedure we have been careful to keep alive by the Motion which we have before the House. Of course, it follows thai if the Com- mittee stage does not take place there is no Report stage. There is one other matter. Mr. Austen Chamberlain : 1 beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. Before he passes from that point, when he speaks of keep- ing alive that procedure does he refer to specific words in the Reso- lution or to the absence of words ? The Prime Minister : The absence of any words. It is a new procedure. I have told the House exactly what I mean. Each Bill has now been read a second time. If the right hon. Gentleman now puts down any Motion suggesting an Amendment to any one of these three Bills or any number of Motions to that effect are put down, the Government will certainly consider it to be their duty, if they thought that the Amendments fairly fall within the description which I have given, that is if they are not merely wrecking Amendments, but Amendments accepting the principle of the Bill Viscount Hehnsley : The exclusion of Ulster? The Prime Minister : Will the Noble Lord put down an Amend- ment ? If so, we will certainly consider whether it falls within that category or not. But Amendments which are consistent with the principle of the Bill may be put down on the Paper as a Motion and the Government will then consider it, and, subject to the confidence of this House, they will have power to say how many days shall be given to that Resolution. That will not be any part of the procedure of the Bill. The Government will consider to what extent the opinion of the House of Commons ought to be invited on the question. 152 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Ml". William O-Brien : Have the Government made up their mind not to make any suggestions themselves ? The Prime Minister : The Government will not make sugges- tions themselves. So far as they know, these Bills in their present form adequately represent their view. Lord Hugh Cecil : Will it be before or after the Third Reading ? The Prime Minister : Before. Mr. Austen Chamberlain : One other question. Do I gather from what the right lion. Gentleman says that the Government are to be judges in reference to any suggestion which is to be put down, whether the sense of the House should or should not be taken on any suggestion, or will the Government undertake to give an opportunity for the sense of the House to be taken on all suggestions ? The Prime Minister : No, obviously that would be a new Committee stage of Amendment by way of suggestions. We do not believe that it is the intention of the Parliament Act or within the scope of its spirit. With regard to what the Noble Lord asked me, I certainly think that all the suggestions ought to be before and not after the Third Reading, because it might very much affect the judg- ment of individual Members as to whether they should vote for the Bill or vote against it on the Third Reading. I am giving credit to the Noble Lord of having an open mind on some points. Therefore the time for suggestions ought to come before the Bill is presented to this House for a Ihird Reading, as it might affect his judgment as to whether he should vote for or against the Third Reading. There is one other point in this Resolution which calls for a word of remark, and that is, the provision which it contains in regard to finance. The House will observe that as regards that, we propose to give to the case of the Irish Bill — the question does not arise on the Scottish Temperance Bill as to which there is no Financial Resolution — if it is desired, a Parliamentary day, and in regard to the Welsh Bill, where the Financial Resolution is of minor importance, three hours, which is very nearly half a Parliamentary day, for the discussion in Com- mittee of the Financial Resolutions. It may be said, " Why, after what you have said about the Committee, should it be proposed to give that ? Is it not unnecessary ? " I think not. When a Bill is read a second time in this House some of the Clauses cannot, accord- ing to our procedure, be embodied in an Act of Parliament unless they are founded, at some stage or others, on a Financial Resolution COMMONS [June 23, 1913] PROCEDURE 153 in Committee. The assent of the House to the Second Reading must always be taken as subject to that quahfication. In old days — I am not quite sure that it is not so now — these Clauses would appear in italics, and it has always been the rule of the House, and it is still part of the recognised and normal procedure of the House, that the Clauses which depend upon a Financial Resolution should not be considered till that Resolution has been passed. We there- fore think it right, in the Welsh Bill, where these Financial Clauses are very few, and in the Irish Bill, where they are considerable and substantial, to give to the House on the Financial Resolution in Committee the opportunity for what I may call a Second Reading Debate in reference to those financial provisions. The Report stage, if the House agrees to the Government Resolution, we propose shall be merely formal — that is to say, that the Question shall be put from the Chair and simply be, '* That the House doth agree with the Com- mittee in the said Resolution." [Hon. Members: " Hear, hear."] I thought I should hear a certain amount of protest against that. That was the proposal, let me remind the Noble Lord, which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London when he was Leader of the House, in regard to all Financial Resolutions. One of the rules in his new code of procedure, which unfortunately was never reached — otherwise, the Government would have escaped a certain amount of their present difiiculties — was that in all cases the Report stage of Financial Resolutions — I am not, of course, speaking of the Budget, but of ordinary Bills — should be taken merely as a formal stage, and that, without Amendment and without Debate, the Question should be at once put from the Chair. We are only incorporating in this Resolution with regard to the Financial Resolutions that proposal of the right hon. Gentleman — a proposal which, I confess, might very well be made part of the general procedure of the House. Mr. Balfour : It was never abandoned. The Prime Minister : No, it was never abandoned ; it was abandoned for want of time. Mr. Balfour : There was too much opposition to it. The Prime Minister : I am sorry to say my recollection does not quite agree with that of the right hon. Gentleman. The opposition took so much interest in the earlier parts o! the scheme that this particular part was never reached or discussed. Since 1 have been 154 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) lULL in office my opinion in that direction has been confirmed and strengthened ; at any rate, we propose to make an experiment, and try the rule of the right hon. Gentleman. I think I have gone through the various points that are novel in connection with this Resolution. 1 submit to the House that it carries out in spirit, inten- tion, and efiect the obvious purpose of the Parliament Act, and, if Bills such as these are to come within the operation of that Act, and get the benefit of its provisions, it is in this way, and in this way alone, that that intention can be carried into effect. Mr. Austen Chamberlain : I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word " That " to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words, "this House regrets the proposal to suppress its right to amend the provision of Bills vitally affecting the Constitution as a gross infringement of its ancient prerogatives and liberties." . . . Though he [the Prime Minister] has made many Motions for the curtailment of our rights, he has made none more monstrous and more destructive, not merely of the elementary rights but of the elementary duties of a free Parlia- ment, than that which he has just submitted. For the first time the right hon. Gentleman includes in a common Motion for suppression of free speech three Bills raising wholly separate issues, and which are wholly dissimilar in the nature of their provisions. He says the same considerations apply to them all, and then he proceeded to explain what those considerations were. This Motion, he tells us, is a necessary consequence of the Parliament Act. If these three Bills are to have, as he rightly phrases it, the advantage of that measure, then, he says, this Resolution follows as a matter of course, and there is nothing to distinguish one Bill from another ; it is useless for the House of Commons, having made up its mind that it desires these subjects to be cleared out of the way — and the majority, I suppose, have made up its mind to that effect, and I do not wonder at it, for until they shake themselves free of those subjects they have a millstone about their necks that is likely to sink them — then it is neces- sary that this House, whilst going through the form, which becomes a farce, of professing deliberately to consider their provisions again, to judge whether they are or are not in the interests of the nation, must pass them in the identical form in which it passed them last year. It would be a waste of time, says the right hon. Gentleman, to discuss Amendments, for to include an Amendment in any of the COMMONS [Junk 23, 1913] PROCEDURE 155 Bills would destroy its identity, would destroy the charm by which alone its passage can be secured without any appeal being taken to the greater court of the people, which controls even the High Court of Parliament. Accordingly the right hon. Gentleman links together in a common Resolution three Bills, one purporting to deal with the whole Government of Ireland, and, as we have learned, not only dealing with that but with the Government of the rest of the United Kingdom as well, for the Government of the rest of the United Kingdom will not be the same as that which we have known ; if once the Bill passes our rights and our privileges will not be the same, our duties will be altered and our interests will have suffered, as many of us think, an irreparable injury. The second deals with the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Welsh dioceses. These two measures are alike not merely in dividing the House broadly and deeply, but in stirring to the depths the dearest feelings of great masses of our fellow citizens in Ireland and in this ccuntr}^, and then with them as of like nature, is a Bill which is in all respects similar, and whose fortunes are to follow the same fate, is linked the Scottish Temperance Bill, a measure, the principles of which have been accepted on both sides, a measure which was accepted in principle in the other House, a measure which went to shipwreck not on any profound party or national differences, but on the obstinacy and ill-will of the Scottish Secretary. It is within the knowledge of all that that Bill might have been saved with the exercise of a little tact, a little judgment, and a little of that spirit of conciliation which nowhere would have been more welcome than on the benches opposite. 1 am profoundly separated on many questions from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), but he is one of the Members of this House to whom, I think, on whatever subject he speaks — and he does not often address us — Members, whatever their opinions, and however much they differ from him, listen with respect and with interest. Of all the subjects on which he might speak, there is none on which he is more entitled to be heard than on this question of temperance. Long before he was a Member of this House he studied it deeply, he studied the working of the various legislative schemes in different parts of the world, and especially among the men of English-speaking races, which have been adopted in the effort to put down the evils of excessive drinking. What did he loG TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL say on Friday last ? Did he support the action of the Government ? If you care for temperance, and if that is your sole aim, listen to the hon. Member for Huddersfield. He is no unkindly critic, he is no unfriendly observer of your proceedings. He is a member of your own party ; he gives you loyal support on all questions, and here on this question, which he has studied more deeply than any man in the House, and on which he speaks with great knowledge and with a candour which is often absent from speeches on this subject, we can rank him with us as one of those who will protest against the attempt to dragoon through this House in the particular shape which it pleases the Scottish Secretary to give it, a measure which, out of our common endeavours, and by common consent, might make a great step forward in Scottish temperance reform. Why is it to be done? Not in the interests of temperance, but it is the party interests of the Government opposite, in order to hold together a combination which, judging any of these measures separately, would make grave Amendments in them, but by which, by linking the three measures together, you can drive into your Lobby to carry all sooner than sacrifice the fortunes of the party opposite. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said, this is a consequence of the Parliament Act, and it is a condemnation of that measure. It means that you erect log-rolling into a science, that you have made it not the deplorable accident of special circumstances, but you have based your whole policy upon it ; and, knowing that, as the right hon. Gentleman says, they could not venture on going through the ordeal again on these measures which they went through last year in Committee, they use this combination of interests to relieve them of that peril. They think that the endurance of their majority, their much tried majority, will be sufficient, at any rate, to vote half a dozen times on what they are pleased to call the principle of their measure, though they would not trust them to vote sixty times on their details. * * * Mr. Hogga : . . . With regard to the Motion before the House, the case for the Government has been proved up to the hilt in reference to the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. The case is not nearly so strong as regards the Scottish Temperance Bill. In reference to that Bill, I think I can defend my vote on this Reso- lution on those grounds, that tlie people of Scotland are clearly of COMMONS [June 23, 1913] PROCEDURE 157 opinion that local veto, whatever else they are against, is one of the methods by which the temperance question will have to be dealt with in Scotland. The majority of the Scottish representatives over and over again have been returned with that at the back of their minds. We Scotsmen have a special grievance against the House of Lords. We have only sixteen representatives in that Chamber. We do not want any more, but every one of those is a Conservative in politics. ... In the other case the House of Lords did deal with the Scottish Temperance Bill. They made Amendments to that Bill, and dealt with it faithfully or faithlessly according to your point of view in regard to the country. Why, in those circumstances, do the Govern- ment avail themselves of the Parliament Act, and refuse altogether to consider the suggestions that are made by the House of Lords ? I put the point, because I am anxious for this reason. The Prime Minister suggested this afternoon, and the noble Lord the Member for Oxford University suggested that there would be changes in this House. In fact, the noble Lord's anxiety does not seem so much to leave the House, because it has no influence with the public, as that he should come over to this side. If he was seated on this side of the House, the public would be more interested. Bearing that in mind, we shall be sitting on those benches for a short time. [Hon. Members : " In a short time."] Perhaps in a short time, and for a short time, and we may be subject to the same kind of power as our Government is exercising at present. We may find ourselves in the position of having an amendment which we may desire to consider, especially if you have a Second Chamber, which I hope you will not. I associate myself with the labour position on this point. The Prime Minister will find when he tries to reform the House of Lords that a good many Members of this House will not follow him on that subject, even at the expense of our salaries. Even then we ought to be in a position to object to a process of this kind when the dis- cussion of the topic has not received fair play. The House of Lords did amend this Bill, and gave reasons, whether you agree with them or not, for their views, and I think that the Government should deal with those suggestions, instead of bringing this Bill under the pro- vision of the Parliament Act. * * * Resolutions agreed to. 158 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Jri.v 2, i;»i;3. (Official Debates. Vol. liv.) COMMITTEE STAGE. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr. Whitley in the Chair.] The Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of 23rd June, proceeded to put forthwith the Question, " That the Chairman do report the Bill without Amendment to the House." The Committee divided ; Ayes, 306 ; Noes, 176. AYES Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Acland, Francis Dyke Adamson, William Addison, Dr. Christopher Agnew, Sir George William Ainsworth, John Stirling .\lden, Percy Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Allen. Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Arnold, Sydney Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Baker, Joseph .\. (Finsbury, E.) Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Barnes, George N. Barran, Sir J.N. (Hawick Burghs) Barton, William Beale, Sir William Phipson Beauchamp, Sir Edward Beck, Arthur Cecil Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Bentham, G. J. Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Black, Arthur W. Boland, John Pius Booth, Frederick Handel Bowerman, Charles W. Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Brace, William Brady, Patrick Joseph BrrK-klehurst, W. B. Brunner. John F. L. Buck master. Stanley O. Burke, E. Haviland- Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) Carr-Gomm, H. W. Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood) Chancellor, Henry George Clancy, John Joseph C lough, William Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir' J. Condon, Thomas Joseph Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Cory, Sir Clifiord John Cotton, William Francis Cowan, W^ H. Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Crean, Eugene Crooks, William Crumley, Patrick CuUinan, John Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Delany, William Devlin, Joseph Dickinson, W. H. Dillon, John Donclan, Captain A. Doris, William Duffy, William J. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Elverston, Sir Harold Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Essex, Sir Richard Walter Esslemont, George Birnie Falconer, James Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Rooinson Ffrench, Peter Field, William Fitzgibbon, John Flavin, ^Michael Joseph France, Gerald Ashburner COMMONS [JuiA 2, 1913] COMMITTEE STAGE 159 Gelder, Sir W. A. Gladstone, W. G. C. Glanville, H. J. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Goldstone, Frank Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough Greenwood, Hamer (Sunderland) Greig, Colonel J. W. Griffith, Ellis Jones Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Hackett, John Harcourt,Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Havelock-AUan, Sir Henry Hayden, John Patrick Hayward, Evan Hazleton, Richard Healy, Maurice (Cork) Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East) Helme, Sir Nerval Watson Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Henry, Sir Charles Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Higham, John Sharp Hinds, John Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H, Hodge, John Hogg, David C. Hogge, James Myles Holmes, Daniel Turner Holt, Richard Durning Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Hudson, Walter Hughes, Spencer Leigh Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) John, Edward Thomas Jones,Rt.Hon.Sir'D.Brynmor(Swansea) Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Jowett, F. W. Joyce, Michael Keating, Matthew Kellaway, Frederick George Kelly, Edward Kennedy, Vincent Paul Kilbride, Denis King, Joseph Lambert,Rt.Hon.G.(Devon,S.Molton) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Lardner, James C. R. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Lawson.Sir W.(Cumb'rld,Cockerm'th) Leach, Charles Levy, Sir Maurice Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Lundon, Thomas Lyell, Charles Henry Lynch, A. A. Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) McGhee, Richard Maclean, Donald Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Macpherson, James Ian MacVeagh, Jeremiah M'Callum, Sir John M. M'Kean, John McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding) M'Micking, Major Gilbert Manfield, Harry Marshall, Arthur Harold Martin, Joseph Mason, David M. (Coventry) Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Meagher, Michael Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) Menzies, Sir Walter Middlebrook, William Millar, James Duncan MoUoy, Michael Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Money, L. G. Chiozza Montagu, Hon. E. S. Mooney, John J. Morgan, George Hay Morrell, Philip Morison, Hector Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Muldoon, John Munro, Robert Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Murphy, Martin J. Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. Nannetti, Joseph P. Needham, Christopher T. Neilson, Francis Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Nolan, Joseph Norton, Captain Cecil W. Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Nuttall, Harry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) O'Brien, William (Cork) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) O'Doherty, Phillip IGO TEMPEKAXCE (SCOTLAND) BILL O'DonncU, Thomas O'Dowd. John O'Kellv. Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) O-Malley, William O'Xeill. Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. O'Shee. James John O'SuUivan, Timothy Outhwaite, R. L. Palmer, Godfrey Mark Parker, James (Halifax) Pearce, Robert (Stalts, Leek) Pearce, \Villiam (Limehouse) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Pirie, Duncan V. Pointer, Joseph Pollard, Sir George H. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.) Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) Priestley Sir \V. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Prinelf^, \Villiam M. R. Radford. G. H. Raffan, Peter Wilson Raphael, Sir Herbert H. Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Rendall, Athelstan Richardson, Albion (Peckham) PUchardson, Thomas (W^hitehavcn) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh) Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Robinson, Sidney Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Roche, Augustine (Louth) Roe, Sir Thomas Rowlands, James Rowntree, Arnold Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Scanlan, Thomas Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Shechy, David Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe) Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) Snowden, Philip Soames, Arthur WcUesIey Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) Sutherland. John E. Sutton, John E. Taylor, John W. (Durham) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Tennant, Harold John Thomas, J. H. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Thorne, William (West Ham) Toulmin, Sir George Trevelyan, Charles Philips Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Wadsworth, J. Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince) \Valters, Sir John Tudor Walton, Sir Joseph Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) Wardle, George J. Waring, W^alter Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Watt, Henry Anderson Webb, H. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) White, Patrick (Meath, North) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. Wiles, Thomas Williams, John (Glamorgan) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) Williamson, Sir Archibald Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) W^ilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) Winfrey, Richard Wing, Thomas Edward W^ood.Rt.Hon.T.McKinnon (Glasgow) Young, William (Perthshire, East) Yoxall, Sir James Henry Tellers for the Ayes. — Mr. Illingworth and Mr. GuUand. Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Amery, L. C. M. S. Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R, Anstruther-Gray, Major William Archer-Shee, Major M. Ashley. WUfrid W. NOES Aster, Waldorf Baird, John Lawrence Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Baldwin, Stanley Banbury, Sir Frederick George Baring,MajorHon.GuyV.(Winchester) COMMONS [July 2, 1913] COMMITTEE 161 Barnston, Harry Barrie, H. T. Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Gloucester, E.) Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Beckett, Hon. Gervasse Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Bcnn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Bigland, Alfred Bird, Alfred Blair, Reginald Boles, Lieut. -Colonel Dennis Fortescue Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Boy ton, James Bridgeman, William Clive Bull, Sir William James Burdett-Coutts, W. Burgoyne, Alan Hughes Burn, Colonel C. R. Butcher, John George Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Campion, W. R. Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Cassel, Felix Cator, John Cautley, Henry Strother Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Chamberlain, Rt.Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.,E.) Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Clive, Captain Percy Archer Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Dalrymple, Viscount Denison-Pender, J. C. Denniss, E. R. B. Dixon, C. H. Duncannon, Viscount Eyres-Monseil, Bolton M. Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants., W.) Fell, Arthur Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Fletcher, John Samuel Forster, Henry William Gardner, Ernest Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Gilmour, Captain John Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. Goldsmith, Frank Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Goulding, Edward Alfred Grcftit, J. A. Gretton, John Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Guinness,Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Haddock, George Bahr Hall, D. R. (Isle of Wight) Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Hamersley, Alfred St. George Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Harris, Henry Percy Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) Hewins, William Albert Samuel Hills, John Waller Hill-Wood, Samuel Hoare, S. J. G. Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) . ; Houston, Robert Paterson Hunt, Rowland Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. Ingleby, Holcombe j^j Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) j-'s ] Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement -s< Larmor, Sir J. ^ "' Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) ' Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) Lee, Arthur Hamilton Lewisham, Viscount Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R. Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Mackinder, Halford J. Macmaster, Donald M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. Magnus, Sir Philip Malcolm, Ian Mason, James F. (Windsor) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Newdegate, F. A. Newman, John R. P. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim. Mid) Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Paget, Almeric Hugh Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Parkes, Ebenezer Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Perkins, Vv'alter F. Pretyman, Ernest George Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. Randies, Sir John S. 162 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Robfrts, S. {Sheffiekl, Ecclcsall) Rolleston, Sir John Ronaldshay, Earl of Rothschild, Lionel de Royds, Edmund Ruthcrlord, John (Lanes., Darwen) Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) Sanders, Robert Arthur Sandys, G. J. Smitli. Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton) Smith, Harold (Warrington) Spear, Sir John Ward Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Staveley-Hill, Henry Steel -Maitland, A. D. Stewart, Gershom Swift, Rigbv Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) Talbot, Lord Edmund Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) Bill reported without Amendment ; to be read the third time To-morrow (Thursday). Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) Thynne, Lord Alexander Tuilibardine, ISIarquess of Valentia, Viscount Walrond, Hon. Lionel Weigall, Captain A. G. Weston, Colonel J. W. Wheler, Granville C. H. White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.) Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, li.R.) Wolmer, Viscount Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) Wood, John (Stalybridge) Worthington-Evans, L. Wright, Henry Fitzherbert Yate, Colonel C. E. Younger, Sir George Tellers for the Noes. — Sir H. Craik and Mr. H. Hope. July 9, 1913. {Official Debates. Vol.lv.) SUGGESTION STAGE AND THIRD READING. Mr. Bame j : I beg to move, That the Commons suggest the following Amendment : — New Clause. — {Certificates to be Insured.') No Excise licence for the sale by retail of excisable liquor shall be granted by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise except upon the production by the person authorised to hold the licence of a receipt for the payment of the premium on a policy of insurance making some provision against loss through the withdrawal of his certificate in pursuance of a Resolution under this Act during the period covered by such receipt. If any person produces for the purposes of this Section a false or fraudulent receipt he shall be guilty of an offence and, on summary conviction, shall be deemed to have committed a breach of his certificate. Any association of licence-holders constituted as under shall be empowered to issue policies of insurance on such terms and condi- tions as its members may prescribe, but no association shall be COMMONS [July 0, VJIS] SUGGESTIONS 163 entitled to refuse to issue such policy or policies to any licence- holder or licence-holders willing to subscribe to its rules and regulations — (a) in the case of an association insuring only "on" licences, persons holding in the aggregate not less than one thousand such licences ; or (b) in the case of an association insuring only "off" licences, persons holding in the aggregate not less than five hundred such licences ; or (c) in the case of an association insuring both "on" and "off" licences, persons holding in the aggregate not less than one thousand " on " licences and persons holding in the aggregate not less than five hundred "off" licences. Mr. Hewins : On a point of Order. As this is the first occasion on which a Suggestion Amendment has appeared on the Paper, I should like to ask whether this particular Amendment is put down in the proper form ? In accordance with the Parliament Act, Section 2, Sub-section (4), it is contemplated that suggested Amend- ments are offered for the consideration of the Lords. I want to ask whether the more correct form of putting the Amendment down on the Paper is not " That the following Amendment be suggested to the Lords " ? As the words stand, the suggestion is not made to anybody in particular. Mr. Speaker : There is not much in the point the hon. Member raises, because, supposing that this is accepted by the House, it would, of course, be sent with a message to the other House. If the hon. Member chooses to move to insert the words " to the House of Lords," I should think there will be no objection to putting them in. As the hon. Member says, this is a new form, and, therefore, we have no precedent to act upon. Mr. Hewins : I merely put the point, because it is such a very important stage in our procedure, and it appears to me to be desir- able to have the form of words settled for all time. As the form of words stands, it conve3's that there is a suggestion to the House of Lords that they should pass the Second Reading. If the form of words be, " That the following Amendment be offered to the Lords," it does carry with it the implication that there is a sugges- tion that the House of Lords are going to pass the Second Reading 1G4 TExMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL of the Bill. I humbly suggest it is not desirable we should convey any such impression to the other House. Mr. Speaker : It will be open to the hon. Member to move such Amendment to this Motion as he thinks right, after I have proposed it from tlie Chair. Mr. Austen Chamberlain : May I ask you, Sir, in reference to what fell from you just now, a question as to what the procedure would be if this Motion were carried. I understood you to say it would be sent with a message to the House of Lords. Would there be a Motion in this House following on the acceptance of this Amendment, that the Amendment should be communicated to the Lords and that certain Members of the House should be appointed to draw up a message giving the reasons of this House for it ? Mr. Speaker : That is not necessary. What would happen, I think, would be that a formal entry would be made on the Journal that a message be sent to the Lords acquainting them with the Resolution the House has passed, and it would go up in the ordinary way. Lord Hugh Cecil : Would it require a Motion ? Mr. Speaker : No, it would not require a Motion. It would simply be entered on the Journals. Mr. James Hope : May I ask you whether a Motion of this kind would be capable of being amended in detail, or whether only one Amendment would be allowed? Mr. Speaker : It would be capable of being amended in detail. Mr. Barnes : I rise to move the Suggestion that stands in my name. Before going further, may I say that the Suggestion is put down entirely on my own responsibility ? I have not canvassed or consulted any of my colleagues of the Labour party with regard to it, and, of course, they will vote as their consciences dictate. I am glad to say I shall have as a Seconder, if a seconder is necessary, the hon. Member for West Fife [Mr. Adamson]. The Suggestion may be briefly described as one in favour of compulsory insurance of licence-holders, and its object is twofold — first, to provide against possible loss on the part of a licence-holder under this Bill, and, secondly, to make it easier for the Bill to come into operation after it becomes law. I know there are many sincere and active tem- perance reformers who are ver}' much against any proposal of this COMMONS [July 9, 1918] SUGGESTIONS 105 character, who think — I believe quite wrongly — that anything of this sort is the thin end of the wedge of State compensation. So far as I can understand their position, they object to anything of this sort because they hold that a licence to sell liquor is a licence for one year only, and they object to anything in the nature of a vested interest being given to the licence-holder beyond a year. I have two answers to that, and I should like to make a few observations upon each of them. First, I submit that the State does recognise a vested interest and taxes that vested interest. When a licence-holder dies the estate passes from one person to another, but not all of it, because the tax collector is there and appropriates part of it for the State. Supposing a licence-holder has to pay ;^io,ooo for a licence, he does not pay the ^io,ooo for the right to sell liquor for a year. [An Hon. Member : " He does in point of law."] I am speaking from the point of view of common sense. It is perfectly true that he buys the licence, so far as the law is concerned, to sell liquor for the unexpired term of a year, but the ;!^io,ooo he has paid for his licence is really a sum of money based upon the reasonable expectation that he will be allowed to sell liquor beyond the year which is then current, and will, in fact, be allowed to sell liquor so long as he conducts his business properly and keeps himself out of the clutches of the police. I know that is not a statement of the law, but it is a statement of common sense, and I want to approach this question not in the legal sense, but from the point of view of common sense and fellow feeling. I remember that when we were discussing this matter, either the last time or the time before, there was a gentleman here. Provost Keith — a very reasonably-minded sort of man — who happened to have an interest in the liquor trade, but who was none the less entitled to consideration because of that. He told me he had been in the liquor trade all his life; that he had been reared in the liquor trade ; that his father before him sold liquor in the same shop in which he was then selling it ; and, if my memory serves me aright, that his grand- father was also In the same business. [An Hon. Member : " No."] At all events, his father was. In the light of facts like those we are not justified in taking a strictly legal view of the situation, and ought to have some regard to the fact that a man, once he starts selling liquor, is going to be allowed to sell liquor so long as he conducts his 166 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL business decently and in order — in other words, that the interest grows up around that natural expectation which we have allowed to grow up under a process of law. My second answer to the objection, so far as I can understand it, is that my proposal does not involve any further recognition by the State than we have at the present time. I accept entirely the legal position as to a licence lasting only for one year, so far as it applies to the State paying compensation. In view of the fact that the State only grants a licence for a year, the State cannot possibly be called upon to pa}' compensation. I accept that quite frankly, although, by the way, I see no reason why, if a landlord gets compensation for the loss of his land, a publican should not get compensation for the loss of his licence. A publican has just as much right to compensation for his licence, and even more so, than the landlord has for the loss of his land. I accept the principle for the time being that tliere is no claim to State compensa- tion, and therefore it is out of the question altogether. There is no State fund, nor is there any State guarantee. We are not asking the State to do anything in the way of guaranteeing the fund or controlling or managing it. We are not even asking, what is a feature of the English law, that the publican should subscribe to a fund and that the operation of the Bill should be determined by the sufficiency or otherwise of that fund. All that my proposal means is that the State, through its properly accredited agents, should see that the man in future protects himself against the possible operation of this J3ill, and that he shall subscribe to a fund to which his fellows in the trade will also subscribe. I know that I shall be told he can do that now, and that nobody can stop him. Although that is true, I would suggest to the Secretary for Scotland that we are altering the conditions by this Bill, and so altering them that in the view of a great many people, not myself, you are going to increase the risks. Inasmuch as you are dealing in this Bill with the trade as a whole, I suggest you are morally bound to provide that tho.se risks should be pooled by the whole trade. It may still further be said that a man can insure now, and that no obstacle is placed in his way in regard to that. But there is the safe man, or the man who considers himself safe — a man who, like one who is young and strong, thinks he will always be so, and refuses to insure himself. Even after this Bill becomes law there COMMONS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 167 will be men in Scotland in places where there is no teetotal sentiment, who may think there will be no demand for the Bill, and who will refuse to insure themselves. The acceptance of my Suggestion would mean that these men, quite rightl}', I think, will be compelled, in conjunction with their fellows, to subscribe to the fund, thereby equalising the risk all round, no matter where a man may be placed. It is said that the hotel-keepers should not be compelled to subscribe to this fund, inasmuch as they keep premises for the sale of food and other things. I do not see there is anything in that. As a matter of fact, if you close a public-house which is adjacent to an hotel, the bar of that hotel will be put in a position to do very much more business. I am told by those who know that the hotel-keeper is just the man who is now insured, therefore compulsory insurance will make little difference to him, except that it will make others do what he himself has done. I want the House to consider for a moment what will happen in the event of this Bill passing into law without some provision of this sort being made. There are some very sanguine hon. Frienc's of mine upon this side of the House who seem to think that when this Bill is passed the public-houses will vanish like snow in the summer sun. That opinion is based upon an altogether wrong idea of human nature. What does this Bill do ? It only transfers to the people as a whole the right to do in bulk what magistrates now can do in detail. That' is all. That being so, we have to consider what are likely to be the sentiments which will sway the people when called upon to bring this Bill into operation. If I understand them aright, the people are no harder-hearted than the magistrates. On the contrary, I should say that the people are much more likely to be a good deal softer-hearted than the magistrates, because they are not accustomed to the wiles of this wicked world, and are more likely to be influenced by tales that may be pitched into them than the magis- trates on the bench. What is going to happen in these circumstances supposing a requisition is got up, and the Bill is about to become operative ? The publican is not going to take it lying down, and I do not suppose anybody expects him to do anything of the sort. The licence-holder will be up and doing, and will use the very best weapons in his armoury to defeat the vote about to be taken. In the absence of compulsory insurance, or of some provision whereby the 168 TEMPEKxVXCR (SCOTLAND) BILL ordinary voter can know that provision is to be made for the dis- placed publican, there is a very poor chance of this Bill ever becoming operative at all. What will happen will be that the licence-holder will go round, as he has a perfect right to do, or, if he does not, his friends will go for him, and say, "John Smith has been in so-and-so public-house for about twenty years. He has not insured. He has brought his family up. His family are still young. Are you going to deprive this man of his licence and thereby of his living? " 1 am not saying whether that is just or not, but it is the sort of thing which will happen under the Bill, and unless provision is made for that man 3'ou will defeat the very object that you have in view by pedantic adherence to a legal fiction which does not correspond with the facts of life. These are, briefly, the reasons why, on the principle of the thing, I move this Suggestion. I believe, if it were adopted, it would not only make provision for the man who may be displaced, but it will also get this Bill into operation, and I do not believe o:herwise it ever will get into operation. I want to say a word or two about the form in which this Rr solution is put down. Upstairs I moved two schemes, and the principle of compulsory insuiance was defeated largely on the details of those schemes. We got involved with opinions as to whether or not the funds would be sufficient to meet the actuarial requirements and as to whether or not they will be adequate for what was expected of them. Therefore I thought I would not get involved in any scheme at all, but that I would simply put down on the Paper a suggestion that the granting of a licence by the proper authorities would be dependent upon the holding by the man who was to get the licence of a certificate that he was insured. Therefore I put down a simple form of words. When I got talking about it with a certain right hon. Gentleman, whom I need not name, there were certain objections to that. It was defeated upstairs by too much complication, and I was told we were likely to be defeated downstairs because there was too much simplicity. It was pointed out that it would be quite open, with a simple suggestion of that sort, for half-a-dozen men to get together and issue bogus certificates of insurance. Obviously it would be so. I quite see the force of their objections. Therefore I hurriedly got up last night, when I found that this Bill was to be unexpectedly brought forward to-day, COMMONS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 169 and put down this supplementary matter in addition to the Suggestion I had first put down, which provides against the objection at all events which was raised to the simple form of Suggestion first put down, because I suggest here that there shall be no bogus certificate issued and that there shall be a sufficient number of licence-holders to spread the risk so as to ensure that a man will actually have the money when the time of need comes. I take a thousand as a sufficient number to spread that risk over the publicans pure and simple, and I am told the grocers form about one-half of the licence- holders, and therefore I think 500 is sufficient to cover the risk of the grocer losing his licence. In that form it meets the objection raised from the Front Bench as to the Suggestion in its bald form. Then it was suggested that there would be a still further provision neces- sary and that we ought to provide for registration of the companies which would issue these insurance policies. I began to inquire under what Act they should be registered. I was told there is the Com- panies Act of 1908, which is appropriate to those companies making profits, and there are, on the other hand, the Friendly Societies Acts which are more appropriate to those associations of a mutual character which do not want to make profits. I am not a lawyer, and I do not want to get muddled up with that consideration at all. It is far better that I should submit the matter in its simple form, only providing that a man shall not have a bogus certificate but that he shall be a member of an association with sufficient members and therefore sufficient money to meet the man's claim. I submit it in that form in the certain opinion that it will have the effect not only of providing for the displaced publican, but will have the further effect of making this Bill a real Bill in the interests of temperance reform in Scotland. Mr. F. Whyte : I beg to second the suggested new clause. The remark which the hon. Member made in explanation of the form in which it appears on the Paper, namely, that it is much simpler than the previous attempts to introduce this question, aroused some amusement on the Front Bench. But surely it is for the House to decide the simple question, first of all, whether in a measure of this kind it is desirable that those most closely aftected by it should be insured against the risks involved in it. That is the question which the House ought to have decided at the very beginning, and which it never really has decided, for in all the 170 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL earlier discussions we have had on this question the issue has been compHcated by questions of machinery. 1 do not say that it is not difticult to draw up a scheme, but it was, and is, desirable for the House to give a clear expression of opinion that some safe- guard should be introduced into the Bill against the risks which it imposes. As we have heard over and over again in the Debates which have taken place on this Bill, that Members favour the question of licence insurance, but had this difficulty and that diffi- culty about the particular scheme which is before the House, I think my hon. Friend was quite wise in placing the issue simply before the House. It can therefore be decided on the question of principle, and if the House were to resolve that it is necessary to attach these pro- visions to the Bill as it stands, or to make the Suggestion to the other place, it surely does not pass the wit of experts to draw up a scheme which would be satisfactory. We have been told that the Government, if it supported the pro- posal and admitted it into the Bill, would have to offer some kind of guarantee for the water-lightness of the scheme. We have had an insurance scheme before this House in very recent times, upon which the Government explicitly and vehemently and over and over again denied its liability to give any guarantee, and why the Govern- ment spokesman should argue it on this much smaller question that it ought to give a guarantee, and not on the larger and far more vital question, that it did not admit the necessity of giving a Government guarantee, I am quite unable to see. Therefore I do not see the foundation for the argument that the Government must necessarily guarantee the insurance scheme if it is inserted in this measure. 1 think the House generally, and I certainly have always been con- siderably impressed by the argutuent that the wideness of the operation of this measure depends very largely upon the degree to which the idea of hardship is removed, and I see no other way, the provisions of the Bill being what they are, but the insertion of some form of insurance against the risks of the Bill for removing that doubt and that impression from the minds of the electors. 1 second this new Clause, therefore, first because I want a clear expression of opinion from this House upon what is an important question, and, secondly, because 1 believe the insertion of the scheme in the Bill COMMONS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 171 would greatly facilitate both its passage into law and its wider operation in Scotland after it passes into law. Mr. Hewins rose to move an Amendment Sir G. Younger : Will the moving of an Amendment stop dis- cussion of the general Resolution ? Mr. Speaker : Yes ; I think the hon. Member had better move that, and then we can get it in the right form. What the hon. Member proposes to move is not a matter of substance, but really a matter of form before we approach the substance. We might get tliat settled. Mr. Hewins : I beg to move, after the word "suggest" ["That the Commons suggest "J, to insert the words " to the Lords." The insertion of these words would bring the form in which the Amendment is placed on the Paper into conformity with the terms of the Parliament Act, and both sides of the House will agree that it is eminently desirable that we should know and express, in the form of the words employed, precisely what the House is doing. As we are, under the name of the Suggestion stage, sending up to the other House a Bill which we know to be imperfect, but which we hope the Lords will amend by adopting some suggested Amendment, I think it very much better that we should have these terms clearly ex- pressed. The Section I have in mind of the Parliament Act is Section 2, Subsection (4), which deals with this Suggestion stage. Question, ** That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Marquess 02 Tullibardine : Is it possible to have a general discussion on the whole Clause ? Some of my hon. Friends are anxious for a general discussion, while I am anxious to move an Amendment to the Clause — not against it — with the idea of making it explicable in some way or other. Mr. Speaker : It was for that reason that I called on the Noble Lord. Sil' F. Banbury : Would it be possible for me now to discuss the general question ? Mr. Speaker : No, I think not. The only practicable way of dealing with this question is to treat it as though it were a new Clause, which had been read a second time and is then, before being added to the Bill, the subject of discussion. Amendments will then 172 TEMrERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL be moved upon it, and when I put the Question as a whole there will be an opportunity for a general discussion of the Clause before we send it to the other House. Marquess of Tullibardine : I beg to move, as an Amendment, after the word "insurance" [''premium on a policy of insurance making some provision"], to insert the words "to the satisfaction of the licensing magistrates." For the information of the House, I should state that this is not the only Amendment I am going to move, because, if this one is accepted, I have a second Amendment to delete everything after the end of the first paragraph of the new Clause. My reasons for moving this Amendment can only be stated by dealing with the second Amendment when speaking in support of the first, because the one depends upon the other. The hon. Member for the Black- friars Division [Mr. Barnes] spoke just now about lawyer-made law, and probably from the legal point of view he is correct ; but I would observe that Labour-made law is sometimes not quite correct. I think he will find that a good deal in the new Clause, after the first paragraph, is very difficult to follow and does not fit in with what goes before. I understand what his intention is, and if he will accept my Amendment to insert the words " to the satisfaction of the licensing magistrates," that will be a sufficient instruction to the people concerned to see that the insurance premium is really in order. I do not think that we ought to lay down exactly and pre- cisely the number of licence-holders there should be in an association. I suggest that in any case the House might accept the first Amend- ment, in view of the second Amendment I am going to move. I am not taking this course in any hostile spirit to the hon. Member who moved the new Clause, but rather to make the proposal clearer, and, if I may say without offence, less verbose, and to enable us to get straight to the point at once. I think it would also stop a good deal of opposition — I do not mean here, but outside — to the hon. Member's motion. Sir John Dewar : I beg to second the Amendment. If the hon Member for Blackfriars does not accept this, I do not know what use there is in making suggestions with respect to the Bill at all. This Suggestion does not interfere with the principle of the Bill, but, if accepted, it will increase very much the efficiency of the measure. I COMMONS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 173 think it would be infinitely easier to get the Act into operation, if it was known that the licence-holders were insured. When this was going through Committee Mr. Charles Roberts : As a matter of practice, when an Amend- ment is moved, the discussion is confined to one particular point, and there cannot be a discussion of the whole general principle. Would it not have been better to have the general discussion before going into these points of detail? If we are going into these points, are we to have a general discussion on each of them ? Mr. Speaker : I think the proper course to pursue is to discuss each Amendment as it comes up. Then when the House has gone through the whole of them, it will consider whether it will send the Suggestion to the Lords in its amended form if it be amended. If we take the general discussion first one of two things happens, either we shall spend a great deal of time on the general discussion before we approach the Amendments at all, or, supposing a Division were taken and the Resolution rejected, no opportunity at all would be given for Amendments. I do not see any other way out of the difficulty than to discuss on its merits each Amendment as it is proposed. Dr. Chappie : In dealing with the principle of the Clause, would it not be better to have a general discussion before we discuss the Amendments — I mean such a general discussion as we could have on the question that the Clause be read a second time ? We may waste a great deal of time if we go into the Amendments first of all, whereas the principle might be negatived by the House. Would it not be belter to have a vote upon the Question that the Clause be read a second time. Mr. Speaker : That is impossible. If the Resolution be passed it is passed, and there is no opportunity for amending it. Therefore, those who wish to make Amendments would be shut out. It is quite conceivable that this proposal may receive certain Amendments which will convert it from one not at present acceptable to one that may be accepted. Therefore, it is only right that those who have Amendments should propose them now, and that, after the Resolution has been amended, the House should have the opportunity of saying whether it will adopt the Resolution as amcndeJ. Sir John Dewar : I think this Amendment will make it more 174 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL acceptable to the House because it simplifies the proposal very much indeed. The proposal is that every licence should be compulsorily insured. If it is a good thing that some licences should be insured, it is al30 a good thing that the whole of the licences should be insnred, because it reduces the liability by spreading it over the whole of the licence-holders. If a small proportion of licences are taken awa}', the trade is thrown into the hands of those who still hold their licences. All we do here is to tlirow on the magistrates the duty of seeing that a licence is properly insured. At present the magistrates have to see, first of all, that a man who applies for a licence is of good character, and they have also to see that his premises are suitable. They very often ask to see the arrangements made with brewers and others as to how the business is to be carried on. I do not think that it would add seriously to their duties if they were asked to see that licences are insured. I believe the new Clause, as amended, would enormously increase the efficiency of the Bill, if it is going to be efficient at all. It would reduce to a minimum the chance of hardship among licence-holders. I see no objection to it from the teetotal point of view. I cannot see how it could not be accepted by the Government, because it will provide that no injustice will be inflicted on people who have done nothing to deserve it. Holding the opinion very strongly that this does not affect the principle of the Bill, but will remove the possibility of injustice, 1 hope it will be accepted. Sir Thomas Whittaker : Before we go into the general merits of the proposal of the hon. Member [Mr. Barnes] it is perfectly clear that, if it were adopted it would have to be considerably amended in some form or other. The proposal is that there should be some provision against loss, but there is no indication of the amount of the provision, or whether it would be adequate or not. The insured person should know these particulars. It is obvious that if you are to give effect to this proposal, something must be done. As to the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord opposite, it seems to me that it puts upon the licensing magistrates responsibility for the financial soundness of the whole scheme. If they are to be satisfied that a licence is satisfactorily insured, then they must be satisfied that the persons insuring the licence will be able to meet the demand made upon them, but they will have no control, i he licence is to COMMONS r.Tui.Y 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 175 be insured with some association, company, or society, of some kind or other, and the magistrates are to be satisfied that the insurance is satisfactory. Supposing a man loses his licence, and the concern in which he is insured cannot pay, I think he would go to the magistrates and say, "You said this insurance was satisfactory, but I cannot get my money." By endorsing the satisfactoriness of the insurance, it seems to me that practically they would involve them- selves in moral responsibility for its financial soundness. I do not think that Amendment would do. You cannot have the licensing justices involved in practically guaranteeing the soundness of a scheme of this kind unless they have the management of the whole thing. Here they have not the management, and I think we ought not to accept the Amendment. Sir G. Younger : Undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley Division [Sir T. Whittaker] has put his finger upon the weak spot of the proposal. There is a great deal of truth in what he said as to the responsibility of the licensing magistrates. We are in a very difficult position. The minority in this House has over and over again proposed schemes of compulsory insurance of a partial nature — it could not be otherwise than of a partial nature — to relieve, as far as possible, any hardship to those who lose their licences under the veto provisions of the Bill. These schemes in principle have been supported by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Lord Advocate especiall}^, over and over again, but the moment they were reduced to words and to specific proposals the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary for Scotland invariably found that the machinery was unsuitable. That is an obvious Parliamentary trick to get rid of anything inconvenient. In the first place, the principle is good, and, in the second place, the machinery is bad. We have discussed this over and over again. I have always thought that a principle of this kind should be embodied in the Bill in the interest of the Bill, if it is possible to carry it out by some decent machiner}'. I have always thought that those who propose machinery which is not suitable have a right to ask the Government to introduce machinery to carry out the prin- ciple of the Bill in a way satisfactory to themselves. I do not think there is anything in the statement that the Government would necessarily have to guarantee the scheme. 176 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Colonel Greig : Is not the hon. Baronet now discussing the general principle on this Amendment ? Sir G. Younger : I think the question is whether the justices are to have responsibility for the scheme or whether the responsi- bility is to rest in some other quarter. I am pointing out that the wording of the Clause is not at present satisfactory, because the justices would be put in the position of carrying out the instruc- tion as to insurance, though they had no real direction what to do. There is no statement as to the amount to be insured nor as to the premium to be paid by these people. The difficulty is a very serious one. The real point we want to settle is: Is this House going to accept any sort of scheme of compulsory insurance attached to this Bill or is it not ? It is impossible to discuss this Amendment without putting that specific point to the House. The Amendment is no use unless this House is going to suggest that that principle ought to be adopted. Mr. Leif Jones : As I understood your ruling, it was that we could not discuss that simple question. I agree entirely with the hon. Baronet that it would be much simpler if we could discuss it, but I also understood that you had said that that was precisely the course which the House could not take. Mr. Speaker : I think we must assume for present purposes that some system of insurance is to be established. That being so, the question arises, Which is the best system ? That is what we are now discussing — the two alternatives, one suggested by the Noble Lord and one moved by the hon. Member for Blackfriars. After we have settled that, we shall then revert to the original question whether there is to be any system of insurance at all or not. But we must assume for present purposes that there is to be a system of insurance. Sir G. Younger : I think it is a very wild assumption, at all events if the Secretary for Scotland is in the same mind in dealing with this matter, that the majority of this House is going to send up a suggestion of the kind, and it is almost a waste of time if that be so to discuss whether the justices shall be placed in this position or whether they shall not. We have had various conundrums put to us in the carrying out of the scheme of legislation under the Parlia- ment Act. I do not think that we have ever had a more difficult one COMMOXS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 177 tlian this. Though I desire very much to keep within the hmits of order, I do not see precisely how I am to do it. I do not think that the proposal as it stands is one that could be carried out. If the justices are put into it, they would not find it possible to suggest machinery in the various districts. The whole object of insurance is to get as big an average as possible. The individual justices or bodies of justices, therefore, could only adumbrate a scheme for their own particular jurisdiction. The average would be small and it would be almost useless for the purposes of insurance because if a Resolution were carried the whole burden would have to be borne by the small number of people in the district itself, and not shared by the larger number outside. So, while I wish to support an Amendment which would improve this scheme, I honestly cannot see very much difference in the scheme as it stands and this proposal, except this, that you get very nearly down to a statement of principle by accepting this Amendment, should you or should you not have com- pulsory insurance, and if you pass the Clause as it stands, with the Noble Lord's Amendment, it is for the House of Lords to so amend that as to produce machinery which this House could no doubt accept. Mr. Munro-FergUSOn : I think that my right hon. Friend on this side has shown, with his undoubted experience in the direction of insurance and licences, how impossible it would be to work the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord opposite. The hon. Baronet opposite said that he did not see how the Clause as amended would work. I have never seen any proposal yet for insurance of which you could be at all sure as to how it would work. I am not at all sure of it now, and if I support the proposal in the form in which it is moved it will be for this reason, that the ways in which I think the difficulty should have been met, either by compensation or a somewhat longer time interest, having been rejected by the powers that be, in charge of this Bill, I think we have to fall back upon this Suggestion in order to secure equitable treatment so far as we are able to do so. It is upon that ground that I support this proposal, and not because I have any perfect faith either in this or any other form of insurance. Mr. Barnes : I merely rise to say that I cannot accept this Amend- ment, and for two reasons, either one of which I think is fatal. The M 178 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL first, as pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, is that a proposal of this sort involves imposing upon the magistrates the duty of seeing that the scheme is watertight. That, so far as I understand, is coming back to the principle to which so much objection is taken on this side of the House. Therefore, that seems to me sufficient to condemn the proposal. Then, I understand the further proposal is made that it is necessary, that something should be done in the way of giving magistrates or somebody else a power of over- looking a scheme, as otherwise you may have, as is suggested, licence-holders insuring up to a shilling or something of that sort. My simple answer to that is, that if they insure up to a shilling, a shilling is better than nothing. At present there is nothing in the Bill to provide that a licence-holder should make any provision, and therefore I am not at all concerned with that argument. Neither do I accept for one moment the suggestion that i,ooo licence- holders could be got together to fix up a bogus insurance of that character. I have sufficient faith even in licence-holders to believe that if an association is formed and given leave to issue policies in connection with this matter, that association would be sufficiently bond fide not to insure for a shilling, but to insure, if not up to twenty shillings in the;^, at all events so to insure that the man shall have something saved to him out of the wreckage of his business. Mr. J. Henderson : I \\\%\\ to correct the statement that this would throw upon magistrates the responsibility of guaranteeing the insurance companies. In the Law Courts the insurance companies guarantee liquidators, trustees, and surveyors, and these persons have to produce a certificate from some insurance company, but that docs not render the Courts of Law responsible for the insurance company. The magistrates would have, as the Law Courts have, a list of the companies whose policies they would accept. So long as one of the insurance companies mentioned was selected, it would not be suggested that the Law Coui ts or the judge would be responsible for accepting that company. The magistrates would be in the same position. That meets the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. Mr. Godfrey Collins : The hon. Member for Blackfriars is unable to accept this Amendment because it might make this scheme a watertight scheme. COMMOXS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 179 Mr. Barnes : I am not aware of having used any such words. If I did, tlien I did not say what I intended to say. I object to the Amendment because it associates magistrates once more with the Ucence, and also because I think it is quite unnecessary. I do not want to make it a condition that any man shall insure up to 20S. in the £, but 1 want to save something for him. Mr. Collins : I think that the board of licensing magistrates, having this scheme placed before them by Parliament, would always look to the amount of money which they might have to raise in the coming year to pay the licence-holders the value of the licences. In other words, they would fix a premium in comparison to the risk run by the insurer, and I think there is no doubt that we could have a sound, compulsory insurance scheme if the trade would only face the risks attendant on the trade when this Bill passes into law. Because the trade are unable or unwilling to pay a 2 or a 5 per cent, a year premium on the value of the licence, we are unable to get any sound scheme to place before them. I hope that the Government will stand firm and resist any sort of scheme like this, which cannot be sound in practice and sound in financial matters. The Secretary for Scotland (Mr, McKinnon Wood) : Of course, as the hon. Baronet said, it is extremely difficult to discuss the Amendment without discussing the scheme, but I shall do my best to avoid that breach of order. The Amendment is one upon which there appears to be a great deal of difference of opinion, but the point which I particularly wish to impress upon the House is the extraordinary nature of our present procedure. Here we are engaged in one of the most complicated schemes, a scheme not only to insure publicans, [)ut to insure them compulsorily, and which shall not only be just, but acceptable to the licence-holder. It is an extremely difficult thing to do — in fact, a scheme which was brought out with great deliberation and thought by the representatives of the trade itself went to another place and was rejected in that other place. After having had various schemes before us, we are now asked to proceed to draw up a scheme by means of an impromptu Amendment which is not even on the Paper, but casually brought forward by the Noble Lord, and which is immediately repudiated by the hon. Baronet opposite, who, with all respect to IcSO TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) RILL the Noble Lord, knows ten times as much as tlie Noble Lord about ihis subject. Here wc are attempting by a proposal which nobody except the Mover of it defends, to contrive that most com- plicated thing, a scheme for compulsory insurance. That of itself condemns the whole thing. We have had six of these schemes which iiave been considered by the House and Committees of the House, and have also been considered in another place, and not one of them would stand examination. And now we have this scheme which nobody defends except the Mover, and you are seeking to make it watertight by an impromptu Amendment of the Noble Lord and by other Amendments. Was there ever a more ridiculous attempt ? The very phraseology of the Amendment itself does not follow the ordinary phraseology. As the hon. Baronet behind me has said, with perfect truth, the magistrates are asked to take tlic responsibih'ty of saying whether the insurance is satisfactory or not. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division said, "I do not want to do anything of the kind, and I do not think there is any force in the criticism that this Clause will allow anybody to escape the obligation." Of course that part of the Clause which the Amendment proposes to put right merely says that a receipt is to be produced for the payment of a premium on a policy of insurance to make some [provision. But the provision may be anything from £^ up to ;^5,ooo or it might be up to a shilling, as someone has said. The very people to whom the compulsory scheme would apply are the people who do not want it. Tiie magistrates would have no guidance at all as to what they were to do, yet they would have the obligation placed upon them of seeing whether the thing was satisfactory or not. I think the criticism of the right hon. Baronet is very well founded, that the magistrates would be required to take a responsibility which they repudiate. This is not a voluntary scheme. This is a scheme which would compel the trade to come into it. Marquess of Tullibardine : Does the right hon. Gentleman object to compulsory insurance? Mr. McKinnon Wood : Yes ; I always have, and so does a great section of the trade. An'Hon. Member : Does the Lord Advocate object ? Mr. McKinnon Wood : 1 cannot commit myself to this Amend- COMMONS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 181 ment, and I would urge upon tlie House to consider whether it is worth while discussing this proposal. We have got this proposal before us on paper, but 1 am bound to say that two-thirds of it did not appear on the Paper last night. Mr. Barnes : We had only notice yesterday that the Bill was coming on to-day. Mr. McKinnon Wood : Does my hon. Friend suggest that all the notice he had was that given yesterday ? Of course not. The Bill passed the Second Reading long ago, and there has been plenty of time to put down Amendments. Marquess of TuUibardine : How could I possibly put down Amendments to a proposal, the whole of which was not on the Paper yesterday ? Mr. McKinnon Wood : That is irrelevant to my argument. My point is whether a complicated subject of this kind can be dealt with in this way. If you are going to ask the House of Commons to deal with a scheme of insurance under the Act, and you put down a scheme which everybody admits is inadequate, and then endeavour to improve it by impromptu Amendments, that is not the way to deal with a subject so complicated. Not only has there been plenty of time to put down Amendments, but we have had six or seven of these schemes, not one of which has been approved of as a whole. Under these circumstances I cannot vote for this Amendment. Mr. Clyde : I hope the House will take note, and not only the House but the public, of what has happened on this occasion, when for the first time we are making use of what is known as the Sugges- tion stage. This is the first Bill and this is the first Suggestion stage that has come under the new procedure, after a day's notice. [An Hon. Member : ** No."] Yes ; the House having been told for the first time yesterday that this stage of the Bill was to be taken to-day. Not only that, but the Bill which passed its Second Reading within the last ten days passed sub silentio the Committee stage, and so far as the discussions which took place at that time were con- cerned, they were treated by the same right hon. Gentleman, whom I am criticising to-day, from the point of view that he would listen to no Amendment and that, so far as he was concerned, the House was to swallow the Bill without the alteration of a comma. Mr. McKinnon Wood : I based myself entirely upon the 18-2 TEMl'EHANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Amendment, and upon the method in which the question is being dealt with In- Amendments. Mr. Clyde : I am basing my remarks upon the manner in which tlie right hon. Gentleman thinks fit to use the Suggestion stage. Now that there is a Suggestion stage, what is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman ? — this has onl}^ dropped out incidentally — it is that he will have no Suggestion at all. He says what, with great respect to him, he has not always said, that he was always opposed to any scheme of compulsory insurance. If the right hon. Gentle- man will take the trouble to read some of his own speeches made in the discussion of this Bill, without going back to last year, he will find that he succeeded remarkably well in disguising his meaning. It was the right hon. Gentleman himself who dealt at considerable length with what he considered to be the fact, that there was a very strong demand for some form of compulsory insurance. Mr. McKinnon Wood : I did not say a word about compulsory insurance. I said there was a strong demand for insurance, and I followed up the remark by pointing out that a large proportion of the licence-holders hi Glasgow were insured. I was talking about voluntary insurance. Mr. Clyde : If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to read his speeches he will find out from the context that what I state is well justified ; much more than that, with regard to a scheme of compulsory insurance, the right hon. Gentleman promised a full and open discussion in Committee. Instead of that, the right hon. Gentleman in Committee upstairs did just what he has done to-day — he will listen to no scheme, and he restricts his attitude to picking holes in any scheme presented to him ; but, as to applying his own mind to the problem with a view to a practical Bill which would settle the matter, he will not move his little finger. I suppose the net result of it all is Mr. Ponsonby : May I ask, Sir, whether hon. Members on the Front Benches are to be allowed a larger field of discussion than private Members, who have very carefully observed your ruling? Mr. Speaker : I do not wish to apportion blame to those who are responsible for having led the discussion rather further afield tlian I intended. It certainly has gone further than I intended, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come a little closer to the subject now. COMMONS [Jn.Y 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 183 Mr. Clyde : I very willingly and very loyally accept the hint, Sir, but I do not think I was wholly to blame. 1 wish to content myself with saying that I should very much like to know whether the Government, when they framed the Parliament Act, projected their minds into such a ridiculous position as the Parliament Act has brought the present Session. The hon. Baronet the Member for Spen Valley [Sir T. Whittaker], in his criticism of the Amendment, depended upon the proposition that it was a very awkward position in which to put the publican to be told that he must insure to the satisfaction of the magistrate. He remarked what a responsibility it would put upon the shoulders of the magistrate, how difficult it would be to exercise, and, above all, how unfair it would be to compel the trade to accept an insurance which was to be regarded as satisfactory according to the discretion of the magistrate. We all respect the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, but I think he could hardly have had in his mind the scheme of which he himself has been a loyal supporter in the course of the last few years. He had no objection to the scheme of the Insurance Act by which everybody who is compulsorily insured is to insure in a society approved, not by the person himself, not indeed by magistrates, but by certain Commissioners. Would his objection have been removed if the Commissioners of Excise had been the persons who approved the insurance ? Sir T. Whittaker : In regard to the plan under the Insurance Act, there was provision made for an actuarial investigation of those societies to ascertain whether tliey were sound and solvent. Mr. Clyde : The hon. Baronet is perfectly right, of course, in saying that under the Insurance Act there is provision for an actuarial investigation and that there is nothing of that kind in the scheme of the hon. Member for Blackfriars. But if that be so, and if that be the only point on which the right hon. Baronet relies, then 1 have misconceived his objection. I thought his objection was to the approval of the magistrate. Apparently the right hon. Baronet's objection is that there should be some form of actuarial investigation. If that be so, we could easil}^ amend the Clause, but I rather fear that his objection goes deeper and belongs to the class which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland always welcomes, namely, criticisms which are not of a helpful character. If the only objection 184 TEMPERxVNCE (SCOTLAND) BILL is that sonic form of investigation or check upon the soundness of the companies which issue poHcies is required, there will be no great difficulty in amending this scheme any more than there was in pro- vidingfor anacturial investigation into the affairs of approved societies. It has been also suggested that people might insure up to a shilling. I think, if the hon. Members recollected, that we are dealing here with a piece of business, a very serious business, in regard to those whose property and whose ordinary livelihood are going to be interfered with, we should hear less of gibes of that kind. It is not a case in which people are going to carry on an extended scale of fraud on the scheme. If they do, it shows that the scheme is not wanted. All that the hon. Member for Blackfriars has in his mind is that if people are minded to insure at all, they should at least have the opportunity under this system of compulsion to do so. That is what he wants to achieve. With regard to the merits of the actual Amendment, what strikes me is this. I am personally and I am sure many of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House are very anxious, to see this problem of insurance solved in some practical form. The best chance of seeing it solved under the present unfavourable conditions is to get some form of suggestion into the Bill by way of suggestion at this stage. I agree that something can be done afterwards as to the difficulties which aflfect our procedure, but at this moment I would rather appeal to the Noble Lord for that reason not to press his Amendment on the hon. Member for Blackfriars, if he does not see his way to accept it, because we want in this matter as far as he can, though I know it is useless to appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, to enlist on the side of fair and just terms as large a body of Members of the House as we can. Marquess of Tullibardine : In view of what my right hon. Friend has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to a Clause which I know the Secretary for Scotland has already thrown over in his mind. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Mackinder : 1 beg to propose in the first paragraph after the word " insurance " [" a policy of insurance "], to insert the words " in accordance with the terms of this Clause." This Amendment is aimed at the same difficulty as the last Amendment. It seeks to cure that difficulty by throwing the judg- COMMONS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 165 ment as to the adequacy of the insurance not on the magistrates but on the association itself. If this Amendment were carried, I should then propose to omit the word " some " and the effect would be that the Clause would run " a receipt for the payment of the premium on a policy of insurance in accordance with the terms of this Clause making provision against loss." The terms of the Clause we find in the words " empowered to issue policies of insurance on such terms and conditions as its members may prescribe." The effect would be, as it seems to me, to make the proposed Clause watertight. The adequacy of the provision would be guaranteed by the associa- tion. The members of the association would have every motive for securing that no one shirked his responsibility, and merely insured for a shilling. He would be compelled by the rules of the associa- tion itself to take his fair share in the risk run by the whole trade of the country. I suggest, therefore, the difficulty would be met by the proposal I am making. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause can see his way to accepting these words, but it does seem to me that there is a very real difficulty involved in the Clause as it now stands. By common consent, or almost common consent, I think we have agreed that we should be throwing a very difficult and undesirable burden on the magistrates. Hon. Gentle- men opposite, if we m.ade them the judges as to sufficiency, would object to the State being brought in to guarantee the adequacy, but by this proposal we throw that burden upon the association of the trade itself. That there must be some judgment as to the adequacy, I submit the discussion has shown very clearly. The hon. Baronet, and other hon. Gentlemen, have made that evident. I beg to move. Sir G. Younger : I beg to second the Amendment. I do so because this Amendment brings the two portions of the Clause together. It is impossible, of course, under the Clause as it stands to amend it to the full extent that perhaps the machinery re- quires, but this proposal is a distinct improvement in the linking up of the two portions of the Clause. I think if we adopted the sug- gestion in this form, it would come back to us in a form which would provide the necessary machinery. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that there have been certain sections of the trade who objected, but there are also certain people who think their licences quite safe, and who would not insure unless compelled 186 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL to do so. It is surely reasonable that the House should look with reasonable generosity on a proposal of this kind in order to relieve the situation. After all, no insurance can be anything but a solatium. Under the present system of heavy Licence Duties they could not afTord to pay a suflicientl}^ large amount to make certain of 20s. in the £. I am prett}' sure of this, that no Scotsman is going to ruin his fellow man and neighbour without seeing that sufficient provi- sion is being made to prevent that. It is not possible to conceive that this measure would be very effective unless some proposal of this kind is introduced. I myself believe that the Scottish elector would be very much more generous and more sympathetic, ver}' much more than Mr. Speaker : The hon. Baronet is now dealing with the whole of the Resolution and not with the Amendment. ■ Sir G. Younger : I believe that, if sent to the House of Lords as a Suggestion and embodied in the Bill, something of this kind is likely to improve the measure. Mr. Barnes : I cannot accept this Amendment, and for the very obvious reason that it is quite evident that the Mover has something quite different in his mind from what I have in my mind. The hon. Member used the word " watertight." I do not know in what con- nection he used that word, but I do not feel that the Clause should get the character of watertightness if it means that a man is to be insured against loss. That would be the effect of the words of the hon. Member. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise would have to satisfy themselves, upon the production of a receipt, of a policy of insurance making provision against loss. That would impose on them the duty of seeing that the scheme would produce 20s. in the £, and it might also be interpreted to mean that it would be actuai'ily sound. I do not want to impose any such condition upon any Government official, and therefore I cannot accept. I* Mr. Mackinder : I do not think that follows from what I said or from the words 1 put forward. It would entirely depend on the terms prescribed for tlie members of the association by the association. Mr. Barnes : I am only taking the words in their common- sense meaning. The Clause would read that the man must insure against loss, and that necessarily means that he must insure for the COMMONS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 187 full value of his licence. I do not want to impose that condition on him. Sir Thomas Whittaker : Either insurance against loss means insurance for the total amount that will be lost, or it means that the amount is to be left to the voluntary decision of the person insured. If it means insurance to the extent of the total loss, then I think we are back in the old position of throwing the responsibility on the Customs. If it means that they are to insure to such an amount as they individually decide will be sufficient, then it practically means that it is voluntary insurance and that they can fix the amount at what they like. If they can fix the amount at what they like, it brings us back to the point referred to by the hon. and learned Member on the previous Amendment. He ridiculed the idea that they would insure for a shilling or one pound. I think he over- looked the fact that this is a compulsory Clause. You are going to compel men to insure who otherwise would not do so. If the amount for which they are to insure is to be left to their decision they can settle it by voluntary arrangement, and these men, who would not insure unless they were compelled, will want to insure for as little as possible ; therefore they will go in for a shilling or a pound, or some other nominal sum. On this Amendment I cannot express my general views as to insurance. They are not quite what the hon. and learned Member thinks. We have not here, however, a practical working scheme. Question put, " That those words be there inserted." The House divided: Ayes, 117 ; Noes, 264. ^ AYES Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Anstruther-Gray, Major William Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Astor, Waldorf Cassel, Felix Baird, John Lawrence Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Baldwin, Stanley Clyde, James Avon Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.) Cooper, Richard Ashmole Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Beckett, Hon. Gervase Craik, Sir Henry Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Croft, Henry Page Bigland, Alfred Dalrymple, Viscount Bird, Alfred Dewar, Sir J. A. Blair, Reginald Dixon, Charles Harvey Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Duke, Henry Edv^-ard Boyton, James Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Bridgeman, WilUam Clive Falle, Bertram Godfray Burn, Colonel C. R. Fell, Arthur Butcher, John George Fisher, Rt. Hon. W, Hayes 188 TEMPERxVNCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Forster, Henr>' \\illiaiu Gardner, Ernest Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Gibbs, George Abraham Goldsmith. Frank Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Goulding. Edward Alfred Grant, James Augustus Greene, Walter Raymond Gretton, John Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) Haddock, George Bahr Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Harris, Henry Percy Helmsley, Viscount Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Hewins, William Albert Samuel Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Hope, Harry (Bute) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Houston, Robert Paterson Hunt, Rowland Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. Jessel, Captain H. M. Kerry, Earl of Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Lane-Fo.x, G. R. Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. Mason, James F. (Windsor) Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Mount, William Arthur Newman, John R. P. Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Parkes, Ebenezer Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Peel, Lieut. -Colonel R. F. Perkins, Walter Frank Peto, Basil Edward Pollock, Ernest Murray Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. Randies, Sir John S. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Remnant, James Farquharson Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Royds, Edmund Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) Sanders, Robert Arthur Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Spear, Sir John Ward Stanier, Beville Stewart, Gershom Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) Swift, Rigby Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) Talbot, Lord Edmund Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) Thynne, Lord Alexander Tryon, Captain George Clement TuUibardine, Marquess of Valentia, Viscount Walker, Colonel William Hall Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) Weigall, Captain A. G. Wheler, Granville C. H. Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) Wills, Sir Gilbert Winterton, Earl Wolmer, Viscount Wood, John (Stalybridge) Worthington-Evans, L. Yate, Colonel C. E. Younger, Sir George Tellers for the Ayes. - Mackinder and Major Hope. Mr. NOES Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Addison, Dr. Christopher Ainsworth, John Stirling Alden, Percy Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Arnold, Sydney Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Baiter, Joseph .\llen (P'insbury, E.) Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Barton, William Beale, Sir William Phipson Beck, Arthur Cecil Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Bentham, George J. Bethell, Sir John Henry Black, Arthur W. Boland, John Pius Booth, Frederick Handel Bowerman, Charles W. Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Brady, Patrick Joseph Brociclehurst, William B. Brunner, John F. L. Bryce, John Annan Burns, Rt. Hon. John Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas COMMONS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 189 Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Byles, Sir William Pollard Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood) Chancellor, Henry George Chappie, Dr. William AUen Clancy, John Joseph Clough, William Clynes, John R. Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Condon, Thomas Joseph Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Cotton, William Francis Cowan, William Henry Crooks, William Crumley, Patrick CuUinan, John Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, 8.) De Forest, Baron Delany, William Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Devlin, Joseph Dickinson, W. H. Dillon, John Donelan, Captain A. Doris. William Duffy, William J. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Elverston, Sir Harold Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Essex, Sir Richard Walter Esslemont, George Birnie Falconer, James Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Ffrench, Peter Field, William Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Fitzgibbon, John Flavin, Michael Joseph Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Gelder, Sir William Alfred George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Ginnell, Laurence Gladstone, W. G. C. Glanville, Harold James Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Goldstone, Frank Greig, Colonel James William Griffith, Ellis Jones Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) GuUand, John William Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Hackett, John Hancock, John George Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Havelock-AUan, Sir Henry Hayden, John Patrick Hayward, Evan Hazleton, Richard Helme, Sir Norval Watson Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Henry, Sir Charles Higham, John Sharp Hinds, John Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Hodge, John Hogge, James Myles Holmes, Daniel Turner Hoit, Richard Durning Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Hudson, Walter lUingworth, Percy H. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) John, Edward Thomas Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Jones, Henry Hadyn (Merioneth) Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Jowett, Frederick William Joyce, Michael Keating, Matthew Kellaway, Frederick George Kelly, Edward Kennedy, Vincent Paul Lambert,Rt.Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Lardner, James C. R. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Lawson,SirW.(Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Leach, Charles Levy, Sir Maurice Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Lunden, Thomas Lyell, Charles Henry Lynch, Arthur Alfred Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) McGhee, Richard Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Macpherson, James Ian MacVeagh, Jeremiah M'Callum, Sir John M. M'Curdy, Charles Albert McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald M'Laren, Hon.F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding) 100 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Mason, David M. (Coventry) Masterman. Kt. Hon. C. F. G. Meagher. Michael Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrini, X.) Meehan. Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Menzies. Sir Walter Middlebrook, William Millar. James Duncan MoUoy. Michael Moltcno, Percv Alport Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Money, L. G. Chiozza Mdoney, John J. Morgan, George Hay Morison, Hector Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Muldoon, John Munro, Robert Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Murphy, Martin J. Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. Needham, Christopher T. Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Nolan, Joseph Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Nuttall, Harry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) O'Dohcrty, Philip O'Donneli, Thomas O'Dowd, John O'Grady, James O'Kellv, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) O'Mallev, William O'Neill, 'Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. O'Shec, James John O'SuUivan, Timothy Palmer, Godfrey Mark Parker, James (Halifax) Parry, Thomas H. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Pointer, Josepfi Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Price, C. li. (Edinburgh, Central) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Priestley. Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Pringle, William M. R. Radford, G. H. Pa flan, Peter Wilson }<<'ldy, Michael Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Rendall, Athelstan Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Roberts, Charles H, (Lincoln) Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Dcnbighs). Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Robinson, Sidney Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Roche, Augustine (Louth) Roe, Sir Thomas Rowlands, James Rowntree, Arnold Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Scanlan, Thomas Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. Sheehy, David Shortt, Edward Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John AUsebrook Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Snowdcn, Philip Sutherland, John E. Sutton, John E. Taylor, John W. (Durham) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Tennant, Harold John Thomas, James Henry Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Thorne, William (West Ham) Toulmin, Sir George Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Watt, Henry A. Webb, H. Wedgwood, Josiah C. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) White, Patrick (Meath, North) Whitehouse, John Howard Whittakcr, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. Wiles, Thomas Williams, John (Glamorgan) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wore, N.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) Winfrey, Richard Wing, Thomas Edward Wood, Rt. Hon.T.McKinnon (Glasgow) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) Young, William (Perth, East) Yoxall, Sir James Henry Tellers for the Noes. — Mr. Barnes and Mr. Adamson. COMMONS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 191 Mr. Gretton : I desire to move, to leave out the word " some," in order to ascertain what is meant by that limitation upon the word " provision." Shall I be in order in so doing ? Mr. Barnes : May I suggest that that involves exactly the same principle as the last Amendment ? Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow, when moving his last Amendment, said that he proposed to move, as a consequential Amendment, to leave out the word " some," and he discussed the two Amendments together. Therefore, I think that the decision the House has just come to disposes of that point. Mr. Gretton : Is it necessarily consequential ? Shall I not be in order in moving it as a separate proposition ? It is practically a different question, although the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division referred to it in his argument. Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member can proceed. Mr. Gretton : I beg to move, to leave out the word " some" [" making some provision against loss" — ] Mr, Frederick Whyte rose in his place, and claimed to move, " That the main Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put the Question. Mr. Gretton : I propose to leave out the word " some," in order to ascertain what exactly is meant by the proposal of the hon. Member opposite. The poHcy of insurance must be against the loss possible upon the withdrawal of the certificate. The word "some" may mean anything, and unless there is a definite statement as to what provision is to be made, whether 50 per cent., or 75 per cent., or 10 per cent., or whatever is intended, the whole Suggestion appears to me to be absolutely useless. It is certainly not a practicable Suggestion in the form in which it now stands. If there is to be com- pensation, it should clearly be for the loss, and the proportion of loss to be paid should be stated. Otherwise this is merely a window- dressing Suggestion. I submit, therefore, that this word ought to be omitted, and that some clear definition should be given as to what is intended by subsequent words. Mr. James Mason : I beg to second the Amendment. The inclu- sion of this word " some " really does reduce the general proposal to a farce. It makes a sham insurance take the place of a real insurance. 192 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL You should include some provision to make certain that the insurance which you desire to have effected shall be a real one. Unless some more definite words are put in the whole thing falls to the ground. Mr. Speaker : I do not think it makes any difference whether or not the word is in. I do not think there is anything in the Amend- ment. Earl Winterton : I think we ought to have some explanation as to the meaning of the word " some " from the Government. Mr. Speaker : That is the point we have been discussing, and I would remind the Noble Lord that we cannot go over the same ground again. Earl Winterton : I am not aware that that takes away from me my right to speak to this Amendment. If you rule so, I shall sit down. Mr. Speaker : I only rule that the Noble Lord must not go over the ground which has been already gone over, or he will be sinning against the Standing Order in regard to repetition. Earl Winterton : I had not commenced my speech when you rose to call attention to that fact. I wish to ask the Government what meaning exactly they attach to this word "some." I am the director of an insurance company, and I believe the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) also is, and I never yet knew of an insurance company where such a phrase comes into play as to " some " provision. In no insurance premium that I ever saw was there ever such a term. It is a most absurd business. There is no meaning in the words making "some" provision. Does it mean provision in the case of a licence worth hundreds to the extent of one shilling or to the extent of hundreds of pounds ? I hope the Lord Advocate will explain. [Laughter.] The subject seems to be one of great amusement to hon. Gentlemen opposite. All I can say is that such a suggestion should go up from this House will make even more ridiculous this Suggestion stage, and render the whole Bill more ridiculous, inopera- tive, and futile than even its authors intended. Mr. Barnes rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." Mr. Speaker : 1 do not think that Motion is necessary. Amendment put, and negatived. Main Question again proposed. COMMONS [July 9, 191 :J] SUGGESTIONS 193 Mr. Duncan Millar : I think we are entitled to suggest to the House, in view of the arguments which have been put forward, and the opportunity for discussion, that it is perfectly clear that there has been no case at all made out for compulsory insurance in any shape or form. I do not desire to say more than this : that on this par- ticular occasion we have reached the seventh separate scheme which has been put before the House. The hon. Member for Blackfriars who has suggested this scheme to the House to-day has not succeeded in impressing the House with the fact that his scheme would be workable in any shape or form. 1 do not think he expected to do it. Mr. Barnes : No, not you ! Mr. Duncan Millar : And the hon. Gentleman has not succeeded. He has not made out a case to justify him in supervening with a suggestion such as he proposes to the House of Lords. I feel that the Government has taken a very wise course in refusing to look at this Suggestion. I feel satisfied when the Bill goes to the House of Lords for consideration that the House will take into account the fact that the House of Commons has already given its opinion on many different occasions upon this question of compulsory insurance. I hope that in the division which is now taking place that the House will again, by a very large and overwhelming majority, indicate to the House of Lords that on this subject there can be no further Amendment considered. I am glad that the Government are firm in their determination to adhere to the form of the Bill as passed last Session. I feel sure that the people of Scotland will appreciate the view they have taken. On this occasion they are only expressing the view that there has been no change of opinion in Scotland, rather the other way, that the people of Scotland are determined to get the Bill they originally asked for. Sir G. Younger : I am not by any means astonished that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken should have made the speech that he has done. Of course, we know the driving power behind the Government in this matter. It is a very unfortunate thing in my opinion that the Government has throughout the discussions on this Bill paid so much attention to extreme opinion and so little to moderate opinion. I can tell the hon. Member that if he thinks he is doing a service to the trade by objecting to compulsory insurance, N 104 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL that he will liiul that he is luistakeii. The various schemes put forward up to now are practically all one scheme. Financially, in all the schemes of compulsory insurance the basis has always been the same. The scheme never pretended to be anything more than a solatium for possible loss in the case of the adoption of the options under this Bill. At no time has it ever been proposed to attempt to insure the full value of the licence, because it is quite impossible to licence-holders to pay the premium to entitle them to expect pa^mient of that. But as the hon. Member for Blackfriars has said more than once, if a man loses his licence it is much better that he should have half the value with which to go out and start a new business, than that he should have nothing at all. It is in order to give the licence-holder the advantage of the general average over the whole of Scotland, and to enable him to secure something or other out of the wreck, that these schemes have been proposed, not at all with the view or with the expectation of providing him for all the money he will lose, but, as I have said before, to provide some kind of solatium to start afresh in life when his licence has been taken away. To suppose that the six or seven different schemes put before the House have really differed in essence is a mistake. In essence they have been the same throughout, I think I proposed the first of them, and I have proposed others since. Every one of them will be found to be exactly on the same foundation, differing only in the machinery, and only attempting partial and not full insurance. One of the objections that the Lord Advocate made to one of the schemes was that it did not provide full assurance. I always agreed. I think he will agree with me that I never intended that the scheme did it. The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ure) : I quite agree. Sir G. Younger : The scheme is not a final or full provision, and that is why the word " some" is no doubt put in. There is no attempt to be made to evade responsibility by under-insurance any more than to gain an unfair advantage by over-insurance. If this House thinks the Bill should pass with some solution in the way of compulsory insurance, it would be a very simple matter to suggest what is just, honest, and fair. I cannot say myself that I expect the Secretary for .Sc-jtland will agree to any such suggestion as this being sent to the other House. He has all along taken a very COMMONS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 195 decided attitude against compulsory insurance, just as the extreme teetotalers have done. Why tliey should deny to these unfortunate people an opportunity to protect themselves as far as they can, 1 have never been able to understand, except that they seem to have a most vindictive feeling towards them. Through no fault of their own, these people have possibly been born into the business, as I was born into mine, and have carried on their business, as I have carried on mine, without ever thinking that we were doing other than that which was perfectly legitimate, fair, and proper. A change of opinion of some kind has arisen, or appears to have arisen, in respect to the system under which these licences have been granted. It is proposed to change it. The consistent, reasonable, judicial consideration and decision is to be entirely abrogated and a popular vote is to be substituted. Not content with that, and with having placed the businesses of these people in jeopardy — for everybody knows you can never tell how a popular vote may go, and it may change from time to time — notwithstanding that, they come down here, like hon. Members opposite, in a pure vindictive spirit and say, " We will not only ruin them, but we will not give them a chance to protect them- selves." It is a miserable spirit. It is necessary that someone should speak for these people. If the Bill passes to-morrow, it will do my business no harm, but I do resent — bitterly and strongly resent — the feeling shown by many people in dealing with this matter. I do think it is not a credit to the House of Commons that, when we get the opportunity of doing something which will relieve the tension in carrying out this policy, that it is not done. Main question, as amended, put. The House divided : Ayes, in; Noes, 233. AYES Adamson, William Astor, Waldorf Baird, John Lawrence Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.) Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Bigland, Alfred Bird, Alfred Blair, Reginald Bovver man, Charles W. Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid.) Boy ton, James Bridgeman, William Clive Burn, Colonel C. R. Butcher, John George Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Cassel, Felix Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Clyde, James Avon Clynes, John R. Cooper, Richard Ashmole Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) 100 TEMPEKAXCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Craik. Sir Henry Dalryniplo. \'iscount Dixon, Charles Harvey Duke, Henry Edward Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Falle, Bertram Godfray Fell, Arthur Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Forster, Henry \Nilliam Gardner. Ernest Gibbs, G. A. Goldsmith, Frank Goldstone, Frank Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Goulding, Edward Alfred Grant, J. A. Greene, Walter Raymond Gretton, John Guinness. Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) Haddock, George Bahr Hall. Frederick (Dulwich) Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Harris, Henr>~ Percy Helmsley, Viscount Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Hills, John Waller Hogge, James Myles Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Hope, Harry (Bute) Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Houston, Robert Paterson Hume-Williams, William Ellis Hunt, Rowland Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. Ingleby, Holcombc Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Lane-Fox, G. R. Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston) Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Mackinder, Halford J. M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. Mason, James F. (Windsor) Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Mount, William Arthur Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Norton-Griffiths, J. O'Grady, James Parkes, Ebenezer Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Peel, Lieut. -Colonel R. F. Pointer, Joseph Pollock, Ernest Murray Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. Randies, Sir John S. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Rawson, Colonel R. H. Remnant, James Farquharson Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Snowden, Philip Spear, Sir John Ward Stanier, Beville Stewart, Gershom Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) Sutton, John E. Swift, Rigby Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutsford) Talbot, Lord Edmund Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) Thorne, William (West Ham) Touche, George Alexander Walker, Col. William Hall Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) Wheler, Granville C. H. Williams, John (Glamorgan) Winterton, liarl Wolmcr, Viscount Worthington-Evans, L. Younger, Sir George Tellers for the Ayes. — Mr. Barnes and Mr. F. Whyte. NOES Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Addison, Dr. Christopher Ainsworth, John Stirling Alden, Percy Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Arnold, Sydney Baker Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Barran, Sir John N. (ffawick) Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Barton, William Beale, Sir William Phipson Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Bentham, George Jackson Bethell, Sir John Henry Black, Arthur W. Boland, John Pius Booth, Frederick Handel Boyle, Daniel (INIayo, North) Brady, Patrick Joseph Brocklchurst, William B. Brunncr, John F. L. Bryce, John Annan Burns, Rt. Hon. John COMMONS [July 9, 1913] SUGGESTIONS 197 Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Byles, Sir William Pollard Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood) Chancellor, Henry George Chappie, Dr. William Allen Clancy, John Joseph Clough, William Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J, Condon, Thomas Joseph Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Cotton, William Francis Crooks, William Crumley, Patrick CuUinan, John Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) De Forest, Baron Delany, William Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Devlin, Joseph Dillon, John Donelan, Captain A. Doris, William Duffy, William J. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Elverston, Sir Harold Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Essex, Sir Richard Walter Esslemont, George Birnie Falconer, James Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Ffrench, Peter Field, W^tUiam Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Fitzgibbon, John Flavin, Michael Joseph Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Gelder. Sir W. A. Ginnell, Laurence Gladstone, W. G. C. Glanville, Harold James Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Greenwood , Granville C. ( Peterborough ) Greig, Colonel James William Griffith, Ellis Jones Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Gwynne, Stephen Lucius (Gal way) Hackett, John Hancock, John George Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Hayden, John Patrick Hayward, Evan Hazleton, Richard Helme, Sir Norval Watson Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Henry, Sir Charles Higham, John Sharp Hinds, John Hodge, John Holmes, Daniel Turner Holt, Richard Durning Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Hudson, Walter Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) John, Edward Thomas Jones,Rt.Hon.SirD.Brynmor(Swansea) Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushclifife) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Joyce, Michael Keating, Matthew Kellaway, Frederick George Kelly, Edward Kennedy, Vincent Paul Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Lardner, James C. R. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Lawson,SirW.(Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Leach, Charles Levy, Sir Maurice Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Lundon, Thomas Lynch, Arthur Alfred Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) McGhee, Richard Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Macpherson, James Ian MacVeagh, Jeremiah M'Callum, Sir John M. M' Curdy, Charles Albert McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald M'Laren,Hon.F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding) Manfield, Harry Mason, David M. (Coventry) Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Meagher, Michael Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Menzies, Sir Walter Middlebrook, William Millar, James Duncan Molloy, Michael Molteno, Percy Alport Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Money, L. G. Chiozza 198 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Mooney, John J. Morgan, George Hay Morison, Hector ^[orton, Alpheus Cleophas Miildoon. John Miinro, Robert ^[ll^phy, Martin J. ^^llrray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. Nccdhani, Christopher T. Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Nolan, Joseph Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Nuttall, Harry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) O'Dohcrty, I'hilip O'Donneli, Thomas O'Dowd, John O' Kelly, Kdward P. (Wicklow, W.) O'Mallev, William O'Neill, "Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. O'Shee, James John O'SuUivan, Timothy Parker, James (Halifax) Parry, Thomas H. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Priestley. Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Radford, G. H. Ralfan, Peter Wilson Reddy, Michael Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Rendall, Athelstan Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Robinson, Sidney Roche, Augustine (Louth) Roe, Sir Thomas Rowlands, James Rowntree, Arnold Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Scanlan, Thomas Sheehy, David Shortt, Edward Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Sutherland, John E. Taylor, John W. (Durham) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Tennant, Harold John Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Toulmin, Sir George Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Watt, Henry A. Webb, H. Wedgwood, Josiah C. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) ^\'hite, Patrick (Meath, North) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas Wiles, Thomas Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) Winfrey, Richard Wing, Thomas Edward Wood, Rt. Hon.T.McKinnon (Glasgow) Young, William (Perth, East) Yoxall, Sir James Henry Tellers for the Noes. — Mr. Illingworth and Mr. GuUand. THIRD READING. Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read the third time."— [Mr, 6Vr.] Sir Henry Craik : I beg to propose, as an Amendment, to leave out the word " now," and at tlie end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months." It is no part of my duty, in beginning the Debate on the Third Reading of this Bill, to review the varied details of and arguments concerning this system or that system, or our varied experience with COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 199 regard to these systems. We are now dealing with the Bill in its broad and general aspect. Personally, I am glad that it is with the principles of the Bill that we can now deal, and that we are no longer concerned with its details. Speaking for myself, 1 make bold to say, as I have said before, that to these principles in their fundamental meaning I am absolutely opposed, and I have no hesita- tion in saying so. At the last stage of the Bill I went so far as to show I was ready to compromise ; that I was ready to support a reasoned Amendment, which found fault with particular parts of a Bill, and which claimed that certain additions should be made to the Bill. I was prepared to give up my own predilections against these principles, and I was ready for a compromise. We have seen how these attempts at compromise were received. We have seen again to-night how little possibility there is of getting from the Treasury Bench any sort of concession or anything else but the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. My objection is broadly to the whole of the principles upon which this Bill is based. I am not going to attack the motives or objects of hon. Members opposite. I do not think there is a single man in this House who is not prepared, if he is a sane and reasonable man, to admit that we are here to-day to do, each of us in the way he thinks best, what we can to advance the cause of temperance. We may differ as to the methods, but I think we can pay each other the ordinary respect of thinking that our ends are the same, and that we all desire to spread temperance ; but I object to the method and the principle by which hon. Members who support this Bill seek to gain that end. It is no doubt true that for a long time we have regulated this trade. We have made rules ; we have had Government supervision ; we have curtailed hours, and we have done what we could to lower the number of public-houses. We have done what we could to close public-houses at certain hours and on certain occasions. To a certain extent, I am with hon. Members opposite in thinking that is a necessary part of good government ; that it is necessary that a trade of this sort, affecting the well-being of the great masses of the people, should be under regulation. It is recognised by the State, and it is the duty of the State, so far, to regulate it. But when you come to these particular regulations, we find that we differ from one another considerabl}'. 1 am old enough to remember well the first movement towards very strict and pror 200 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL hibitive legislation in Scotland ; what were called the Forbes- Mackenzie Acts. They were well-known and widely advocated; they were discussed and criticised. They were thought by some people to be the harbinger of a new social regeneration. Public- houses were closed on Sundays entirely. They were closed earlier on week-days ; they were made subject to more severe regulation. Some of us in those days did not think that those. Forbes-Mackenzie Acts would bring about all that social regeneration which the ad- vocates of temperance prophesied. It turned out to be true. I have spent a large part of my life in Scotland, and I do not think that the prohibition regulations made Scotland a very sober country. She went in advance of England in her prohibitive legislation, but not in the temperate habits of her people. Mr. Leif Jones : Would the hon. Member like to repeal the Forbes-Mackenzie Acts ? Sir H. Craik : I am not speaking about repealing those Acts. What I say is that experience and common sense teaches me that you should look at the result of prohibitive legislation, in which Scot- land went in advance of England, and they did not make Scotland a more temperate country than England. I represent a constituency largely composed of Scotsmen, many of whom are resident in Scot- land, and that constituency is so intelligent and fair-minded that I make bold to say that I am speaking sincerely the mind of the bulk of my constituents when I assert that on the whole Scotland has not by that legislation advanced in temperance very materially during the last generation. What are you going to add to your regulations now ? The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Divi- sion [Mr. Barnes] asked what is this Bill going to do, and he said that it is simply going to take licensing out of the hands of the bench of magistrates and put it into the hands of the people^ Do hon. Members opposite think that that is an adequate, just, and fair description of this Bill ? Is it not obvious that, in taking these duties out of the hands of the magistrates, you abolish the judicial element altogether and put it into the hands of those who act not on judicial principles, but according to their wishes, their interests, their personal predilections, or their personal opinions ? I say nothing against that. They may be conscientious in holding those opinions, but the great difference is that you are sub- COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 201 jecting a great trade to new restrictions ; you are taking certain duties out of the hands of those who were bound to act upon judicial principles ; and you are placing those duties in the hands of those who will act merely according to their personal opinions or predilections. Personally, I would resist a public-house being licensed near to my own house, but if I were the magistrate on the bench 1 think I should conscientiously hear the evidence and give my judgment in such a case absolutely unbiassed by my own personal interests. I should be bound to do so, and I should be guilty of corruption of the worst sort in my position as a judge if I gave way to any other influence. But if the question came before me as an individual ratepayer, in a particular district, I should certainly vote that a public-house should not be set up there, because I should not feel bound by any judicial considerations, and I should feel that I was free to act according to my own personal opinions. Surely hon. Members see that there is a fundamental difference between that case and the mere transfer of the power from the hands of the magistrates to the hands of the people. You will probably ask if we are not to restrict this trade and impose these tremendous regulations upon it ; if we are not prepared to give to what really may be only an active minority of the population, the power to restrict their neighbours from having conveniences to get drink if they wish those conveniences, and if we are not willing to assent to the course proposed in this Bill, what is your alternative ? I have several alternatives, and it is because of my attachment to them, and my desire that they should be tried, and the certainty 1 feel that sooner or later, perhaps by a slow but a sure process, they would work in the direction of amelioration, that I am opposed to the principles of this Bill. I remember the saying of a distinguished prelate that " He preferred England free to England sober." I think that is an exaggerated representation of what the late Bishop of Peterborough really did say, but I make bold to say that I attach equal importance to the freedom of my country as to its sobriety. I think both of them are qualities that we need to prize and build up, and I am not pre- pared to set up a chain of slavery simply in order by artificial means to make the country what you call sober. In the first place, I would treat this question with a little more sympathy than some of the 202 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL extreme teetotalers do. I would try to approach the people by some more sympathetic action, something that will take a little more account of their feelings and the temptations in which they are placed. There are some words which often come into my mind written by Scott, who was one of the best Judges of human nature, which were put into the mouth of one of his characters, Mrs. Mucklebackit, in his novel, " The Antiquary," when Monkbarns delivered an injunction as to the necessity of avoiding the use of alcohol. She says : — " It's easy for your honour and the like o' you gentlefolks to say sae, thae hae stouth and routh and fire and fending, and meat and claith, and sit dry and canny by the fireside — but an ye wanted fire and meat and dry claise and had a sair heart, which is warst of ava wi' just tuppence in your pocket, wadna ye bi glad to buy a dram wi' it to bi gilding and claise and heart's ease into the bargain ?" With a touch of humour, one can see what it was that Scott made that fisherwoman teach to those about her. He would have tried to bring that comfort and brightness and social help into their lives that might assist you far more than all your Temperance Bills. Do try to make the public-houses places where a man can take his wife and family as they do abroad. You make your public-house as severe and as for- bidding as you can, but is that treating your fellow citizens with sym- pathy and insight into the meaning of their lives ? Do not, I ask you, frown upon the public-house if you wish the public-house to be better than it is. Make it a place where a man would lose his self-respect if he indulged in excess. Make it a place where he has his respectable neighbours around him, instead of a place where those around him are only too glad to see him drunk. Make it a place where he can spend his leisure hours with self respect and with enjoyment. Most hon. Members know something of Stockholm and Copenhagen. Have they not attended the winter gardens and the open air gardens there and heard music playing and seen acting going on all the time men were drinking some light beer or wine, or whatever it might be. There is just as little drunkenness there as there is in this House. I have been there quite often and seen it for myself. Do you not trust anything to your vaunted education ? I have spent a good deal of my time in educational administration, but if after forty years of educational administration 3'ou are going to bring forward legislation to treat your fellow citizens like children, then I COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD HEADING 203 say your compulsory education is not worth the money you have spent upon it. If we beheve that education is an amehorative and raising influence, then let us be patient and wait until it works its ameliorative eflect. Do you not believe that it would inevitably do so, and that it must, if it is any good at all, build up character? And without character what is your temperance worth ? Is temperance a virtue in the case of the convict who is shut up in a prison and cannot get access to any alcohol? Temperance, if it means any- thing, means the power that a man acquires of controlling himself by self-respect, by character, and by respect for his fellow creatures. I do not care in the least for that temperance which is enforced and which is not the fruit of self-respect and self-control. I believe, too, that you could do much by attention to the physical training of our youths. That, in my belief, is a thing most wanted in our education. Hon, Members are aghast at any proposal to submit our young men of from fourteen to eighteen or eighteen to twenty-one — those who are hanging about the street corners, turning into wastrels, after you have spent upon them lavishly for their education — to military train- ing to make them fit to defend their country and proud of themselves as citizens. Hon. Members are angry because we propose to take these young fellows for a few weeks or months for a few years into camp to give them the vast benefit and advantage of feeling what it is to lead a healthy life, to have their sinews trained, their nerves strengthened, and their brains made clear in action. All this would come if we were to adopt that universal military training for which we are working as missionaries. It would do more than all your Temperance Acts to build up character and to teach young men what it is to lead a healthy life. Do hon. Members think that this craving for drink in unwhole- some quantities is a thing natural to man ? Is it a thing that comes in the midst of healthy life ? Do they not know that if you make a man live a healthy life the craving diminishes, and that the man who leads such a life can regulate with ease the amount of alcohol he thinks good for himself to take? Man}' of us do habitually take alcohol. I have every respect for those who do not think that any alcohol can be otherwise than detrimental, but reall}', as sane men and as men of some experience, they must allow us to judge for our- selves if we leave them to judge for themselves. If you give young 204 TEiMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL men proper physical training and they learn to know, what many of them, alas ! never know, what it is to have their sinews in good order, their brains clear, their digestion good, and their whole mental and physical activities energised, the craving for drink will in very many cases disappear, and in all cases become less. I despair altogether of a thorough treatment of this question, and, if I speak alone, I shall utter my opinion upon it. I despair almost of either political party facing the odium that would be got by adopting the measures that I propose. You never will deal with intemperance until one political party or another is bold enough and strong enough to deal with the drunkard as he deserves to be dealt with. What is the use of passing on the crime to the manufacturer or to the dealer in alcohol ? Is the man not responsible himself for his conduct? And ought you not to bring it home to him as a disgusting and degrading vice ? If he makes himself a nuisance to his neighbour, if he makes himself a danger to his neighbour, and, still more, if he commits crime under the influence of his degrading vice, I would not treat him with greater indulgence. Deal drastically with vice in the sinner, and not merely with those who may be providing alcohol, which many of us want and desire, and have a right to have, simply because other people misuse it and degrade themselves by misusing what is one of the gifts of nature. Do not treat the drunkard like a child. I have watched this matter in Scotland, both from inside and outside. You have tried severe regulations, but you have not advanced temperance in that way nearly so much as it has been advanced by the influence of education, of social opinion, and of social respect. I have observed often what I think is a morbid and unwholesome habit of treating drunkenness, when it is seen in the street or in a public conveyance, as a joke rather than as something contemptible and vile. I defy anyone who has moved about in Scotland very much to deny that frequently, when a man is seen to be drunk, he is treated tenderly and greeted with a smile rather than with indignation at his conduct. You will never cure a drunkard by treating him in that way. You will never cure him as he is cured in Montreal or Quebec, where a drunken emigrant is dealt with ve^'y drastically. I believe it would be a good lesson to some of our fellow inhabitants, both in England and Scotland, if they were present in one of the emigration halls in Montreal and saw how a drunken COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 205 emigrant is dealt with by the pohce of Canada. There is no morbid afifectation of treating him as a child and with undue kindliness. There is no suggestion of treating the whole thing as a joke to be laughed at the next day. The emigrant is taught, as soon as he gets to that country, that, if he is to be of any use in Canada, he must learn to control himself, and that the responsibility of his degrada- tion rests not on other people, but upon himself. Let us be sincere. I can easily understand that there are certain hon. Members opposite who honestly believe in full prohibition. They consider that the whole trade — the manufacture and con- sumption of alcohol — ought to be absolutely prohibited. I would treat those hon. Members as a small minority, to be treated in the same way as one treats any small peculiar section, such as people, for instance, who absolutely consider it a crime and against their conscience to take a weapon in their hands and to serve their country in any shape or form that may involve fighting. The State cannot be regulated by the morbid opinions of small minorities like these, and as bodies regulating State action they must be set aside as a negligible quantity. Take any section of opinion that bulks largely, do we find they really hold that men who are employed in the production of alcohol, in one shape or another, are to be treated as pariahs not entitled to our respect ? Mr. Leif Jones : We want the trade treated as a dangerous trade. Sir H. Craik : Does the hon. Member say that these people should be treated as pariahs, as persons who have lost all sense of duty to their fellows, because they are engaged in a trade which he would like to have absolute!}' prohibited ? Mr. Leif Jones : I want to get them into a better trade. Sir H. Craik : Whatever the opinion of the hon. Member may be, we do not treat in that way in this House our fellow Members who may be engaged in that trade, and whom we may meet in ordinary society. We know perfectly well that those who avoid entirel}', in their personal life, the use of alcohol are, after all, a minority in this country. That is an indisputable fact. Why is it, then, that in face of that fact, in face of our ordinary conventional way of treating these men, in face of the fact that we accept charity from and hold in honour those who are engaged in this trade, that the great mass of us do not avoid the use of alcoholic liquor. Why is it we have 200 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL a measure of this kind now before the House ? I would remind English Members that, although they may try the experiment on Scotland, once established, it will very soon spread to England, The cheers which greet that statement are confirmation of my words. You propose to tr}* the experiment in Scotland, and in England they merely say, " this is a Bill for the promotion of temperance ; we have not studied its provisions, but we suppose it is all right." They may rely upon it that in due course, once the system is established in Scotland, they themselves will have their liberty restricted in just the same way as this Bill proposes to restrict the liberty of my fellow- countrymen in Scotland. Wh}' is it that these exaggerated and tyrannical ideas gradually spread their influence, and acquire a strong position in the com- munity ? I will lell you why. We know quite well what an enormous amount of influence is possessed by a small and determined section of faddists. They push their cause in season and out of season. They are never asleep. They never allow their attention to be diverted from the one object of accomplishing the triumph of their fad. They are always present to suggest a plan on lines close to their heart. Gradually they begin to push their way amongst electioneering agents and managers. There is nothing an electioneering agent knows is a better aid to him than to have a very small, compact and determined clique fixed upon their own fad, who in return for his support of the fad, will give him a whole-hearted support in the election. I am not misrepresenting the facts. This is how these fads spread their influence. What comes a little later? If you oppose it, you are opposing temperance. If you support it, you are told 3-ou are in no way committed to the terms of this or that Biil ; you need not trouble what the details of the Bill are, but you understand the object is to promote temperance, and, therefore, you are bound to support it. Thus they spread their influence still further, and it grows until they become a most important factor in the work and the whole business of the election- eering agent. Tliat is what explains the fact that a small minority in this country, at first adopting this fad, and setting themselves with undeviating strength of purpose to pursue it, have represented themselves as the sole advocates, pioneers, and missionaries of temperance, and have gradually proved their value to electioneering COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 207 agents. They have silenced their opponents by telling them that if they showed the least doubt about their special nostrum, they were encouragers of intemperance and found a benefit and some lucrative advantage in the destruction of their fellow creatures. We know that you may have an excellent object like that of temperance, but as soon as you set up a particular nostrum for dealing with it, you will allow no detraction from that particular nostrum ; every man who is not entirely with you is against you, and every one who casts the smallest doubt or even asks for a careful discussion of your particular nostrum is dealt with as anathema, and as a mere obstructor anxious to prevent its advance. You have taken up, by the process I have explained, this kind of local option. Have you ever noticed how absurd it is, looked at from a large constitutional standpoint, that any one section, much more a small minority of one-third of any community, because 30 per cent, is enough, and will give you a majority Mr. McKinnon Wood : Will the hon. Gentleman explain how a minority can do it .? Sir H. Craik : Thirty per cent, only is necessary for voting purposes ; and a half of 30 per cent, is 15 per cent., therefore 16 per cent, is a majorit3\ Mr. McKinnon Wood : I can assure the hon. Gentleman he is entirely wrong in his figures. He cannot have read the Bill. Sir H. Craik : Thirty per cent, is the number who must vote, and 16 per cent, will be the majority of those who vote. Mr. McKinnon Wood : It must be a majority of 30 per cent. Sir H. Craik: I mean that it is a minority of the whole community. Mr. McKinnon Wood : No. The hon. Member must not mis- represent it like that. It must be a majority of those voting. Sir H. Craik : Certainly. Mr. McKinnon Wood : If the majority vote against it, they can defeat the minorit3^ There must be a majority in favour of it. The argument is ridiculous. Sir H. Craik : Is it ridiculous that members are returned to the school boards by 20 per cent, of the voters ? You never get more than 25 per cent, or 30 per cent, of the voters to go to the poll, and it is an enormous poll if you get 50 per cent. The majority of those 208 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL voting, providing they are 30 per cent, of the voters, are still a minority of the whole of the inhabitants. A great many people, through indecision or apathy, may not vote. Are hon. Members prepared to carry this principle of local option to a logical conclusion? Are tliey prepared to say that a minority who are against other things than alcoholic liquors, ma}^ prevent their consumption. I know, and I see a good deal of reason for it, that there are a great man}' people who say that as much harm is done by the drinking of tea to the nerves and in producing anaemia as the drinking of alcoholic liquors. Doctors themselves have said so. Are hon. Members prepared to give to a 30 per cent, minority the power of refusing the right to drink tea, except in certain quantities ? Duncan Forbes of Culloden, one of the soundest Whigs of his day, who was responsible for the fact that the Jacobite rebellion did not succeed, in 174S or 1749 proposed a Bill making penal the consumption of tea b}' those who did not possess an income of ;^500 a year. [An Hon. Member : " Who wns that ? "] Duncan Forbes of Culloden. Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Whitley) : I do not quite see the rclevanc}' of this. I would remind the hon. Member that he has been speaking for three quarters of an hour, and that this is the Third Reading — the final stage of the Bill. Sir H. Craik : I did not know that there was any rule as to the length of speeches. I am in possession of the House. If I am out of order in speaking at a certain time, no doubt you will tell me. Ml". Deputy-Speaker : The speech must be relevant to the ques- tion. I thought the hon. Member was led astray by some interrup- tion, and might go very wide of the subject. Sir H. Craik : I was not conscious of being misled by any inter- ruption. An hon. Member opposite asked me for the name, and I gave it him. I would point out that we are now discussing a local option Bill. 1 am ready to accept your correction if it is irrelevant, in discussing a local option Bill, to point out that the principle of local option may not stop here, but may be applied to other things. Is there anything irrelevant in that ! If so, no doubt, you. Sir, will stop me, and also if I err in regard to the length of my speech. If I do not err again on a point of Order, I shall be guided by my own judgment as to my arguments. I say this is a principle which may be applied in a way that may be very hostile and disagreeable to COMMONS [July 9, 1013] THIRD READING 209 those who do not advocate the consumption of this particular article. I have stated my fundamental objections to the Bill. I was prepared to swallow those fundamental objections and to accept a fair com- promise on the basis of two conditions, first that you should give to the community whom you set up as judges in this matter — [Interruption.] When the hon. Member for Stoke [Mr. John Ward] has quite done I will continue. It would be more convenient if he made his speech afterwards. [An Hon Member : " Give him the next hour."] The two conditions upon which I was prepared to sink my objection to the principle of this Bill were, first that you should give to these fellow subjects of mine the power of a wide and all-embracing option as to the system of licences that should be established. You denied that, forsooth, in the name of democratic liberty. There was one more condition which would have made me ready to sink my principles, and that was that you carried out this drastic change without unjust injury and robbery of one class of my fellow subjects. You have refused that. You have refused all compromise either as to just and fair conditions for the publican, or as to a wide and all-embracing choice for the constituency, and, therefore, I revert to the position I first took up, and which is my real and personal position in regard to this Bill, that it is built upon a wrong foundation, that it mistakes the course that you ought to take in dealing with your fellow citizens, and that it will not raise their self-respect or build them up to better habits, but will lower them to the level of children and imbeciles. Major Hope : I beg to second the Amendment. It would give me far greater pleasure to be seconding the Third Reading of a real temperance measure for Scotland. I should like to controvert the contention put forward by the Secretary for Scotland, and also by many hon. members opposite, on the Second Reading that we on this side of the House are opposed to the principle of local option and that we are not anxious for some measure of real temperance reform. We are not opposed to local option and we are as anxious for real temperance reform as many hon. Members opposite. I have always declared myself in favour of giving Scotsmen the option of deciding how the liquor traffic should be carried on in their own locality, and I believe that the passing into law of a measure of temperance reform is in the best o L»10 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL interests of the Scottish people, and I believe that a large majority of the Scottish people demand that a temperance measure should be passed into law. But they do not demand that this measure should be passed into law. Far from it. It is neither in the true interests of Scottish temperance, as it is likely to leave the House now, nor is there a demand amongst the majority of the Scottish people for this Bill. If there is a popular demand for a particular measure in a particular form and that measure is at the moment of a by-election before Parliament, if one of the candidates takes up an unpopular attitude on that question, even though there is a question perhaps of greater importance before the electors, surely his opponents will press him on what should be his weak point. I took part in a by-election just affer the Bill had emerged from Committee and before it was considered on Report. I addressed numerous public meetings, and at nearly every one I was subjected to a considerable amount of heckling. At several meetings I was asked my views on the Scottish Tem.perance Bill. I alwaj's replied that I was in favour of the principle of the Bill, provided that the areas in which the poll was to be taken were large, and that some form of- machinery should be set up for compensating the displaced licence-liolders at the sole expense of the licensed trade. I was never asked any supplementary questions on this subject at any meeting, nor was the first question asked me at more than a comparatively few of my meetings. If I had been advocating unpopular views on this point, is it not certain that my opponents would have pressed me constantly and urged me to put forward these unpopular views, and asked supplementary questions on them ? My answer, advocating temperance reform in large areas, and a measure of compulsory insurance, was in accordance with the opinion, not only of my own political supporters, but of many of my, at that time, political opponents. Anyhow, having given these answers, will anyone say that 1 sliould be justified in voting for this Bill as it stands now ? Mr. John Ward : I .should think so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said lie told the heckler he was in favoui- of the principle of the Bill. Major Hope : To make it quite clear, I said I supported the Bill }jrovided there was some marhiner}' 5-ct up for compensating licence-holders out of funds provided by the State itself, and also that COMMONS[Jlia 9, lyiJJjTlllUD READING 211 the areas in which local option was to be decided were large. Even the Lord Advocate himself, on the Second Reading, could not assert that there was a majority in Scotland against some form of compul- sory insurance. The best he could put forward was that there was a large body of opinion opposed to compulsory insurance, and that he agreed with them. Surely even the addition of the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland to a large body of public opinion does not convert it into a majority of Scottish opinion. As regards the areas now, surely the Secretary for Scotland will not say they are very large. I acknowledge that my term " large " is vague, but I am quite prepared to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has any objection to that scheme which was put forward in another place by Lord Balfour of Burleigh under which county and town councils would delimit suitable areas for taking a poll containing not less than 2000 electors. Would this provide unreasonably large areas ? I should like to draw attention to another aspect of. the popular demand in Scotland theory. After the House, last February, decided to disagree with the Lords Amendments en bloc we adjourned for a short holiday. Nearly all the Scottish Members held meetings in their constituencies. Was not that a chance for a raging cam- paign in favour of the Bill and nothing but the Bill ; for denouncing on the platform the iniquities of disinterested management and com- pulsory insurance, and for urging the dangers of extending the time limit beyond the magic period of five years ! But did hon. Members opposite take that opportunity ? I think not. I have been refresh- ing my memory by referring to the newspaper reports, and I find that the Secretary for Scotland himself had a somewhat stormy meeting in Glasgow when he explained his own uncompromising attitude on the Bill. Mr. McKinnon Wood : I had no opposition on that subject. I had a few opponents on another subject. Major Hope : I have the newspaper report in which it is stated that there was considerable interruption, and that the Secretary for Scotland was constantly heckled. He was heckled in regard to this very Bill. Mr. McKinnon Wood indicated dissent. Major Hope : Anyhow it was not a favourable meeting to him. Mr. McKinnon Wood : The hon. Memb<>r is entirely mistaken. 212 TEiMTEKANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Tlie great bod^- of the meeting was favourable. There may have been one or two interruptions. It is a very common occurrence in Scotland. Tiie hon. Member may have had interruptions at his meetnigs. Major Hope : We ma}^ leave it at that. His meeting was not enthusiastically in favour of the Bill. Mr. McKinnon Wood : It was. Major Hope : I say that the meetings addressed by Scottish Liberal Members were not enthusiastically in favour of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman cannot produce any report in any news- paper which gives the impression that his meetings were in favour of the Bill. The report I have read gave a very different colour. I see that the hon. Members for East and South Edinburgh advocated disinterested management, during the recess. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh wished to have that inserted in a separate Bill. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division advocated compulsory insurance, but hardly any of the other Scottish Liberal Members mentioned the Temperance Bill during the recess. They confined themselves to advocating the advantages of Free Trade. It was more immediately important no doubt than the Scottish Temperance Bill last March. The Scottish Members were also pretty well employed defending the National Insurance Act, and answering complaints by their constituents. That is the picture of the Scottish people demanding the Bill and nothing but the Bill just after this House had disagreed with the Amendments of the House of Lords. What a chance was thrown away by hon. Members opposite ! There is, I believe, a majority of the Scottish people in favour of a settlement of this great question of temperance reform on the lines of compromise, which is a method always acceptable, where it is humanly possible, to the Scottish people. But what is compromise? I believe it is defined as a settlement of differences by mutual concessions and agreements. What mutual concessions are offered by the Secretary for Scotland ? I had hoped that on the Second Reading of the Bill last month he would have indicated some golden bridge on which he would have permitted the Scottish Members to walk before the passing into law of this Bill. He had another chance this evening, but he did not indicate any form of compromise by which the Bill could be passed into law this year. Does he COMMONS [JiLv 9, 1913] THIRD READING 213 really look on the Mouse of Lords as a sort of inferior body which must come continually petitioning him in different forms ? Is not the real method between parties who are honestly trying to come together to make one step towards each other? Is it not the turn of the Secretary of Scotland now to make a step ? The House of Lords made the last step when they put forward their Amendments. The Secretary for Scotland threw them all out. He disagreed with the whole of the Lords Amendments. You cannot mention any Amendment of importance which he allowed this House to accept. Mr. McKinnon Wood : The hon. and gallant Member laid great stress on the matter of the areas. I accepted an Amendment to increase the limit of population from io,ooo to 25,000. That is one Amend- ment, and there were a great many other Amendments. Major Hope : I should like another one mentioned. McKinnon Wood : He will find them in the records of our proceedings. Mr. Deputy-Speaker : The hon. and gallant Member is not addressing the Chair. I would point out that this is not an occasion for dealing with the Lords Amendments of last Session. We are now discussing the Third Reading of the Bill. Major Hope : I apologise. I was interrupted by the Secretary for Scotland. I think I am justified in saying that the Amend- ment as to areas did not deal with the county areas. It still left the parishes the areas as regards the counties. It was only a small con- cession to increase the limit of population from 10,000 to 25,000 as regards the burghs. I sincerely hope that the Secretary for Scot- land will yet, even at the eleventh hour, put forward some suggestions for compromise and endeavour to bring about some measure of Scottish temperance reform which shall pass into law this year. By doing so I believe he will be consulting not only the interests and wishes of the large majority of the Scottish people, but consulting also his own political interests in Scotland. Sir John M'Callum : I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities [Sir H. Craik] has left, because he stated certain things that one would have liked to reply to. In his absence I think it would be better simply to make some general remarks. The hon. Member is decidedly opposed to the fundamental principle of this Bill, which is " to promote temperance in Scotland 2U TEMPEKAXCE (SCOTLAND) BILL by conferring on tlie electors in prescribed areas control over the grant and renewal of certificates, by seeming a later hour of opening for licensed premises, by amending the law relating to clubs, and by other provisions incidental thereto." Minor processes have been tried for a long time in connection with the restriction of licences, and they have utterly failed, and it is because we believe that more drastic measures are needed in various parts of Scotland that we are now anxious that this Bill should be put on the Statute Book at an early date. Few words are needed to support the Bill now before the House. The question is well known in every nook and corner of Scotland. For fifty years we have been discussing this question, and we know it root and branch. Therefore, to talk of any other methods might seem to indicate that Scotland does not know its own mind on the subject of this Bill. We know by experiences in the past, that there is need for drastic reform, and this reform is introduced in a ver}- simple way by giving the right to manage the traffic and to say whether we shall reduce licences or abolish them, or in certain districts say that, instead of opening at six in the morning, as is done in London, and carrying on until half-past twelve o'clock at night, they must not open until ten in the morning and must close at ten at night. I have great pleasure in stating that the alteration of the hour of closing a few years ago from eleven till ten o'clock has had a most wonderful result. Naturally, we think that if one hour has made such a difference in Scotland, what would the whole twelve hours make? It is simply a question of proportion which anyone can understand. Sunday closing has gone on for a long time in Scotland and we know the opposition that arose to it. It is fifty-nine years since we introduced that measure, and where the magistrates have power to go still further, and where those powers have been exercised, the result has been most wonderful in certain quarters. Social reformers are now anxious for further reform, and those steps that have been made are now the envy of both England and Ireland. It is not education, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow University indicated, that brought about this change, for eight years ago Scotland was drinking £i a head more than England and now it is drinking J 5s. 3d. less. That is a very marked change. We were educated for forty years previous to the last eight years, but certain things have been in operation since COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIUD HEADING 215 then which have been of great advantage. There has been an arousing of the public conscience in Scotland. People are beginning to realise that something must be done which has never been done before. If you visit Edinburgh and Glasgow on Saturday night, the Salt Market in Glasgow and the Grass Market in Edinburgh, you will see scenes of drunkenness there that can only be described by the words ** simply hell." While the average is very low in Scotland, because there are so many teetotalers, the drunkenness which goes on in certain quarters can only be dealt with by very drastic measures. That is the reason for this Bill. In the locality which I have the honour to represent we have now reduced drunken- ness to a lower proportion of the population than in any other city, town, or village in Scotland. How has it come about ? Thirteen years ago we had two clubs. Those clubs created a great amount of drunkenness on Sunday morning. A great many people went and got liquor before their breakfast. The result was that we used to have from thirty to forty drunkards before us on a Monday morning. The magistrates of that day, of whom I had the honour to be one, made up their minds that they would punish these men very severely, as they were simply nuisances in the street, and they Were a pain and a disgrace to their families, who were glad that we dealt with them as we did. The policy we adopted was this : They were fined £2 or thirty days' imprisonment. In most cases the fine was paid, and in some. cases it was paid by the magistrates them- selves out of consideration for the men's families. In nine months there was a great improvement, and in another nine months both those clubs were closed. When we tasted the whisky, what did we find ? That it was like the stuff they sent out to South Africa. Have we no right to protect men from a position such as I have indicated ? We used to have six or seven hundred men coming from Glasgow on Sunday for the purpose of getting drink, because we were the right number of miles apart. It became a perfect nuisance. We told hotel proprietors distinctly that unless they exercised a little more discretion in giving liquor to those people their licences would be taken away. Eventually some of the licences were taken away, and if you went into Paisley on a Sunday and went to an hotel you could not get any drink in it. They have only a six days' 216 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BIEL licence. Public opinion has backed up the action of the magistrates, and nobody to-day has any desire to return to the old methods. What we effected shows clearly what may be done by this Bill. We used the means at our disposal. We could only use it on one day in the week, but we want to be able to use it every day. In the circumstances, I think that this is a very mild Bill. It will never interfere with the liberty of anyone who wishes to live a noble and straightforward life. Those who desire liquor will have an oppor- tunity of possessing it through the ordinary channels. We are only asking for what has been done in many places throughout the world, particularly in the States and the Colonies, and it has wrought one admirable result. In some of these States, you cannot get liquor under any conditions, and you will find drunkenness there at a lower ebb than in any district which I could mention in the British Isles, except where the principle is now adopted of which I have been speaking. In the circumstances I love this Bill, and because the people want it, I hope that the House of Commons will have the common sense to pass it as they did before, with a right royal majority larger than any of the majorities which we have had on the other Bills. It will gladden the hearts of many who are social reformers in Scotland and it will take out of the way of temptation others who are weak and unable to resist temptation, and if there is anything noble in the nature of manhood it is that we should be willing to make sacrifices for the sake of others. On that account, when I look round and see our prisons, our poorhouses, and our asylums, I wonder that some of those who come from various constituencies in Scotland do not vote straight for a Bill of this kind. This evil is the canker worm that is eating into our public life, because it slays not a few thousands but fifty or sixty thousand in the year. If then, as we maintain, this Bill can accomplish what we believe by argument and reason has been so clearly shown in Committee and also on the First, Second, and Third Readings of the Bill, I trust that within a measurable time the House of Lords will have their eyes opened, and see that it is just, right and wise without any trouble and without waiting for the result of the Parliament Act to give us this Bill within the next few weeks. Marquess of Tullibardine : I am sure we must all have listened to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down with feelings COMMONS [July 9, 1013] THIRD READIXG 217 of absolute agreement, so far as concerns the sentiments which he has expressed, but in regard to his arguments, I submit that they were entirely upon our side, though they were not intended to be so. I do not suppose that anything we can say in regard to this measure will divorce him from his love. But he has shown us from his own remarks that in Scotland they do not want this Bill shoved down the people's throats against their will, but rather that they should have solid and sober magistrates like the hon. Gentleman himself, men who are not afraid to do their work, with the result that sobriety follows upon their action. An hon. Member has staled that in Scotland they are now ready for local option. That may be so in regard to Paisley, but Paisley is not Scotland, and I would point out that the rest of Scotland is not ready for local option. I am perfectly well aware that all the prohibitionists in Scotland are asking for it, but that is a very different matter. This Bill is entitled the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, to promote temperance in Scotland, and it is backed by the Secretary for Scotland, and supported by the Lord Advocate. But will it carry out what it professes on the face of it to carry out ? I am firmly convinced, for my part, that, though there may be one or two good points in it, such as those relating to clubs and earlier closing, it will actually do more harm than good. Of course, we know what is going to happen. If one prefers one's own opinion, and does not agree with every single word that the Secretary for Scotland or his supporters say, then one is a pariah and an outcast. Hon. Members know that as well as I do. One of the greatest temperance reformers in this House, a man who probably knows more about the temperance movement than anyone here, suggested a simple Amendment for insertion in the Bill, and, so far as the Liberal party is concerned, he became a pariah and an outcast. He is not here to-night. He has said all he has got to say, but you have absolutely taken no notice of what he advanced, because he did not happen to toe the line as the Secretary for Scotland knows how to toe it. This Bill, of course, will be passed to-night, and, so far as this House is concerned, it will be finished with it, and the measure will go to another place. If there should be a General Election, hon. Members opposite, when they go to the country, will say on the platform that they have passed this great measure of reform ; but if they discover that a good many 218 TEMrERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL people in Scotland do not like the interference which the Bill sets up, they will come down and they will say, "Oh, you need not be a bit cfraid of it." And that is exactly my own impression of what the effect of the Bill will be. The attitude I have always taken upon this question is that I do not believe in prohibition by law; I do not believe that j-ou can make a man an abstainer by order. I am not going to quarrel with prohibitionists. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland looks upon me, I will not say as an enemy, but as one who takes a directly opposite view to his. I would point out that I have as much right to my opinion as the hon. Member [Mr. Leif Jones] opposite, and I have got a bigger majority behind me in my country than he has in his. I am a, Scotsman and he is a Welshman. There are more temperance people in this country than there are prohibitionists. Therefore it is true to say that I have got a bigger body of opinion behind me than he has. The Secretary for Scotland was good enough, for no particular reason this afternoon, to say that the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division knows ten times more about this subject than I do. Mr. McKinnon Wood : I said the hon. Baronet the Member for A3T Burghs knows ten times as much as the Noble Lord. Mai'quess of TuUibardine : I think that is very likely, but my real point is that I know ten times more about Scotland than the Secretary for Scotland does, and I am perfectly certain that if he thinks this Bill is going to do any good in Scotland, he is only showing his absolute ignorance of that country of his adoption. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland bought a kilt and thought that made him a Scotsman. Apparently I am wrong in that. The right hon. Gentleman did not buy a kilt. I think the right hon. Gentleman is doing very poor service indeed to temperance in Scotland by this Bill. I wish to get to the bed-rock points in connection with this measure. We will take, for instance, the Clauses dealing with the areas. Does any hon. Gentleman really think that by simply dividing comparatively small towns into prohibition areas he is any more likely to make those towns sober? 'Jake a town like Perth, with a population of 30,000. That town has six wards, and if you divided it into six areas you would find that COMMONS [July 9, 1013] THIRD KEADING 219 you would iiave prohibition in one area of Perth and not in another. The dividing h'ne between two areas might run up the middle of the street, and you would have prohibition on one side and not on the other. If a public-house was removed from one area, the result would be to increase the profits of the house in the adjoining area where there was not prohibition. Does the hon. Gentleman think that such a proposal is going to promote temperance ? I submit that it is going to double the profits of the men on the other side of the road. Suppose a man is in a dry area, where it is difficult to get drink, he could go to the nearest telephone in order to ring up someone to supply him. He could ask the nearest licensed grocer or publican in some street, which is not in a prohibition area, to send down as many cases of whisky as he required and take it to his house, and quite easily keep within the law. Mr. Watt : What takes place in the house ? Marquess of. TuUibardine : The sort of thing that would never take place in the hon. Member's house. Working men probably would pool one order for what they wanted, and thus you would really have State-erected shebeens, and hon. Members opposite know that as well as I do. [An Hon. Member : " Never."] Why not? Mr. Booth : Do working men have telephones ? Marquess of TuUibardine : I said go to the nearest telephone, where 30U could pay a penny or twopence and send a message. There is no law against it. Mr. Morton : Are you to get drink by telephone ? Marquess of TuUibardine : You talk about prohibition, and you would have a shebeen in that street which you could not touch. I think the result will be that you will drive the drinking out of properly controlled licensed houses and you will be putting it into other houses, to the great detriment of the inhabitants. You talk a great deal about what this Bill is going to do. I do not wish to say anything in the least offensive to working men. You are doing nothing to improve their conditions or to remove the reasons, but I think you would find it very difficult to carry any prohibition measure in a working-class area. Does the Secretary for Scotland think he would carry prohibition in working-class areas ? He knows perfectly well that he could not carry a measure of this sort, even in a great 220 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL sober constituency like St. Rollox. I think it would have been far better to have had a proper licensing board of men who would not be afraid to do their work in spite of public opinion. It would be much better to strengthen the licensing bench rather than putting the job in the hands of the people themselves. You only trust the people with your own particular nostrums, so that you really do not trust them. There is nothing in the Bill which is going to improve the quality of the liquor that is drunk. Why should not hon. Members have done something to secure a better class of liquor? You are not going to stop people getting drink, and you might have done something to secure a better class of spirit. You could have done that by putting a prohibitive tariff on spirits, and have beer and other light drinks sold at different places. The publican does not sell drink because he wants to do so, but because he desires to make a profit, and if there was more profit out of beer than whisky it would encourage him to sell the beer and you will get the people to drink beer instead of whisky, which I believe would have a far better temperance eftect. The hon. Member for Paisley (Sir J. M. M'Callum) pointed out how people in this country were gradually becoming more sober. I most thoroughly agree with him and with the hon. Member for Edinburgh University, when they said that what you have got to do is not so much to deal with the existing drinker but rather with the young man to try and prevent him falling into the habits of his older relatives. You could do far more by example. What sort of example do the Liberal party set ? Surely if you say that prohibition is a thing to have, and that absolute abstinence is good, why do you not act up to your principles ? I know the hon. Member opposite is a prohibitionist, but I am not. I believe in moderate temperance. Mr. J. M. Henderson : This is not a Prohibition Bill. Marquess of Tullibardine : What is it if it is not, although in one sense 1 do not think it is, nor do I think that you will get much advantage out of it. Mr. J. M. Henderson : Prohibition Bills do not permit a man to have spirits in his house. Marquess oJ Tullibardine : Hon. Members want to have pro- hibition for other people and leave themselves free. Why do not hon. Members practise what they preach ? I do not wish to say anything offensive, but take the whole Coalition, and what support COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 221 would prohibition get ? You would get strong support from the Labour party, but the Irish party and the others think alike, and would you suggest you are going to have prohibition in this House in the smoking-room and in the dining-room ? If you did you would know the exact sincerity of hon. Members. Mr. Booth : Local option in the House. Marquess of Tullibardine : I do not think it would be carried very far. The Secretary for Scotland, referring to some remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian [Major Hope] said that he had discussed this matter very fully at the election, and I think he gave us to understand that he was returned owing to this Bill to a great extent, or owing to his attitude on the Bill. Mr. McKinnon Wood : The hon. Member was not talking about elections. Marquess of Tullibardine : Let us take the meetings at the right hon. Gentleman's election, and what was the result ? He went to a by-election, brought up this Bill as a plank in his programme, and came back with 2000 less votes. That is probably a sign of what is to come. That is the reason why hon. Members opposite do not wish to bring this Bill before the country. The Secretary for Scotland said that he was not in favour of allowing any kind of insurance. I think hon. Members opposite would have been wise to have allowed some reasonable measure of insurance — whether com- pulsory or otherwise I cannot discuss now. The Secretary for Scotland himself, who says that he wishes to trust the people, has stated that there is a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of compulsory insurance. Mr. McKinnon Wood dissented. Marquess of Tullibardine : Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me who said this. On April i, 191 2, the right hon. Gentleman said : — " No doubt there is a demand for compulsory mutual insurance. . . . No one objects to the trade insuring itself ; no one objects to the most complete system of insurance in the trade. . . ." — [Official Report, April i, 191 2, cols. 887-8, Vol. XXXVI.] One must couple that with the statement of the Lord Advocate. The right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Advocate, of course, always agree on all points. The Lord Advocate in the same Debate said : — 222 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL " The question of compulsory insurance has always presented itself to me under two aspects : Firstly, as an indispensable act of justice to a dispossessed publican ; and, secondl}', as a method of smoothing the path to proposing a no-licence resolution. It is on the latter aspect, of course, that it appeals to me most strongly." — [Official Report, April i, 191 2, cols. 953-4, Vol. XXXVI, ] He went on to say that he was in favour of some method of in- surance, but the forces of righteousness were too strong for him. He said that was a matter for the Committee ; but in Committee it was blocked, and we were practically not allowed to deal whh it. Hon. Members opposite will carry this Bill to-night, but they will carry it not by the temperance vote, but by the help of people who are in favour of other things altogether. They will carry it by the help of hon. Members from Ireland, although there is hardly a single Member amongst them who is really in favour of prohibition. I wonder how many of them are in favour of prohibition for Ireland ? Yet they are going to vote for it in Scotland. Hon. Members should practise what they preach. How many of them would hold up their hands now to take the pledge as a real good example to Scotland ? They are much more likely to go and drink toasts to Cabinet Ministers to show their confidence in them, probably in the wine of their own country or in the wine of France. Very seldom will you find at these great Liberal banquets toasts drunk in soda water or ginger beer. I submit that hon. Members should practise what they preach before they attempt to impose a Bill of this description upon other people. Dr. Chappie : The Noble Lord opposite has referred to this measure over and over again as a Prohibition Bill. I do not think that an3'one on this side is in favour of prohibition by Act of Parliament. This is not a Prohibition Bill. It is not even a Temperance Bill. It does not say to anyone, " Thou shalt not drink." It makes no pretence of anything of the kind. It is not a " Close-the-bar " Bill. It is as much a " Keep-the- bar-open " Bill. It allows the people of Scotland to keep the bars open for all time if they like. There is no reason why the Noble Lord should not carry on a propaganda in his own district to keep the bars open. This is a local option Bill. It proceeds upon the assumption that certain localities are ripe for reform before others. COMMONS [July 9, 1918] THIRD READING -22^ Marquess" of Tullibardine : Can we have more public-houses under this Bill. Dr. Chappie : You can have the existing public-houses continued if you like for all time. The Bill is purely and simply a democratic measure under which you say to the people of the different localities, " If you wish to keep the bars open, keep them open ; but if you wish to close them, no other people shall say that you shall not." Several Members opposite have asked us to compromise. What do they mean by compromise ? They mean, "Let us keep what we have, while you keep on conceding." We have been conceding all along the line. They begin by asking that in the contest they may take off the gloves. When we allow them to take off the gloves, they say, " We want you to compromise. Let us put on knuckle-dusters." Their demand is a constant attempt to wreck the Bill. It is not an honest attempt to compromise on the merits of the case. Take the Sugges- tions of the House of Lords. They were not to improve the Bill, not to make the principle more effective, not to give the people of Scotland a greater right, or to allow the right to be exercised with greater sim- plicity or fairness. They were simpl}^ an attempt to smash the Bill altogether. They proposed to include another option on the ballot paper. There are three under the Bill : Are you in favour of licences being continued ; are you in favour of licences being reduced ; are you in favour of licences being aboHshed ? They wanted to put in a fourth — in other words, they wanted to spHt the vote. [An Hon. Member : " No ! "] I think they did. I believe that all those interested in the liquor traffic who supported the proposal did so from the motive that it would be a vote-splitting option. At any rate, if that was the motive, it would certainly have that effect. If you ask people to vote for four candidates instead of three, the chances of one of the original three winning are reduced. The late Leader of the Opposition said, "We want to give Scotland a larger choice." Suppose you had said that at the Derry election, and had nominated a Roman Catholic Nationalist. What would have been the result ? Simply a vote- splitting issue. The choice, instead of being larger, would have been less. So it is in Scotland. If you put another option on the ballot paper you will split the votes of the reformers. So much so is that the case that with the three existing issues there is the provision that in case " no licence " is not carried by a three-fifths majority, 224 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL all those who vote "no licence" are added to those who vote for reduction. In that way 3'ou avoid the vote-splitting influence within the three issues. But to add a fourth option without making a similar provision is to make it impossible ever to get the 60 per cent, neces- sary to carry " no licence." Havuig told them that they are making no provision against the vote-splitting influence of that extra option, they suggest numbering the options in the order of the voter's choice, but they examine " no licence " votes first and rule it out if they do not reach 60 per cent. If disinterested management were perfectly right and a good and wise reform, I would still oppose it because of the wrecking influence that it would have upon the other issues. We were asked to com- promise by so weakening the measure that it would be ineffective altogether. Take the other suggestion of a time limit of ten years instead of five. If this were a prohibition, a close-the-bar measure, I would be willing to consider a time limit, but this is a local option measure, and I am not going to deny the people of Scotland the oppor- tunity of exercising their judgment for ten years. The insurance Amendment was also on wrecking lines. If an insurance system could be wholly detached from the Temperance Bill I should give it all the support in my power. If the trade wants to insure any of their number against the misfortune of having their licences taken away, I would be quite willing to support a distinct measure of insurance, but it would have to be detached entirely from the temperance measure. It is not part and parcel of a temperance measure and you should not have insurance attached to it. Throughout the whole of this controversy we are opposed by those who are opposed in principle to the right of the people managing their own affairs in their several localities. In regard to the promise that this Bill holds out to Scotland. The sense of danger in the minds of those who oppose it is this : That if the people of Scotland have the right to close the bars, they would exercise that right and close them. [An Hon. Membkr : "No."] Why, then, oppose the Bill r If this is a Local Option Bill, why should you oppose it, if you think they will keep the public-houses open ? As a matter of fact, you think they will close them. The evidence — and that evidence is easily got all over the country — is that the people are waking up to the idea that the prevalence of the facilities for getting drink increases the amount consumed. You believe that. COMMONS [July 9, 1013] THIRD READING 225 The people believe that ! If that is true, the chances are that the people of Scotland will wake up to the necessity of diminishing the temptation of young people to drink. An endeavour will be made to put into force this preventive measure. It will not cure drunken- ness. It will not make people sober by Act of Parliament. But it will tend to prevent drunkards being made. The evidence that we have been able to accumulate from our Dominions Overseas and other countries shows that if you close the bars to that extent you diminish the temptation to take drink. If you diminish the temptation to take drink you diminish the number of people who ultimately become addicted to drink. In short, decrease the facilities for getting drink, and you decrease the amount consumed. Decrease the amount consumed, and you decrease all the crime, poverty, misery, disease, and premature death associated with the use of it. Mr. Mackinder : I should like to refer to a speech which was made a short time ago in debate by the hon. Member who sits for Paisley [Sir J. M. M'Callum]. The hon. Member painted for us heaven and hell in Scotland : heaven in Paisley, hell at the Salt Market. The Salt Market is not quite in my constituency, but it is next door to it. In doing that it seems to me that the hon. Gentle- man voiced the main objection that many of us on this side have to the principle of local option. Are you quite sure that in making heaven locally you do not also make hell locally ? Are you quite sure that Paisley is not to some extent responsible for the Salt Market ? The tramway line is not a very long one between the two places. If you refuse to admit to heaven the sinner there is only one place for him to go to, and that is hell. Mr. Joyce : What about purgatory ? Mr. Mackinder : You come to the second absurdity involved in this Bill — the voting for "no licence." You may get Paisley when it is cleaned out to vote for " no licence," but how are you going to get the Salt Market as a whole to vote for "no licence ?" That is fundamentally our objection to the Bill. I do not think it could have been put more picturesquely than by the hon. Member for Paisley. We believe, to adopt his words, that the result of this Bill will be to give you heaven and hell locally, and in patches in different parts of the country ; and in proportion as you shut the sinner out of p 226 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL heaven you shut liim out of all prospect of heaven, and he will there- fore continue only to have hell. He will then revert, we may feel prettj' certain, to the only consolation that hell can give him, and he most certainly will not vote for a removal of that consolation by carrying your "no-licence" measure. That is not an exaggerated way to put it ! I am simply putting it that way for the purpose of my argument, and in the pliraseology of the lion. Gentleman who spoke to us with such eloquence and power, and with such love, as he put it, for this measure. That is fundamentally our objection to the Bill. But we go to deeper matters than that. Wc object to local tyranny. The hon. Gentleman opposite who has just spoken, with nianj' others, said he wished to leave the decision to the people of the locality. Are they quite sure they mean that ? Have they analysed the meaning of their words ? By the people of the locality they mean the majority. They do not mean the people as a whole ; they are going to leave to the majorities in the district the power of doing — what ? In a single parish there may be only a single public-house. The majority will have the power, not to decide a general question of legislation in the way we legislate supremely in this House, but in a subordinate capacity they are to settle the administrative question : a question which contains judicial aspects and which involves considera- tion of the way in which that particular public-house has been con- ducted. That is a question which may very easily in a parish of a few hundred inhabitants involve matters of personal spite and per- sonal feeling. Precisely to eliminate all that we have established in our system of justice in this country. If justice and freedom mean anything, it is not justice and freedom for the majority, but for the minority. We do not consider that is the position that you are seeking to establish. I believe your Bill to a large extent will be a dead letter, and that the position you are seeking to establish is one of local tyranny. You say that your sole object is to enable the people of a locality — and you mean the majority — to say they shall not drink. They will say to those whom this Bill would affect, "Thou shalt not drink, but I shall drink at home or in my club." Dr. Chappie : That is not in the Bill. Mr. Mackinder : I cannot help that. The Bill will not remove the fact. Dr. Chappie : The Bill says, " Thou shalt not sell." COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 227 Mr. Mackinder : I think I am quoting the hon. Member's words. He says, " Thou shalt not drink." He said the very object of the Bill was that in a particular district they should say to the people, "Thou shalt not drink." Dr. Chappel : No, no. What I said was the Bill did not say, " Thou shalt not drink " ; I was not in favour of that. I said this Bill says, " Thou shalt not sell unless the people will it." Mr. Mackinder : It is a question of splitting hairs. So far as I can see, " Thou shalt not sell " is equivalent to saying, " Thou shalt not drink." The hon. Member's own contention is that by reducing the number of those who buy drink you will reduce the amount of drink consumed. When you say, " Thou shalt not sell," you are effectively saying, " Thou shalt not drink." If that be the case, you are putting it in the hands of the majority to tyrannise over the people of the district not in a legislative, but in an administrative way. There would be included in that majority a considerable number of those who, like himself, are able to drink in their own houses or in their clubs. Simply by being a majority in any particular district they are able to sa}^, " We want a pleasant district ; we want to be rid of a nuisance ; we want to throw that nuisance into a neighbouring district; we do not care if we make hell of that district if only we make heaven of ours. So long as we have our district free from the public-house we do not care what happens to our neighbour, or what the result will be." You are attempting to establish a system of local tyranny, and I use the word advisedly, because it is tyranny, which is brought to bear upon single individuals, the tenant of a public- house in the parish which has only one public-house, and as a result of an agitation which may involve questions of a personal character, which ought to be subject to judicial investigation. As I ventured to say on a former occasion, you are attempting to convert into Marconi Committees all those parishes of Scotland. You are hand- ing over to a non-judicial popular authority these matters which it is not capable of dealing with. I am totally opposed to the principle of this Bill. The hon. Member for Paisley read out the short title of the Bill. Although it is of considerable length, still it passes for a short title, yet, curiously, it leaves out to a large extent the per- manent essential principle around which our contest is waged, 228 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL namely, that of local option. 1 thoroughly and profoundly dis- believe in the principle of local option. I know that, for the moment, certain Members from Scotland, who are in the majority, though they do not represent the same majority of electors in Scotland, having been steam-rolled, have agreed to give up their opposition of that Bill of last year, when they prayed that the Whips should be taken off. In order to keep the Government in power, and not to jeopardise their holidays, they will agree to the conditions which are imposed upon them, and go submissively into the Lobby together. Half of them do not believe in the fundamental principles which are involved in this Bill, and I say, unhesitatingly, I am totally and absolutely opposed to it. Apart from that, I contend I am just as much an advocate of temperance as they are. They be- lieve in t3'rannical methods. They believe in saying, " No, thou shalt not." I believe in constructive methods. The rose has its thorns. Their idea is to get the rose without the thorn. They are thinking of the thorn all the time and destroying the rose. It is quite inevit- able, human nature being what it is, that human beings shall wish to live, not the dour, sour life that you would impose upon them, but something with social light and warmth in it, and I believe that if you go counter to that natural human propensity for social life and all that makes for the elegance, the leisure, and the beauty of life, you will have a reaction which will sweep your Bill, and you with it, completely away. Throughout history you have the same experience. Wherever you resort to these tyrannical methods and attempt to drill morality into the people, the last state of the people is worse than the first. The only method in my opinion by which you can permanently cure these propensities which you are attempting, as I am, to stop, is by recognising that vice has an aspect which is an exaggeration of virtue. You must recognise the social propensities of men and provide for them. What is the present situation ? It is that your magistrates have reduced to the mere con- dition of drinking hells the public-houses which they licence in the place of permitting them to be what they ought to be, free and open clubs with no entrance fee, similar to what they have in certain countries, which are free from that which has cursed our present system. If you had public-houses with windows right down to the ground, glazed over the whole front, so that the whole of the people COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 229 might see what was going on within ; if you permitted games of an ordinary social character : if you allowed men to go there with their wives and children ; if you had family gatherings there ; if you allowed some escape from the narrow conditions of the ordinary working man's life, you would do something real and permanent for temperance. The curse of the present system is the narrow view which you have managed to impose upon your party. A small element consisting of bigots dictates the policy. This small minority sell their votes now, and impose upon Ministers and upon candidates where tb.ere are small majorities, the stern necessity of bringing forward the Bills which they advocate, and which the majority do not believe in. That is the fundamental position under our present electoral system. It is not the thousand men on one side who have studied the conditions and incline one way, or the one thousand men on the other side who have also studied the conditions and incline to the other way who have the power. These two thousand balance one another, but then there come in the bigots, like the small minorities of this teetotal party, and they sell their votes and they decide on which side the majority shall be, and the result is that we are ruled not by the common sense and not by the general feeling of the country, we are ruled by extremists and bigots and purblind men. The consequence is that we shall put upon the Statute Book legislation which will become the laughing-stock of history. For that reason I oppose the Third Reading and support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. Mr. Munro : The hon. Member who has just sat down has delivered a very eloquent and somewhat violent speech, and has used a good deal of picturesque nomenclature. I do not intend to follow him in that particular direction. Perhaps he will forgive me for saying that the speech which he has delivered would have been more apposite if it had been delivered thirty years ago, on the first occasion when a Bill substantially in the same terms as this was proposed in the House. A good deal of water has flowed under the bridges since that time. The hon. Member has made a speech which shows that he has been both deaf and blind to all recent history in connection with this proposal. He has forgotten that for many years, both in this country and Scotland, the country and the House have pronounced unhesitatingly in favour of this measure. He has forgotten the very 230 TEMrERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL recent histor}' of this Bill in the House. I could not help thinking as I was listening that the speech which he was making was in very marked contrast to the very pacific speeches which we listened to only a few weeks ago on the Second Reading of this Bill from that side of the House. On that occasion we were informed that the principle of the Bill at least, for the purposes of argument, was being accepted b}- the Opposition. We were told on that occasion that hon. Members opposite would not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, founded, as we are now told, upon a most vicious principle, and that they would swallow their convictions and swallow the Bill, not as an agreeable draught, but as a nauseous dose to be taken with a wry face. Sir G. Youuger : Hear, hear. Mr. Munro : The hon. Baronet opposite evidently approves of that view, and that position was very clearly taken up and expressed by many hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member who has just spoken. They declared that they were prepared to vote for the Second Reading of a Bill embodying this vicious principle only a few weeks ago, but to-night the hon. Member for Camlachie has told us that he is thoroughly' and profoundly opposed to the principle of this Bill and disbelieves in it entirely. What is the reason for this change of attitude between the Second and Third Reading of this Bill ? The real secret is that while the Opposition were pre- pared to accept the principle of this Bill on the Second Reading, they will not vote for the Third Reading because they cannot get their way with regard to the application of that principle as set forth in this measure. Suiely that is more political petulance than states- manship in the case of those who adopted that attitude so short a time ago and have reversed it now ! What is the real situation with regard to this measure? It is too late to make speeches im- pugning this principle, because in Scotland for a very long time Bills in substantially' the same terms as this measure have been approved of by large majorities of the representative bodies in .Scotland and by large majorities in this House as well. Now the hon. Member opposite comes forward at the eleventh hour and says, " We will not have your Bill unless you include in it certain pro- posals made in another place, which are three in number." We are entitled to ask what evidence have 3'ou that the people in Scotland COMMONS [July 9, 1913] TMIHD READING 231 desire that the Amendments proposed in another place should be embodied in this Bill ? I think the answer is that there is no such evidence. We have heard a great deal about disinterested manage- ment, but I would like to ask any hon. Member opposite who repre- sents a Scottish constituency how many petitions he has received in favour of that proposal ? 1 would also like to ask in how many constituencies do hon. Members opposite think they could carry a resolution in favour of that particular principle being introduced into this Bill? Sir G. Younger : Speaking for myself, I have received dozens of such petitions, Mr. Munro : 1 think the hon. Baronet opposite has been more fortunate, or perhaps I should say less fortunate, than some of his colleagues. Marquess of Tuilibardine : I fought a teetotaler and a Liberal at the last election on the principle of this Bill, and I beat him handsomely. Captain Campbell ; May I say that I have had a similar ex- perience in this matter to that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs. Mr. Munro : I do not want to continue the controversy, but I should like very much to know the source of many of these repre- sentations. Many of them, no doubt, have been of an official character, but I repeat : Does any hon. Member who represents Scotland on the other side of the House think for a moment that the proposal to import into the Bill the principle of disinterested management would pass his executive committee if it were proposed there to-night or to-morrow ? I do not believe that there is one Member sitting on that side of the House any more than there is on this side, who could answer that question in the affirmative. In these circumstances, I venture to urge upon the Secretary for Scotland that he will make no concession in these matters which the House of Lords introduced into the Bill last year. If he does .so, I am quite certain that he will disappoint enlightened public opinion in Scotland upon this matter. I am perfectly confident that he will alienate Lis best friends, and 1 am equally confident that he will delight some of his bitterest enemies if he does so. He has, so far, remained unmoved, either by coaxing or bullying in the 232 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL matter, and it is unthinkable on this side of the House that he should retrace his steps and abandon the position which we rejoice that he occupies. The alternatives before us are perfectly clear. The one alternative is that we should pass this Bill under the Parliament Act and wait for a year before getting it. The other is that we should accept those Amendments, embody them in the Bill, and receive the Bill so amended. We have no difficulty in making our choice. So far as the first alternative is concerned — I speak perfectly frankly, and I speak only for myself — there is the pos- sibilit}' before the Bill matures under the Parliament Act of the demise of the present Government. [Hon. Members : " Hear, hear.''] I said the " possibility." That is a risk that we are quite willing to undertake. So far as the other alternative is concerned, there is the certainty, not the possibility, that the Bill would prove a quite ineffective weapon of reform and would be a bitter disap- pointment to those who have been its good and staunch friends for very many years. So much for our attitude. May I put this question to any Scottish Member who sits on the other side of the House and who is probably going to vote against the Third Reading to-night. Is he quite certain that he correctly expresses the views of his constituents, who for the sake of argument he is prepared to admit favour a Bill founded upon this principle, when he takes action with the full purpose, if possible, of destro3ang the Bill rather than accept it in the form in which it is proposed on this side of the House ? Marquess of Tullibardine : Yes, certainly. Mr. Munro : The Noble Lord is always certain of everything, but I venture to remind him that when the Bill was in another place, a Noble Lord, whose authority and information on this subject he will not dispute, said that it would be a calamity if, even in its present form, the Bill were lost. In these circumstances, our attitude is per- fectly clear. It is to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, and if Scottish Members on the other side decide to vote against it, the consequences are their own affair. Mr. Clyde : We have arrived at the final stage of the discussion of this Bill in its second year. As far ns I can gather from the remarks of the hon. Member for Wick Bur^dis, he has learned nothing from these discussions. His attitude is the attitude which COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 233 best becomes the most uncompromising advocates of the extreme teetotal position — the position that they will have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. They will consider neither what is just and fair to the general public, nor what is indispensable to the fair treatment of the publican. There are two things which, so far as I am concerned, have always been paramount in my mind about the acceptance of this Bill. What do you ask me to do as an ordinary citizen — and I can only judge what you ask of my fellow citizens by considering how it appeals to me — what do you ask me by this Bill to do to my fellow citizens on the one hand and to the persons whose property and interests are engaged in a particular form of trade on the other ? The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs addresses this House as if there was a clear issue always between the man who stood up for the publican and the man who stood up for the temperance reform movement. If that is his opinion he has thoroughly misunderstood his countrymen. I am not opposed to temperance reform ; but it is your habit on public platforms to say that we are. I have had plenty of experience of that. You represent us always as tied to the trade, as standing up for the publican. The hon. Member for the Rushclifte Division [Mr. Leif Jones] is even now inclined to assent to that. But in his mind he knows that there are others beside those who hold extreme views, whose minds have been fully alive to the appalling ravages of the particular evil which he is devoting all his zeal to combat, and I hope I can be fairer to him than he apparently wishes to be to me. Notwithstanding all that — if in his charity he can see his way to make room for it — notwithstanding that many of those who oppose him on this question would lend him a hand in the promotion of temperance reform, there remain two considerations which, so far as I am concerned, I cannot rid either my mind or my conscience of, and these are, my duty to my ordinary fellow citizens, and my duty to that particular class of fellow citizens who happen to be the victims of your particular legislative scheme. Just observe what you are asking me to do. You are asking me to exercise this franchise in the particular ward of the burgh in which I live or in the parish of the county in which I reside. You are asking me to help to decide by my vote whether other people, who surely are as much entitled to regulate their own lives as I claim to 234 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL be to regulate mine — you are asking me to tell these people that they shall not have power over their own lives. The hon. Member for Stirling gets out of it by saying that this is not a Bill to prevent people drinking in an area, but its object is to prevent people selling drink in an area. How do you think they can get drink except by bu3'ing it ? Yet the object of this scheme is to make it difficult or impossible for them to buy it. If the extremists had their way, I suppose the total area of the country that might be covered by the " No Licence "' Resolution is as wide as the country itself. Do not let us deceive ourselves. You are asking me to undertake to tell my fellow citizens in the same ward or the same parish that they shall not drink a glass of beer or whisky. If it is not that, what does it mean except that I am to find my place among the moral cowards who know that they can buy their own drink elsewhere and keep it in their cupboards, while the working man can only get his drink at the public-house ! Others can do that : I shall not. The only relief from a situation which I tell the House frankl}', so far as I am con- cerned, would be intolerable — the only relief from that situation is, we are told, to be found in the direction of that other option, which, we are told, is the split vote. Splitting the vote between what ? I thought this was a case where there was to be public freedom of choice. What do 3'ou mean by splitting the vote ? If you mean splitting the vote between "no drink" and "some drink," I under- stand you. But you cannot stand up for the Bill on that basis. If you mean splitting the vote in the sense that in place of three options there are four, what do you mean by splitting the vote ? The expression " splitting the vote " and the argument against splitting the vote arises where there is a clean vote between black and white, or between " A " and " B," and somcbod}' steps in and says, "Try 'C; it is a middle course." That is not this Bill. This Bill has three options as it is. Dr. Chappie : There is a provision in the Bill in order to prevent those three options splitting the vote. The provision is that if " no licence " is not carried by 60 per cent., those who voted " no licence " have their votes added to reduction. In tliat way you prevent confusion of the three issues, and there is no splitting of the vote. Mr. Hogge : Yes, there is. Mr. Clyde : Never was there a more flimsy, and I will say a less intelligent, objection urged to an argument than that. The hon. COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 235 Member can only make it out by saying that there never was a proposal to treat the votes for disinterested management on the same principle as the votes for reduction are treated in the Bill. Mr. Hogge : That is not so. Mr. Clyde : That is not so, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh [Mr. Hogge] says. It is not so at all. Therefore, the last remnant, so far as I understand, of justification for the position which the hon. Member for Stirling took up on this point disappears. Dr. Chappie : Does the hon. and learned Member say that there will be a provision or that a provision has been suggested analogous to the one in the Bill for preventing the votes being split if a fourth option is added ? Mr. Clyde : I cannot charge my memory' at this moment with the precise proposal. Mr. Hogge : Proportional representation. Dr. Chappie : That would not affect "no licence." Mr. Clyde : So far as I am concerned, I cannot charge my mind at this moment with the various forms these proposals have taken, but this I do know, that the form which these proposals have taken certainly did not exclude a provision of that kind, and so far as I know anything about them, in my mind, and in the minds of many of those who approved of that option, there was certainly nothing antagonistic to the inclusion of a proposal of that kind. I quite admit that I cannot charge my mind upon the matter at the present time. So much for the public and for the attitude of mind which so far as a great many people who believe like myself are concerned makes it simply impossible, if one has any regard for the principles of libert}^ at all, to have anything to do with a proposal which, starkly and without limitation, asks one to take one's part in telling other people how they are to conduct their lives. That is as much their business as it is mine, and, please God, so long as I shall be able to control it, so it shall be mine. Look at the other aspect of the question, that aspect which touches not the public but the publican. I know he is a common football for all extreme temperance reformers. I do not want to be unfair about that, but, after all, they very often talk as if it were so. 1 understand that there is still some difference of view remaining between the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate. 1 have 236 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL said what I have to say about that before, and I am not going to say anything about it again, except that I notice that the Secretary for Scotland resented somewhat warmly what I said this afternoon about what I understood to be his attitude towards the question of making some provision for fair treatment of the publican. Ml". McKinnon Wood dissented. Mr. Clyde : If I misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman I am sure I did not misinterpret the Lord Advocate, for precisely in the same Debate, the Second Reading Debate last year, I am perfectly certain, for within the last few minutes I have read it over, that the Lord Advocate, whom I think I heard say a moment ago that he was not conscious of any difference with the Secretary for Scotland Mr. Ure : About this Bill. Mr. Clyde : About this Bill — I should be sorry to extend the matter unduly — certainly said that so far as his view was concerned the provision of some means of fair treatment for the publican was absolutely indispensable, and he certainly invited us to consider this proposal upstairs. To be quite serious, once more, what do you ask me to do as an elector in my ward or parish ? I am going to make the assumption that I think there are too many public-houses in my ward or parish. The assumption is, if you will, that I think there ought to be none, though I doubt very much if I should reach that view, but it is quite likely that I should reach the view that there are too many. Having reached that view you ask me to cast a vote in the ballot box under this Bill which will have the direct and immediate effect of taking away from twenty-five per cent, of the people in my ward in Edinburgh or in my parish in the county of Kinross, the business that they have conducted for years, the means of livelihood by which they live ; and which will involve the for- feiture of the capital they have put into it. Even if you were to tell me that it was certain that I would do a great deal of good to a lot of people in that ward or parish, I should absolutely refuse to accomplish that purpose by either taking away from these people their business or annihilating the capital which they put into it. I should do so because 1 think it is monstrously unfair that in order to try and do some good you should victimise certain individuals. You are certain of the harm you will do. You are only perspective and speculative about the good you may do. COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 237 I have tried to put that perfectly clearly from the practical point of view of one to whom the Bill is going to apply. How anybody who was brought up in the traditions of liberty can put his hand to this Bill without making provision, on the one hand, in some such direction as disinterested management without either a reasonable solution of the problem with regard to our fellow citizens and their right to regulate their own lives, or, on the other hand, with regard to some fair form of insurance or compensation or extended time limit, or whatever you will, to make the thing applicable without gross injustice to those whose livelihood and capital depend on the business, I cannot understand at all. I perfectly understand the attitude of the hon. and learned Gentleman [Mr. Munro] or the hon. Member [Sir W. Menzies], both of whom let the cat out of the bag. The lion, and learned Gentleman [Mr. Munro] said the temperance organisations were the backbone of the Liberal organisations. I quite understand that. That is intelligible. But the less the hon. Member talks about political petulance in these circumstances the better. I quite understand the point of view of the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire, who says that no Liberal candidate need hope to stand in Scotland unless he swallows this Bill. It is a powerful argument, but it is not very eloquent of the opinion of the people of Scotland, and of those who talk glibly about the opinion of the people of Scotland, and who challenge us, for example, as to what success we would have if we went to the electors with a proposition that we would not swallow the Bill as it stands. There is nothing that I have stated more clearly than that while I feel, and everybody feels who considers the question, that the idea of local option has a great deal of attraction about it, and, it may be, a great deal that might be useful, there are only two conditions on which it could fairly be given effect to. These are, on the one hand, that by a system of disinterested management you should provide some palliative at all events for the monstrous inter- ference with the right of everyone to conduct his own business, and on the other hand, that there should be some means — I think there are many ways by which it could be done, and I admit that they are all different — of doing what is only fair and just to the publican who is going to be dispossessed. Mr. McKinnon Wood : The hon. and learned Gentleman referred 288 TEMPERAXCE (SCOTLAND) BILL to a little difference tliat arose between himself and myself, and between the noble Lord and myself when he repeated the same statement later on in the discussion. Both the hon. and learned Member and the noble Lord represented me as saying that there was a strong demand for compulsory insurance. I have not the exact words of the hon. and learned Member, but the noble Lord stated that I said there was a strong demand by the people of Scotland. The noble Lord was good enough to tell me the speech he referred to. I find that a considerable portion of the speech dealt with compulsory insurance, and that I made it abundantly clear that I was convinced that a very large portion of the trade were not in favour of compulsory insurance. If the noble Lord will refer to the words which precede those he referred to, he will find that was put in unmistakable language. I referred to the scheme brought forward by the hon. Baronet in 19 lo, and I reminded the House that when he brought it forward he received many letters against his own scheme from the members of the trade. It was quite evident that he had not the support of the trade. Sir G. Younger : That was long ago. Mr. McKinnon Wood : I said it was in 1910. It appears, therefore, that there is a great difference of opinion as to the proposal of compulsory mutual insurance. The noble Lord quoted a sentence from my speech in which I stated that there was a demand for compulsory mutual insurance, but he put in some words of his own which Marquess of Tullibardine : I asked him to couple that sentence with what the Lord Advocate said in order to get at the proper meaning. Mr. McKinnon V/ood : A most extraordinary way of inter- preting a speech ! That is a novel kind of criticism, and it is not of a ver}' satisfactory description. If the noble Lord had read the next sentence he would have seen from where that demand proceeded. It was from the Scottish Mutual Insurance Association, which naturally wanted compulsory insurance that would add to their business — small blame to them ! I did not criticise them. That was the demand I spoke of and the demand from a section of the trade. That small point, which I have now disposed of, shows how dangerous it is to quote isolated sentences from a COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 239 speech. Even the best reports cannot be altogether trusted. I remember once having the honour to reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. There was a question of settUng some small matter by Order in Council. The hon. Baronet said that this was reverting to the Star Chamber, to which I replied that that was rather exaggerated language, for the only thing after all that had got to be settled was the question of small fringes of area, but the Official Report, which was " Hansard " in those days, made me put the thing in this way: "This was an exaggeration of language, for the only thing that had to be settled was a very small question, only the question of female franchise." I have always felt that it was very dangerous to take detached sentences. I always strive to take the general tenour and meaning of a speech. The hon. and learned Gentleman accused my hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs of having learned nothing. I have learned something from this Debate — that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been just as much opposed to this Bill if we had acccepted the Lords Amendments as he is now, because his objection to the Bill is that it contains the principle of local option and if we had accepted the House of Lords Amendments it would still have contained that principle. If there are four options instead of three, it may be true that it would be more difficult to carry any one of them. Still it contains the principle of local option, and that is what the hon. and learned Member condemns in unqualified terms. He said, in a passage of immense eloquence and energy, that it was a proposal that he should establish himself as the master of the people and dictate to them what they were to drink. That might be an objection to some other Bill. It has nothing to do with the present Bill. The hon. Member for Glasgow, and Aberdeen Uni- versity found fault with some of those on this side of the House for not having read the Bill, but he revealed the fact very soon that he had not read it himself, because he said that i6 per cent, of the people could carry either reduction or veto. He talked about a minority carrying reduction or veto. That is quite an abuse of language. You have got to get a majority, and that majority has to represent a very substantial proportion of the electorate on the roll. [An ?Io.\. Member : " Not of the people."] Not of the 240 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL children. Under this Bill you have to obtain such a majority in order to carry a Veto Resolution that not one of us would like to have to obtain such a majority to become a representative in Par- liament. I wonder how many of us would fail to qualify under the conditions of this Bill. The whole weight is against those who want to get prohibition under this Bill. They have got to get a three- fifths majority of those voting, and that majority must not be less than 30 per cent, of the electorate. That means a very considerable proportion of those voting. The number of people voting at school board or local elections would not carry either. This Bill has been persistently misrepresented, I think per- sistently misunderstood, because I do not think that it has been wilfully misrepresented, but it has been entirely misunderstood. The fact is that the Bill gives very great safeguards to the licence- holder. I have learned this, that the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite is not based upon the fact that we have not accepted disinterested management, or compulsory insurance. The opposition is to the root principle of the Bill. " I am against it," said the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, "root and branch. In this Bill I profoundly and thoroughly disbeheve." He went on with much eloquence, but some confusion of metaphor, to compare a public-house to the rose. He spoke of it as " the abode of beauty and elegance." I have never heard a public-house described in such eloquent and glowing terms. Most people apologise for the public- house as a necessity, but the hon. Member thinks it is a rose, and the abode of beauty and elegance. No wonder he objects to its being interfered with. Then another hon. Member opposite asked us to look at the thing fair and square. It is the old fight. The hon. Member for Glasgow University said that the reason why tem- perance legislation was passed was because we get the assistance of people who belong to temperance organisations ; that they are very active people accustomed to organising, and that they went to the agents of the Liberal party and said, "Now, if you support tem- perance legislation, we will give you the aid of our valuable organisation." And so legislation was carried. That is the picture on one side. Is there no influence of the trade at elections ? The hon. Gentleman who is the representative of the university sits high above these things. But there has been treating. There has been a COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 241 great deal of influence on the part of the trade at elections. The influence is being exerted here to-day. And one of the reasons of the .opposition to the Temperance (Scotland) Bill is because the English trade think it might be a pattern for an English measure. The hon. Member for Midlothian brought forward an extraordinary argument, and so did the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member always addresses the House with much eloquence and skill, but 1 do not think I ever heard an argument quite so bad as his this afternoon. He seems to think that the fact of his repre- senting a Conservative constituency which has not supported tem- perance legislation proves that Scotland is against it. Let me point out that there is a very large number of Members who represent a group of constituencies, and who are in favour of local option, and even Members on that side of the House who come forward and seek to obtain votes at a Scottish election have, with the hon. Member for Midlothian, at least to render lip service to the cause of temperance. What did the hon. Member tell us in an argument against the Bill ? Surely it was the most curious argument in the world. He said that when he fought Midlothian he appreciated that a large majority of the Scottish people demanded temperance reform ? He told the hecklers that he was in favour of the Bill, and he said that they did not heckle him any more. Major Hope : I said provided that the areas for the Bill were enlarged, and that a scheme of insurance provided by the trade itself was introduced into the measure. Mr. McKinnon Wood : I know the hon. Member said the area was to be enlarged, and we have agreed with the other House in that matter. Sir G. Younger : Not as regards the wards. Mr. McKinnon Wood : Does the hon. Baronet think that if you increase a town you do not automatically increase the area of the wards ? Sir G. Younger : Not necessarily. Mr. McKinnon Wood : I do not know that there is any exception. Speaking generally, you cannot increase the limit of population without automatically increasing the size of the wards. The important thing is that he said he was in favour of the principle of the Bill, and he is the only Member opposite who said he was in Q L>f2 te:mperance (Scott.and) bitj. favour of the principle of local option. But, surely, the situation iS clear ? I forget the exact numbers, but it is something like eight or nine to one of those who represent Scotland who are not only in favour of the principle of the Bill, but who put it forward at every election, and know in this matter they represent the opinion of Scotland. Of this thing I am sure, and that is that Scotland wants to see this principle of local option tried. Hon. Members say that the veto will not be carried. Very well, that will depend on the will of the people. If the people take the view they desire them to take, there will be no veto. Does any hon. Member opposite deny what the Royal Commission many 3^ears ago, even the Majority of them, admitted, that in many parts of Scotland there are far too many public-houses, and that the excessive number of licences is a direct incitement to temptation to drink. If that is the opinion of the people of Scotland the}' will use this Bill for the reduction of the number of licences. Hon. Members want this principle of local option. I do not think it is necessary to say any more upon this subject. I had hoped this controversy might be closed. I should have thought it was in the interests of the trade as well as of the people of Scotland that this matter should be settled, but I am afraid that the matter will have to go on. I do not know what will happen in another place, and I will not attempt to forecast their action in the matter, but I do hope that counsels of more conciliation will prevail. We have had no conciliation offered us from hon. Members opposite. Major Hope : Have you offered any ? Mr. McKinnou Wood : Yes, I met all the Amendments I could meet, but I am not prepared to give up the principle of the Bill, and if anything is plain from this Debate and from the best Debate we had this Session on this Bill, it is that nothing will conciliate hon. Members opposite except the surrender of the principle of local option. Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 166. COJNIJMONS [July 9, 1918J THIRD READING 248 AYES Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Adamson, William Addison, Dr. Christopher Agnew, Sir George William Ainsworth, John Stirling Alden, Percy Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Armitage, Robert Arnold, Sydney Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Barnes, George N. Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Barton, ^Vi^iam Beale, Sir William Phipson Beauchamp, Sir Edward Beck, Arthur Cecil Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Bentham, George Jackson Bethell, Sir J. H. Black, Arthur W. Boland, John Pius Booth, Frederick Handel Bowerman, Charles W. Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Brace, William Brady, Patrick Joseph Brocklehurst, W. B. Brunner, John F. L. Bryce, J. Annan Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Bu.xton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) Byles, Sir William Pollard Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes, Hey wood) Chancellor, Henry George Chappie, Dr. William Allen Clancy, John Joseph Clough, William Clynes, John R. Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Condon, Thomas Joseph Cornwall, ^ir Edwin A. Cowan, W. H. Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Crooks, William Crumley, Patrick Cullinan, John Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Dawes, J. A. Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Devlin, Joseph Dickinson, W. H, Dillon, John Donclan, Captain A. Doris, William Duffy, William J. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Elverston, Sir Harold Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Essex, Sir Richard Walter Esslemont, George Birnie Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Ffrench, Peter Field, William Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Fitzgibbon, John Flavin, Michael Joseph Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Gelder, Sir W. A. Gladstone, W. G. C. Glanville, H. J. Goldstone, Frank Greig, Colonel J. W. Griffith, Ellis Jones Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Hackett, John Hancock, John George Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Havelock-AUan, Sir Henry Hayden, John Patrick Hayward, Evan Hazleton, Richard Helme, Sir Nerval Watson Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Henry, Sir Charles Higham, John Sharp Hinds, John Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Hodge, John Hogge, James Myles Holmes, Daniel Turner Holt, Richard Durning Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey 244 TEMPEKANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Hudson, Walter Hughes, Spencer Leigh Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) John, Edward Thomas Jones, Edgar (MerthNT Tydvil) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts. Rushclifle) Jones, \VilHam (Carnarvonshire) Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Joyce, Michael Ivcating. Matthew Kellaway, Frederick George Kelly, Edward Kennedy, Vincent Paul Kilbride, Denis King, Joseph Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Lardner, James C. R. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Lawson, Sir W. (Camb'rld, Cockerm'th) Leach, Charles LcN-y, Sir Maurice Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Lundon, Thomas Lyell, Charles Henry L}iich, A. A. Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Macdonald, J. M. (Fcdkirk Burghs) McGhec, Richard Maclean, Donald Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. MacNeill, J. G. Swilt (Donegal, South) Macpherson, James Ian MacVeagh, Jeremiah M'Callum, Sir John M. M'Curdy, C. A. McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald M'Laren,Hon.F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding) MMicking, Major Gilbert Manfield, Harry Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Martin, Joseph Mason, David M. (Coventry) Meagher, Michael Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Menzic-s, Sir Walter Middlcbrook, William Millar, James Duncan Molloy, Michael Molteno, Percy Alport Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Money, L. G. Chiozza Mooney, John J. Morgan, George Hay Morrell, I^ilip Morieon, Hector Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Muldoon, John Munro, Robert Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Murphy, ]\Iartin J. IMurray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. Nccdham, Christopher T. Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Nolan, Joseph Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Nuttall, Harry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) O'Doherty, Philip O'Donnell, Thomas O'Dowd, John O'Grady, James O' Kelly, Edward P. (WTcklow, W.) O'Malley, William O'NeUl, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. O'Shee, James John O'SuUivan, Timothy Palmer, Godfrey Mark Parker, James (Halifax) Parry, Thomas H. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton) Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Pointer, Joseph Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Pringle, W^Uliam M. R. Radford, G. H. Raffan, Peter Wilson Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Reddy, Michael Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Rendall, Athelstan Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Robinson, Sidney Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Roche, Augustine (Louth) Roe, Sir Thomas Rowlands, James Rowntree, Arnold Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) COMMONS [July 9, 1913] THIRD READING 245 Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel) Scanlan, Thomas vSchwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. S. Sheehy, David Shortt, Edward Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Snowden, Philip Soames, Arthur Wellesley Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) Sutherland, John E. Sutton, John Taylor, John W. (Durham) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Tennant, Harold John Thomas, James Henry Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Toulmin, Sir George Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Watt, Henry Anderson Webb, H. Wedgwood, Josiah C. White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) White, Patrick (Meath, North) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. Whyte, A. F. (Perth) Wiles, Thomas Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) Williamson, Sir Archibald Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) Wilson, W. T. (Wcsthoughton) Winfrey, Richard Wing, Thomas Edward Wood, Rt. Hon.T.McKinnon (Glasgow) Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) Young, William (Perthshire, East) Yoxall, Sir James Henry Tellers for the Ayes. — Mr. Illingworth and Mr. GuUand. NOES Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Amery, L. C. M. S. Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Anstruther-Gray, Major William Archer-Shee, Major Martin Ashley, Wilfrid W. Astor, Waldorf Baird, John Lawrence Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Banbury, Sir Frederick George Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Barnston, Harry Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glou., E.) Bathurst, Charles (Wilts. Wilton) Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Beckett, Hon. Gervase Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Bennett-Goldney, Francis Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Beresford, Lord Charles Bigland, Alfred Bird, Alfred Blair, Reginald Boles, Lieut. -Colonel Dennis Fortescue Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Boy ton, James Bridgeman, William Clive Burn, Colonel C. R. Butcher, John George eampbell. Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Cassel, Felix Castlereagh, Viscount Cautley, Henry Strother Cave, George Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Clyde, J. Avon Cooper, Richard Ashmole Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Craik, Sir Henry Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Croft, Henry Page Dalrymple, Viscount Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Denison-Pender, J. C. Dixon, C. H. Doughty, Sir George Duke, Henry Edward Duncannon, Viscount Falle, Bertram Godfray Fell, Arthur Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Forster, Henry William Gardner, Ernest Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Gibbs, George Abraham Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. Goldsmith, Frank Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Greene, Walter Raymond Gretton, John Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) 246 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Guinness,Hon.W.E.(Bury S. Edmunds) Haddock, George Bahr Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Hardy, Rt. Hon. Lawrence Harris, Henry Percy Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Helnisley. Viscount Hcwins, William Albert Samuel Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Hills. John Waller Hill-Wood, Samuel Hoare, S. J. G. Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Hope, Harry (Bute) Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Houston, Robert Paterson Hunt, Rowland Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. Ingleby. Holcombe Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Jessell, Captain H. M. Kerr>-, Earl of Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Lane-Fox, G. R. I^w, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Lee, Arthur Hamilton Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt. -Colonel A. R. Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Mackinder, Halford J. M'Mordie, Robert James Mason, James F. (Windsor) Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Morrison -Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Mount, William Arthur Newdegatc, F. A. Ordc-Powlctt, Hon. W. G. A. Ormsby-Gorc, Hon. William Page]:, Almeric Hugh Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Parkes, Ebenezer Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Peel, Lieut. -Colonel R. F. Perkins, Walter F. Pollock, Ernest Murray Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. Randies, Sir John S. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Rawson, Colonel R. H. Remnant, James Farquharson Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Ronaldshay, Earl of Rothschild, Lionel dc Royds, Edmund Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) Samuel, Sir Harry (Noi-wood) Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) Sanders, Robert Arthur Sandys, G. J. Spear, Sir John Ward Stanier, Beville Starkey, John Ralph Staveley-Hill, Henry Stewart, Gershom Swift, Rigby Sykes, Alan John (Chcs., Knutsford) Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) Talbot, Lord Edmund Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) Thynne, Lord Ale.xander Touche, George Alexander Tryon, Captain George Clement Tullibardine, Marquess of Valentia, Viscount Walker, Colonel William Hall Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid) Weigall, Captain A. G. Weston, Colonel J. W. Wheler, Granville C. H. White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport) Wills, Sir Gilbert Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks. E.R.) Winterton, Earl Wolmer, Viscount Wood, John (Stalybridge) Worthington-lCvans, L. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- Wright, Henry Fitzherbert Yate, Colonel C. !£. Younger, Sir George Tellers for the Noes. — Mr. Eyres- MonscU and Major Henderson. Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed. LORDS [July 17, 1913] SECOND READING 247 HOUSE OF LORDS. July 17, 1913. {Official Debates, Vol. xiv.). SECOND READING, The First Commissioner of Works (Earl Beauchamp) : My Lords, this Bill was before your Lordships so lately and so frequently that it is, perhaps, unnecessary for me to say very much this evening in moving the Second Reading. I propose, therefore, to content myself with explaining to your Lordships the exact form of the Bill and the reasons why it is different from the form in which it appeared before this House last session ; and any further remarks I hope your Lord- ships will allow me to make in reply to the discussion which will probably take place. The only changes in this Bill are that His Majesty's Government have accepted — with one exception, to which I will refer in a moment — all those Amendments which they possibly could out of the large number which were inserted when the Bill was before your Lordships. Tliere are certain changes in dates, rendered necessary by the time which has elapsed since the date of the former Bill ; and in view of the fact that the only other Amendments are those agreed to by your Lordships it is evident that this Bill con- forms with the conditions laid down in the Parliament Act. The only Amendment to which we agreed last session which we have not inserted in this Bill is in regard to the definition of the word "area" in Clause 15. That was a subject which interested the noble Earl below the Gangway [Lord Camperdown]. We have restored that clause to its original form. It may be remembered that when the Bill was here last session the definition was criticised on the ground that to take the ward as an area in the case of burghs with over 10,000 inhabitants would result, at any rate in the smaller of those boroughs, in an area small in extent and in population, and it was sought to amend the definition by the creation of ad hoc areas. I think it was Lord Balfour of Burleigh who moved that Amend- ment. We offered as a compromise to increase the population limit from 10,000 to 25,000, and the Bill was amended accordingly. But 248 TEMPERANCE (SCOTI.AND) BILL noble Lords opposite accepted this, not as a compromise, but only as an experiment, adhering to their proposal for an ad hoc area. As a result the amended definition did not commend itself either to His Majesty's Government or to the House of Commons ; but in the form in which the Lords' Amendment went to another place it was necessary, in view of the provisions of the Parliament Act, that it should be either rejected as a whole or accepted as a whole. It was rejected, and the original definition was reinserted. The position of His Majesty's Government in this matter is that they are still pre- pared to revert to the 25,000 limit if that will by itself be considered surticient by noble Loi'ds opposite. I can only express the hope that the result of our deliberations this evening, and I hope afterwards in Committee, may be to secure for this Bill in this session a more fortunate fate than that which attended it earlier in the present year. I beg to move. Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. — {Earl Beau champ.) The Earl of Lytton : My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Balfour is unable to be in his place this evening, I desire to say a few words on behalf of those who were advocates of the principle of dis- interested management in the discussions which we had on this Bill last session. What I have to say will be very short, because it is obviously quite useless to go through a general Second Reading dis- cussion upon this Bill as if it had come to us for the first time. We are all familiar with this Bill. We have discussed it clause by clause and line by line. We have moved Amendments to various clauses, and we spent a great deal of time upon it last session. It is quite unnecessary, therefore, to discuss at any length its principle at this moment. The only thing I imagine your Lordships are interested in is the question whether this Bill can be so modified as to pass into law this session, or whether it must take its chance under the Parliament Act together with other measures of His Majesty's Government. For my part, I hope that it may be possible to modify the Bill this session in such a way as to enable it to pass into law, though I am bound to say we have had very little encouragement from His Majesty's Government in any attempts we have made to bring about that result. In the few remarks which the noble Earl in charge of the Bill deigned to offer to the House this evening he told us that His LORDS [July 17, 1913] SECOND READING 249 Majesty's Government had inserted in the Bill all the Amendments which they were able to accept out of those which had been suggested by this House. I think, if your Lordships will read through the Bill as it is before us this evening, you will have great difficulty in recognising the presence of any of the amendments over which we spent such a long time during last session. One would almost imagine from the noble Earl's speech that a very large pro- portion of our amendments had found their way into the Bill. I am bound to say I think the noble Earl might have given us some explanation of the reasons why the whole of the work which we did upon this Bill last session has been thrown away — some explanation of the reasons why His Majesty's Government have been unable to accept the vast majority of the Amendments which we inserted. We have had no explanation whatever upon those points. However, as I say, I hope that it may be possible that this Bill may pass as a normal Bill, I will not say as an agreed Bill, because I do not suppose there is much hope that the two sides of the House will ever agree entirely upon all the details of it, but at any rate a Bill which has the assent of both Houses of Parliament. I protest very strongly indeed against bringing this Bill under the machinery of the Parliament Act. It is not in any way the kind of Bill for which the Parliament Act was intended even by its promoters. If we recall the arguments which were used in support of the Parliament Act at the time when it was under discussion, we shall remember that that measure was intended to deal with a situation where there was a fundamental, an irreconcilable, difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament on some great matter of principle. We had an instance the other night of such a Bill. We shall have another instance again next week. There is the question of Home Rule. There is an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the two Houses. Noble Lords on the opposite side of the House want to destroy the Union and set up Home Rule in Ireland. We on this side do not want to do that, and no amount of discussion in detail or consideration in committee can reconcile that fundamental difference of opinion. Noble Lords on the opposite side of the House want to disestablish the Church in Wales. We on this side of the House do not want to disestabhsh it. There, again, you have an irreconcilable difference of opinion, and the Government 250 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL introduced the Parliament Act for dealing with a situation of that kind. But, my Lords, we have nothing of the sort in this Bill. There is no fundamental difference of opinion here. We are all agreed in desiring to promote temperance in Scotland if it can be promoted. More than that, if wc read the title of this Bill we find the method which the Government are going to adopt for promoting temperance in Scotland. We see that their object is — " to promote temperance in Scotland by conferring on the electors in prescribed areas control over the grant and renewal of certifi- cates.'' There is no dilTcrence between the two sides of the House on the principle of the Bill as defined in the title. We are all quite prepared to give control to the electors in Scotland over the grant and renewal of certificates. If there is a difference, it is that we on this side of the House want to give to the electors a larger measure of control than that which is given by the Government in their Bill. But there is, as 1 say, no fundamental difference of principle at all ; and to use the machinery of the Parliament Act to pass through a Bill of this kind seems to me to indicate that the Government intend to use their coercive machinery, not for the purpose of carrying a principle which cannot be carried by any other means, not even for the purpose of bringing their political opponents into a reasonable frame of mind, but simply and solely for the purpose of avoiding the necessity of defending their own measure in detail against the criticisms which are brought against it, and still more for the purpose of avoiding the responsibility of accepting alterations in it which they themselves know to be perfectly reasonable, but which, for some reason or other, happen to be distasteful to a small number of their followers. What are the facts with regard to this Bill ? The principle of it your Lordships accepted last year. Amendments were moved, every one of which was entirely consistent with the principle of the Bill. Some of them, no doubt, went further than the Government were prepared to go, but others, on the other hand, were entirely reasonable. Let me give to your Lordships three instances. The Government know perfectly well that the five years' time limit which I LORDS [July 17, IDia] SECOND READING 251 they are setting up in the Bill is a very hard measure of justice to the owners of certificates in Scotland, and if there is any value what- ever from the point of view of temperance in this Bill surely it is worth purchasing at a rather more generous price than that which the Government propose. Then, again, they know perfectly well that the areas they are setting up in the Bill are quite unworkable, and that the Bill in that respect does actually require amendment. Again, they know perfectly well that the principle of disinterested management is at least an experiment in the direction of temperance which is worth trying. I do not put it higher than tliat at this moment. We do not ask the Government to legislate and to set up the principle of disinterested management by law in Scotland. We merely ask the Government in a Bill which professes to be a Local Option Bill and to give the electors of Scotland the control of their liquor trade, to give the electors the chance, if they so desire, of trying this experiment. I think that every one of the more im- portant members of His Majesty's Government have at some time or another expressed general approval of the principle of disinterested management. At any rate, I cannot remember one who has offered any very strong arguments against it. I have stated the nature of the changes which we tried to make in this Bill last year. Now see what the effect of the Parliament Act was on the reception of our Amendments. Your Lordships remember that this was originally a Private Member's Bill, and was taken over by the Government, who thereby made themselves responsible for it and undertook to pass it into law. The changes which I have indicated and which we suggested in our discussions last year are no doubt distasteful to the original promoters of the Bill, and they have reasons for wishing the Government not to accept them. In old days, before the Parliament Act was passed, the Government would have gone to these gentlemen and said, " We have taken over your Bill and are very anxious to pass it into law. Amendments have been moved in the other House, some of which we think perhaps go too far, others of which, however, are eminently reasonable. We think there is an opportunity of compromise, and in order to secure the Bill we propose to accept certain Amend- ments." And then when their supporters became restive and suggested that the Government should not accept those Amend- 252 TEMPERAXCE (SCOTLAND) BILL ments, the Government would have replied, "But that is the price of the Bill. Make up your minds whether you would rather stick to the Bill in its present form and lose it, or exercise the spirit of give and take and let us get this legislation passed." That would have been the situation. But what is the situation now ? The Government know that many of these Amendments which we have made arc eminently reasonable and if left to themselves I have no doubt they would be quite willing to accept them. I have very little doubt, if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and his friends on that side of the House were to meet some of those who were responsible for the Amend- ments on this side of the House and the matter were left to us that we should have little difficulty in getting the Bill into a form which we should be prepared to agree upon. But now when the Government show any disposition to accept our Amendments their friends come along and remind them of their own Parliament Act, and demand that this Bill should go through under that machinery without the change of a single line, a single word, or a single comma. And so it comes about that this machinery which the Government originally introduced for the purpose of coercing your Lordships is now being used by their supporters for the purpose of coercing the Government. No one can pretend for a single moment that this Bill as it stands, without any alteration, represents the will either of the people of Scotland or of the House of Commons, or of the Government themselves. Yet it is this Bill in this form which we are asked once again to discuss in all its stages, when the Government are in the position of saying, " We do not care for any suggestions you make ; \ye propose to pass the Bill through as it stands under the Parliament Act." I hope, however unreasonable the Government may be, however little disposition to compromise they may show, that we on this side of the House will again embark upon a careful consideration of the Bill with a view to passing it into law this session if it be possible. I have intervened at the commencement of tlie debate for the purpose of suggesting that it would, I think, be useful if at this stage some indication were given of the matters which are likely to be raised in Committee — if noble Lords on this side of the House could give us some indication of the particular points to which they will call LORDS [July 17, 1913] SECOND READING 253 attention in Committee, and if the Government could give us some indication of the concessions, if any, which they are prepared to make for the purpose of obtaining their Bill. On the question of disinterested management I only desire to say this. I think, as I thought and said last year, that a Bill which professes to give the electors of Scotland the control of the liquor traffic and restricts their choice to two things — to the two points, namely, of whether they shall have any public-houses in a. particular district or not, and if so how many — is a bad Bill. It is an insincere Bill because it does not do what it professes to do. I have said that the principle of disinterested management is an experiment which at any rate is worth trying. Now, however strong may be the case in Scotland at this moment in support of trying that experiment it could not be done under the operation of this Bill. Yet this Bill is recommended to us as a Local Option Bill which will give to the localities interested the right of controlling their own affairs. Last year when we tried to insert this principle we were told by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that he was not opposed to it in principle. In fact, he said that he did not think anybody was opposed in principle to disinterested management ; but, he said, " Your Amendment is unworkable, your machinery is bad ; that is the reason, and the only reason why we cannot accept it." I have tried repeatedly to find out trom the Government in what respects our machinery is defective, to find out what sort of Amendment would meet their objections, and I have signally failed, with the result that I am forced to believe that in this matter the Government are not their own masters and do not like to own it. That being the situation it seems quite useless to pursue any further the attempt to find something which the Government will accept, not only in principle, but which they will acknowledge to be a workable proposal. Strong advocate as I am of the principle of disinterested management and anxious as I am to get it inserted in this Bill, I am not prepared to wreck the Bill on that question and that question alone. I feel, therefore, that the most dignified course for us who believe in that principle to adopt, after the treatment we have received from the Government, is to enter our protest and to take no further part in the proceedings. If I had any encouragement or any promise of support from other quarters of the House, I should be quite 254 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL prepared to move Amendments again in Committee and try and get the principle inserted in the Bill; but, failing that, I think I must content mj'self with making the protest which I have made to-day against the whole treatment which this House has received in connection with this Bill, and possibly at a later stage of our proceedings protesting once more against the insincere character of the Bill. At the same time if noble Lords on this side of the House and the supporters of His Majesty's Government can come to some agreement upon other points in the Bill, they will not, I think, find that the advocates of disinterested management will quarrel wath them in any way. We think that the Bill is defective in so far as it does not contain this principle, but we will be prepared to offer what assistance we can to the passage of the Bill this year and content ourselves with the hope that on some future occasion an opportunity ma}' occur of giving to the people of Scotland means which have proved valuable in other parts of the world of controlling the grant and renewal of liquor licences. Lord Courtney of Penwith : My Lords, I rise to express the hope, which I share with the noble Earl who has just addressed us, that we may be able to dispose of this Bill without liaving it subjected to the operation of the Parliament Act. I do not think any of us are much enamoured of the processes of that Act. The authors of it adopted it as a painful necessity, and they will put it into opcrr.tion onl}^, I suppose, where they think it unavoidable that it should be adopted. But where it can be avoided they will, I am sure, desire to avoid the compulsion involved in that Act. Sharing as I do the hope of the noble Earl who has just addressed your Lordships, 1 would venture to suggest to him and to others that if we are to obtain the consent of the Government to this Bill being treated without recourse to the Parliament Act, we must try as far as possible to avoid all expressions which would lead to feelings of animosity, and restrict our action in Committee, as far as we can, to suggestions of the adoption of which there is a reasonable hope. The noble Earl, if he will excuse my saying so, was twice betrayed into af)plying the epithet " insincere" to this Bill. I do not think we gain anything by the use of an epithet of that kind, and one may be sure that the backs of those in another place who support the Bill as it now stands will be much stiffened if it is LORDS [July 17, 1913] SECOND READING 255 imputed to them that they are insincere in the promotion of this Bill. They may be, and I think they are, in great error on one or two points ; but I think we had better acknowledge at the commencement that they are as sincere as ourselves in the adoption of principles which they believe will bring about the end which they desire. In Committee last year your Lordships inserted three leading Amendments. The first was the extension of the time limit from five to ten years. There can be no question of great principle in the number of years adopted in a time limit. I m3'self think that five years is ample notice to those engaged in the business preparatory to the Bill being put into full operation, and it is obvious that if the Bill could have been agreed upon last year with a seven years' time limit it would have come into operation quite as soon as it will if forced through Parliament next year with a five years' limit. I hope, if we have to discuss the time limit again, that the suggestions in reference to it will be extremely moderate, and I repeat my own conviction that the term of five years is ample warning considering the great length of time that persons engaged in this business have known that there have been suggestions for putting into operation local option in its severest form. Disinterested management was the second of the great changes made in Committee by your Lordships' House. I agree with the noble Earl who has just addressed us that to refuse to allow the people of Scotland, in particular areas in which they are invited to vote, to express a preference for the principle of disinterested management is really to deprive this Bill of all claim to be a perfect Local Option Bill. The people in a locality are asked how this traffic shall be managed. Shall it be managed by the abolition of all licences ? Shall it be managed by the reduction of licences to some small proportion to the population ? Or shall it be managed by transferring the management from those interested in the sale of intoxicating liquors to a public company absolutely disinterested and having no motive to promote sale ? There may be not a single area in Scotland in which the third principle would be chosen even though there was the possibility given to the electors to choose it. But if it failed of adoption it would then show that the people did not desire it. What harm would be done thereby even to those 256 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) xULL who are promoting the Bill as it stands? If on the otherjhand it were adopted even in two or three areas, it would be useful as leading the way in an experunent which in other countries has been attended with the greatest success. If you are going to give the people a choice in the matter, why deny them this third choice ? It is said that members of His Majest^^'s Government have, singly, expressed themselves in favour of the principle. I think that is an accurate statement. It is then said that they are obliged to refuse to allow this option because the persons most interested in this Bill are absolutely opposed to it. I think they might fairly say to their friends who are so opposed to this option of disinterested management, even if they are as numerous as is suggested, that it is, after all, a question for the people to determine, and unless the people have the power of determining for themselves in a particular area how the drink traffic shall be managed it cannot be said that you are really carrying out the principle of local option. But my impression is that this principle of disinterested management has not aroused in Scotland itself such a vehement spirit of opposition that if it stood by itself it could not be inserted in the Bill even against the inoperative murmurs of some of the extreme supporters of the Bill. I would ask your Lordships to consider whether in the course of last Session you did not very much embarrass, perhaps fatally embarrass, the principle of disinterested management by inextricably mixing it up with the principle of compensation and inserting in the Bill an elaborate scheme of compensation for those licencees who, under the operation of the Bill, might be deprived of their licences. I noticed that Lord Lytton did not mention this third change, a change which in my judgment was most prejudicial to the fortunes of the Bill, and if persisted in will, I fear, be fatal to its passage as a more or less agreed Bill through this House. For Scotland I cannot speak. But having represented in Parlia- ment a constituency not wholly dissimilar in the construction of its residential population to many parts of Scotland, and animated by very much the same feeling as the temperance people who back this Bill, I can say this, that there is throughout Great Britain a most determined resistance to any kind of legislative recognition of the principle of compensation to those dispossessed; and if by intro- ducing this principle you rouse that spirit of opposition to com- LORDS [July 17, 1913] SECOND READING 257 pensation, then the question of disinterested management may perish with it. It is evident that compensation is not a thing to which the noble Earl is tied, and perhaps he ma}', hke myself, regard it as being injurious to the fortunes of the Bill. I would ask those who were most interested in promoting the compensation scheme which was inserted in the Bill last Session whether it is necessary at all that legislative provision should be made in this matter of compensation. Unless I am very much mistaken there are already in this country more than one company established for the purpose of insuring licence-holders against loss through being deprived of their licences. Any such company would be readily open to these Scottish licence-holders ; and in the absence of such companies, or to meet the objections that the premiums which these companies require are higher than the real risks involved, 1 can see no difficulty whatever in the licence-holders of Scotland forming amongst themselves a mutual association which should protect them against any loss which they might sustain. I would in any case beg your Lordships to consider the pro- priety, if you reinsert the three Amendments to which I refer, of making it clear that they are not interdependent one upon the other. The time limit stands by itself. The disinterested manage- ment option stands by itself. The provision of compensation stands by itself. If you persist in trying to mix up two of these or the whole three together you may endanger that which you could secure by pursuing relentlessly that which you cannot possibly obtain. It is in this spirit that I urge your Lordships to consider before going into Committee on this Bill whether it would not be possible to propose only reasonable Amendments and distinguish them from those others of the adoption of which there is really no hope. It is worth while doing a good deal in order to prevent this Bill being brought under the operation of the Parliament Act next year. I think if that did happen it would tend still more to brutalise the Parliamentary machine and to make the future conduct of business less promising than it is even at this moment. The Earl of Camperdown : My Lords, I confess that I was somewhat surprised by the speech of the noble Earl in introducing this Bill. There is no member of your Lordships' House who can be more clear than he can, or whose speeches contain more informa- R •J58 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL tion when lie chooses to give it ; but the speech in which he introduced this Bill was more remarkable for what he omitted than for what he told us. He told us that His Majesty's Government had accepted all the Amendments which they possibly could accept. I wish I had them on paper here. Except in the case of clubs and one or two verbal Amendments in other parts of the Bill, I am not aware of any important Amendment whatsoever that has been accepted by His Majesty's Government. Indeed, the line of what Lord Courtney would call unreasonableness has pervaded the whole of the speeches and statements of His Majesty's Government — I do not say in this House, but in the other House, There has been a determination not to give way on anything. The noble Earl did not tell us to-night a single thing of what had happened since this • Bill left 3'our Lordships' House last Session, He gave us no infor- mation with regard to the reasons why our Amendments were rejected. He did not even tell us that the Bill had been placed under the Parliament Act. It was only when he alluded to the word "area" that he said that under the Parliament Act so and so could not be done. That was the only indication he gave us that this Bill was to be placed under the Parliament Act, and it does seem to me that he might have given some further explanation to tiie House with very great advantage at all events to myself. This Bill, as it comes to us to-day, is in all essentials the same Bill as that which was brought up to us last year. It is the Bill of the extreme Prohibitionist which was taken up by the Government, and whenever an^ change has been proposed the Prohibitionists have, as the noble Earl beside me said, threatened the Government, and the Government have always given way to those threats. Now we learn that the Bill is to go through under the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act was intended to deal with important questions and with those Bills which are now under the Act. It was to deal with Constitutional questions. This is not a Constitutional ques- tion ; it is a purely social question. It will be remembered that in the discussions last Session we said quite freely that we did not ourselves personally approve of this principle of local option, but that we accepted it, and did not intend to introduce Amendments which were inconsistent with it. That is what was said, and during the considerable discussions that took place that mode of treatment LORDS [Jlly 17, 1913] SECOND JlEADl^NG 250 was consistently adopted in this House. To put this Bill under the Parliament Act is an abuse of that Act. It is contrary to all that was said of the Act by its authors. The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition mentioned the other night many things which had been said by the authors of that Act, and he quoted many pledges which they had given, not one of which he said had been fulfilled. Noble Lords opposite took the very wise course, as I think, of saying nothing whatsoever in answer to the noble Marquess, and there was this excellent reason for that, that they had nothing to say, and when you have nothing to say it is much better to hold your tongue. In your Lordships' House this Bill was discussed without any Party spirit whatever. It went down to the other House, and what happened ? Immediately the Secretary for Scotland said he would place the Bill under the Parliament Act, and the Bill which we are now discussing has since been forced through the other House by the machinery of that Act. There was no Committee stage at all, and in other ways it was forced through under the machinery of the Parliament Act. Now what are your Lordships going to do? If we were to consider the matter in the spirit adopted by the Secretary for Scotland we should reinsert all our Amendments and stick to them, and then let the Bill fall under the Parliament Act and be passed under that Act a year or two hence. But I hope your Lord- ships will not be tempted to follow the example of the Secretary for Scotland. On the contrary, I hope that you will adopt the advice that was given by Lord Lytton and also by Lord Courtney ; and that you will consider which Amendments you regard as vital and necessary to the Bill, and then, having inserted them, insist upon those Amendments. I ask your Lordships to consider what were your Amendments which were rejected in the other house. The first' dealt with the principle of disinterested management. It is playing with the term Local Option when you say there are to be only three options, one of which must be accepted by the people of Scotland. What reason is there why they should not have a fourth, or even a fifth, or a sixth option ? This has been treated in another place as if there was no feeling in favour of disinterested management in Scotland. My Lords, there is a very considerable feeling in favour of it. It was expressed 260 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL by such an important body as the Temperance Committee of the Church of Scotland. The}' presented a Petition to this House asking that that Amendment should be inserted in the Bill. But it is hope- less to ask the Government to agree to give the people of Scotland this disinterested management option. They have pledged themselves to those who virtually lead them in this matter, and I suppose it is useless to ask them to reconsider their determination. But if those who are in favour of this disinterested management option do not move to reintroduce that Amendment, your Lordships who disagree with them will understand that that is a great concession on their part, and, depend upon it, they will expect additional safeguards in other parts of the Bill. The next point which was dealt with in this House and which was ruthlessly disposed of in the House of Commons was the question of compulsory insurance. As to that question what did no less a member of the Government than the Lord Advocate say in April last ? He said — " The question of compulsory insurance has always presented itself to me in two aspects — first, as an indispensable act of justice to a dispossessed publican ; and, second!}', as a method of smoothing the path to the passing of a no-licence resolution." If Mr. Ure is opposed to inserting compulsory insurance in this Bill, does it not stand to reason that he must be in favour of giving some additional safeguard in lieu thereof. With regard to what fell from Lord Courtney about the time limit, the question of the period at which the Bill is to come into operation is an essential and vital question, and I hope that when we are in Committee it will be fully discussed and considered. There is another question, the question of areas. The Secretary for Scotland has got his Bill into the most ridiculous position by an Amendment which he made striking out the 25,000 population limit. There was no reason in the world why he should strike that out. There were two separate Amendments; one was to insert 25,000 in the Bill, and that the noble Earl accepted ; and the other Amend- ment, which was quite separate and independent, was to enable local authorities to fix the areas in larger towns. Why could not the Secretary for Scotland have left the 25,000 in the Bill, and simply LORDS [July 17, 1018] SECOND HEADING 2G1 limited liimsclf, if he wislied to do so, to reverting to wards ? That would have been perfectly intelligible. But observe the position in which the Secretary for Scotland has put himself. It is this, that unless your Lordships reinsert the 25,000, his Bill will apply to every burgh the population of which is more than lo,000. I cannot under- stand, I confess, why he should have taken this action. It seems to me that he was really destroying his own Bill without any good reason. I hope that Lord Courtney will consider what "extreme reasonableness " means when we come to the Amendments, because at the present time I cannot see that we have had any encouragement from the Government. I hope that the Government will give an indication of some substantial Amendments which they may be pre- pared to accept ; otherwise, if the Government refuse every single Amendment and adhere to the Bill exactly as it stands, all I can say is, it will be their fault if it takes them some time to pass their Bill. The Lord Chancellor (Viscount Haldane) : I trust that your Lordships will not allow yourselves to succumb to the gloomy speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down. If his feelings were the feelings which animate the House generally, we should all have to regard this Bill in the light of nothing but a great disaster, and one which, perforce, through some malign agency, we are bound to accept. I am glad to say that was not the tone of the speech of the noble Earl who sits near him, nor was it the tone of my noble Friend Lord Courtney. Lord Lytton recognised that for the main proposition of this Bill as it stands there was something to be said, and he spoke in a way which gave me great hope that the two sides of the House were nearer together on this matter than they were during the previous discussion, and that the wise counsel which came from my noble Friend Lord Courtney of Penwith would prevail, which was that we should try to arrive at a common point of view in order to avoid what I frankly say to your Lordships I regard, and always have regarded, as a misfortune — the passing of a Bill like this under the operation of the Parliament Act. I quite agree that the Parliament Act is an Act which ought to be reserved for rare occasions only, and ought not to be regarded as the normal procedure. I have always felt that, and I take this oppor- tunity of saying so now. The Parhament Act is there, and it was the inevitable outcome of an arduous conflict between the two great 262 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Parties in the State ; but it would not be appropriate for the Parliament Act to be looked upon as an Act which will have to be applied on all occasions as the inevitable outcome of things which belong lo the past. To me it was a pleasure, therefore, to note in the tone of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, a suggestion that we ought to come together and tf}' to adjust our 82 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL themselves about the notion of the reduction of licences. That is the attitude of a great many persons who are interested in this question and who say, "We want to get rid of the traffic altogether, but we are not going to take any action in respect of its alteration "; and, of course, they are entitled to that opinion as much as anybody else is entitled to hold a different one. The possible effect of the action of the Government is that those who want to have no licence at all, if there is not a sufficient number to carry their proposition, will not take any part in the scheme. I confess that I am at a loss to under- stand the objection which is raised to my Amendment, and I shall listen with some curiosity to the explanation of the noble Earl. Amendment moved — Page 2, line 14, leave out from (" poll ") to the end of the subsection, and insert ("An elector in giving his vote — " (r;) must place on his ballot paper the figure (i) in the space opposite the resolution for which he votes; but " (/>) may in addition place on his ballot paper the figure (2) or the figures (2) and (3) in the spaces opposite the other resolutions in the order of his preference. If on a scrutiny it is found that no resolution has been carried in accordance with the conditions above prescribed, the no-licence resolution shall be deemed to have been negatived and the papers marked ( i ) against such resolution shall be examined and transferred in accordance with the preferences, if any, expressed upon them to the resolution marked (2) on such papers ; and if, after this transfer, the limiting resolution is found not to have been carried, the no-change resolution shall be deemed to be carried."). — {Lord Cuurtiicy 0/ Pciiwilh). Earl Beauchamp : There is, I think, one quite obvious reason why this Amendment, to which Mis Majesty's Government offered comparatively small opposition when this Bill was last before your Lordships, should be strenuously resisted on this occasion. When we reached the discussion of this Amendment on the occasion when the House was last in Committee on this Bill your Lordships had already inserted an option with regard to disinterested management. Therefore the reason for putting in this transferable vote as suggested by the noble Lord was in so far greater, because there were four options before the voter. It was in that way more reasonable to give him a transferable vote rather LORDS [July 29, 1913] COMMITTEE STAGE 283 than adhere to the scheme in the Bill, by which, on a system of checks and balances, votes might in certain circumstances be transferred from one to another option. As your Lordships know, the scheme of the Bill is that there are three options before the voter, either that things should remain stationary, that there should be no licence at all, or that there should be a reduction. Those who vote for the complete abolition of licences have their votes transferred to the reduction of licences, supposing there is not a sufficient majority to carry the total abolition. That, 1 think, is a perfectly watertight, self-contained scheme which will be readily intelligible to all the voters who take part. Therefore we venture to hope that your Lordships will adhere to the scheme in the Bill. The Marquess of Lansdowne : This Amendment seems to us a very reasonable one. Lord Courtney's proposal came before us last year. We then supported it, and, as the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said a moment ago, it encountered very little opposition from noble Lords opposite. It seemed to us perfectly reasonable that so far as possible we should provide in the Bill that a vote given for a particular option should not be wasted if that particular option should not find favour with the electors. I do not think that the argument of the noble Earl, which was, I understand, to the effect that the complete disappearance of disinterested manage- ment diminished the necessity for this extra amount of elasticity, was a very convincing one. The argument which convinces me much more is one of a different description. As the House is aware, there has been a great deal of informal discussion as to the details in this Bill during the last few days, and we have, not without considerable difficulty, and not without a good deal of give and take on each side, arrived at something like a general agreement as to the manner in which the Bill might be amended. I must say that, in the face of that agreement, and in the face of the objection of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, I should be slow to support the importation of any fresh scheme of Amendments, and for that reason alone I should be disposed to discourage the noble Earl from pressing his Amendment on the House. Lord Courtney of Penwith : In the circumstances I shall, of course, not press my Amendment, but I must utter one word of wonderment at the stolidity that prevents its acceptance. 284 TEMrERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 2, as amended, agreed. Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to. Structural Alterations. 6. As from the passing of this Act, and until the first day of June, nineteen hundred and seventeen, it shall not be competent for a licensing court to order any structural alterations of licensed premises under section forty-two, subsection (3), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903. The Marquess oJ Salisbury : My Amendment to Clause 6 is to bring that clause into conformity with Clause 1 as amended by your Lordships this afternoon. Amendment moved — Page 6, line 26, leave out ("seventeen ") and insert ("twenty "). — {The Marquess of Salisbury). On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, agreed to. Clause 7 agreed to. Clause 8 : Awemhticut of Law relating to Clubs. 8. (i) Section seventy-eight, subsection (i), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903 (hereinafter in this section referred to as " the Act of 1903 "), shall be amended (a) by substituting the words " and the names and addresses of the members " for the words "and the names of the members"; (/-') by substituting the words "two members, either of the licensing court or of the court of appeal for the county within which such premises are situate, or one member of each of such courts not being the same member, or, where such premises are situate within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace who for the time being are members of the court of appeal from the burgh licensing court, or by two magistrates of the burgh, or by one justice as afore- said, and one magistrate," for the words " two justices of the peace for the county within which such premises are situate, or, where such premises are situate within a burjjjh, either by two justices of the peace, as aforesaid, or by two magistrates of the burgh, or by one justice and one magistrate"; and (c) by adding the words "(i) any such justice of the peace or magistrate may, within ten days from the date on which he signed the certificate, withdraw LORDS [July 29, 191.3] COMMITTEE STAGE 285 his name from the certificate granted by him ; and (2)," after the words " Provided that." (2) Section sevcnty-niue, subsection (2), of the Act of 1903 sliall be amended by including amongst those persons who may lodge objections to the grant or renewal of the certificate of registration the procurator fiscal and any person, or the agent of any person, owning or occupying property in the neighbourhood of the club, and by substituting the word " twenty-one " for the word " ten." (3) Section seventy-nine, subsection (4), of the Act of 1903 shall have effect as if the power conferred thereby on the sheriff (to award expenses against the unsuccessful party where objection has been taken to the grant or renewal of a certificate) included the like power where a summary complaint has been lodged. (4) any person or council competent under the Act of 1903 to lodge objections to the grant or renewal of a certificate of registration may, within twenty-one days of the receipt of the notice of application for the grant or renewal of a certificate, lodge with the registrar objections to such grant or renewal of the certificate, on one or more of the following grounds, and that in addition to the grounds specified in section eighty-one of the Act of 1903 : — (a) That the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable or convenient fur the purpose of a club ; or that there is a drinking bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of exciseable liquors ; or (b) That the club is to be used mainly as a drinking club ; or (c) That the owner of the premises, when the same are not owned by the club or the immediate lessor of the premises, or the officials and committee of management, or governing body, or the manager or a servant employed in or by the club have, or has, or will have, a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the club of exciseable liquors, or in the profits arising therefrom ; or (d) That persons are habitually admitted or supplied as members without an interval of at least two weeks between their nomination and election as ordinary members or for a subscription of a merely nominal amount ; or (e) That the officials and committee of management or governing body or the members are persons of bad character or who follow no lawful occupation and have no lawful means of subsistence ; or (/) That the club has been or will be used as a resort of criminals or persons of bad character ; or 286 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL (^'^) That men or women of bad fame assemble in or frequent the club. (3) Section eighty-nine of the Act of 1903 shall be read as if the words " an application with the accompanying documents specified in section seventy-eight, subsection (i), of the Act of 1903, anv one of" were substituted for the words "an application for registration." (6) This section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act. Earl Beauchamp moved after paragraph (g) of subsection (4), to add "or (//) That exciseable liquors are sold or supplied for consumption on or off the premises between the hours of two in the morning and ten in the morning." The noble Earl said : This Amendment is connected with the grounds upon which the persons concerned — that is to say the chief constable or a person acting on behalf of the town council or parish council — may lodge an objection against the grant or renewal of a certificate of registration to a club. There are already a number of grounds specified in Section 81 of the Licensing Act, 1903, and what I move to insert on this occasion is an additional ground of objection which may be taken against the renewal of such a licence. It has been represented that the good effect of tlic resti ictions in this Bill on the sale of intoxicants in public-houses might be nullified unless a somewhat similar restriction was placed upon clubs, and it is for that reason that we propose to put in this Amendment. I have been able to see a list of clubs which in one of the large cities of Scotland do supply drink at an early hour of the morning, and I have very little doubt that the passage of this Amendment will do a good deal to prevent the sale of intoxicants during the hours in question. Amendment moved — Page 8, line 30, after ("club") insert ("or (//) That exciseable liquors are sold or supplied for consumption on or off the premises between the hours of two in tlie morning and ten in the morning"). — {Ear/ Beauchamp.) Lord Channing : When this Bill was before your Lordships' House last Session I had the honour of submitting on behalf of the Corporation of Glasgow their request to have larger powers for dealing with this evil. The Amendment which I then moved did not commend itself to your Lordships. But I wish to express, on behalf of those associated with me then, our gratefulness to the LORDS [July 29, 1913] COMMITTEE STAGE 287 noble Earl and to the House for agreeing upon this Amendment which the noble Earl has just moved, and which does give to the authorities in Scotland some extension, at any rate, of their powers to enable them to indirectly check this serious mischief. On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 8, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 9 to 14 agreed to. Clause 15 : Definitions. 15. The several words and expressions used in this Act shall unless otherwise provided or unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction have the same respective meanings as in the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903 : Provided that in this Act — " Area" means — [a) in the case of a burgh divided into wards, the popula- tion of which burgh within the police boundaries thereof according to the census for the time being last taken is not less than ten thousand, any ward of such burgh, and in the case of other burghs, the whole burgh ; and {b) in the case of a county, the parish, as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein, and where a parish is situated within two counties, the portion in each county shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a separate parish : " Burgh " means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh : "County" means a county exclusive of any burgh or part of a burgh comprised therein : " Certificate " means any certificate for the sale by retail of exciseable liquors granted in terms of or under the pro- visions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903 : Provided that for the period during which a no-licence resolution is in force in any area, no dealer's licence for the sale of exciseable liquor by wholesale shall be granted therein by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise, except to brewers of beer for sale, distillers, rectifiers, or compounders of spirits, makers of sweets, or wholesale dealers in spirits, wine, beer, or sweets for premises for which similar licences have been taken out for twelve months before the date of the poll, including any reconstruction of, addition to, or extension of such premises on the same or an adjoining 288 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL site, and an}- premises in substitution for such premises from which the holder of the hcence removes without the production of a certificate authorising such sale from the licensing court ; which certificate shall be applied for, granted, confirmed, transferred, and renewed in the same manner as though it were a certificate authorising such sale by retail ; and provided, further, that subject to the variation of conditions prescribed by this Act the form of certificate for an inn and hotel or for a restaurant granted under section three of this Act shall be, respectively, the first and second form prescribed by the Sixth Schedule of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903 : " Elector " means in the case of — (a) a burgh, any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of town councillors for that burgh, and when used in relation to any area in a burgh means a person so registered as entitled to vote at an election for that area ; and in the case of — (b) a parish (excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein), any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of parish councillors for that parish, excluding as aforesaid : Provided that the supplementary register made up in the year nineteen hundred and sixteen under section twenty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall continue in operation for the purposes of a poll under this Act in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen, and provided, further, that for the purposes of a requisition in the year of a triennial election of county councillors before the register of parish council electors is made up " elector " means any ratepayer within the parish, excluding as afore- said : The expression "grant" when used in relation to a certificate includes the grant of a certificate by way of renewal or transfer: " Local authority " means in the case of — (a) a burgh, the town council thereof; and (h) a county, the county council thereof; "No-change resolution" means a resolution that the powers and discretion of the licensing court in regard to the grant of certificates or otherwise shall remain unchanged, and in section two as applied to a further poll in any area where a limiting resolution is in force means a continuance resolution. Earl Beauchamp : All my Amendments to Clause 15 should LORDS [Ji Lv 29, 19K3] COMMITTEE STAGE 289 be read together. Their effect is, in the first place, to restore the figure of 25,000 as the limit of population under which a burgh will form a single area for the purpose of the Bill. Those of your Lord- ships who are interested in the subject will remember that that was the limit which was offered, and I think accepted by His Majesty's Government on the last occasion. The second effect will be to allow town councils and burghs to join, if they think proper, small wards to contiguous wards in order to form an area for the purposes of the Act. The first Amendment in paragraph (a) of the definition of "area" is really consequential to the extension of the time limit. The effect of extending the time limit is to make the year 1920 the first year in which a poll can be taken, by which time the census of 191 1 will be very much out of date; and it was felt desirable that the population should be ascertained at the date when the local option part of the Bill comes into operation with a greater degree of accuracy than the figures of 191 1 would afford. Therefore, we provide that the population shall be " as ascertained in the year 1919 for the purposes of this Act in manner approved by the Secretary for Scotland," which in practice means that the Secretary for Scotland will be guided by the figures provided by the Registrar- General at the date specified. Amendment moved — Page II, line 5, leave out from ("thereof") to ("is ") in line 6, and insert (" as ascertained in the year nineteen hundred and nineteen for the purposes of this Act in manner approved by the Secretary for Scotland ") — {Earl Bcauchamp.) On Question, Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved — Page 1 1, line 6, leave out (" ten") and insert (" twenty-five "). — {Earl Beauchanip.) On Question, Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved — Page II, line 7, after ("burgh") insert ("unless, where the population of any ward of such burgh as so ascertained is less than four thousand, the town council by resolution passed on or before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty, determine that such ward shall for the purposes of this Act be combined with a ward contiguous thereto ") and after (" and ") insert (" h "). — {Earl Beanclumip.) 21)0 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL The Earl of Camperdown : The only objection I have to this Amendment is that it is such a veiy little one. If the noble Earl could have hardened his heart and enlarged the figure of 4000 into 12,000 it would have given me a great deal of satisfaction. But apparently he is obdurate, and I suppose I must be content with this small crumb of comfort. On Question, Amendment agreed to. The Marquess of SaHsbury : The next two Amendments are merely to bring this clause into conformity with Clause i and the extension of the time limit agreed to by 3'our Lordships in that clause. Amendment moved — Page 12, line 17, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("nineteen"). — {The Marquess of Salisbury.) On Question, Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved — Page 12, line 21, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("twenty"). — {The Marquess of Salisbury.) On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 15, as amended, agreed to. Remaining clause and schedules agreed to. July 30, 1913. [Official Debates, Vol. xiv.) REPORT STAGE. Amendments rcpor/ed (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-7)wrro'iV. July 31, 1013. {Official Debates, Vol. xiv.) THIRD READING. Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. {Earl BeaucJiatiip.) Lord Balfour of Burleigh : My Lords, I rise, in pursuance to a Notice I have given, to move that this Bill be read a third time this day three months. I do so more for the sake of putting myself in Order than for any other reason ; but I desire to express my regret that this House is making itself responsible for this Bill in its present LORDS [July 31, 1913] THIRD READING 291 form. There can be no doubt that the House does make itself responsible by passing it in the circumstances in which we stand to- day. I think that the whole procedure under this Bill is an advertise- ment of how useless discussion is on any Bill, at any rate in this House, and I think in the other House also to a large extent, when once the powers given to the Government under the Parliament Act have been invoked. I venture to add that I do not believe the Parliament Act was ever intended for a Bill of this kind, brought for- ward in the circumstances under which this Bill has been brought forward, or a Bill which has been discussed, or its general principles so cordially accepted, as has been the case in regard to this Bill. I go further, and I say that I do not believe when the Government passed the Parliament Act that they themselves had any intention of applying it to a measure of this kind. The fact that the Parliament Act has been invoked for this Bill is really owing to what I may say, I think, almost the intolerance of a large section of the supporters of the Government in Scotland. The point I want to make is this, that once the Parliament Act is appealed to, it has the effect of taking away all real freedom and responsibility from discussion. I am the last to say that this House under any circumstances can be, or even ought to be, on absolutely equal terms in matters of this kind with those who are, so to speak, the representatives of the people. But it seems to me entirely unreasonable in a matter of this kind that all independent action should be taken away from this House under the threat that if this House does not agree to anything which is proposed by the Front Bench opposite the Bill shall be passed over the heads of this House. I venture to say respectfully to those who are responsible for it that I think, in all the circumstances that have passed — which I shall go over as briefly as I can — it would have been much more in conformity with the dignity of this House if this House had thrown upon the Government the responsibility of the passing of the Bill under the Parliament Act, to be passed, if it was to be so passed, with all its crudities and all its absurdities in the form in which it came up to this House in the first instance. In other words, if the appeal is made to the Caesar of the Parliament Act it should be by that tribunal judged, and that it would be more in conformity with the dignity of this House not to have taken part in making any Amendments in the 2U2 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) lULL Bill after the discussion which took place last year unless really sub- stantial concession on points of detail had been given to us. At any rate, there can be no doubt of this. This Bill does not in any way stand in a parallel position to either the Government of Ireland Bill or the Bill with regard to the Established Church in Wales. So far as the Irish Bill is concerned it would have been an absolute farce to give that Bill a Second Reading or to go into Committee upon it, as we were invited to do, in the hope of making it a Bill which could in any way be in conformity with the opinions and judgment of the majority of this House. But there never has been disclosed any really fundamental differences in regard to the contents of this Bill. We all want to promote temperance. All of us who know the condition of affairs in Scotland — and I think I may say the whole House — agree that there is a strong case in the present state of things there for reform and for change. I can say for myself, at any rate^ that all along I have cordially welcomed the extension of local control over licences. I have a real belief in its wisdom. I am perfectly prepared to trust my fellow-countrymen to do justice when the case is fully put before them and they are given a full measure of discretion in regard to the policy which they would choose. I agree that there is a strong case for reduction in the number of licences in many parts of Scotland, and that if you can, as it is possible you may under this Bill although I have some doubts about it, get a really judicial consideration and decision with regard to the licences which ought to be taken away, you may make some change for the better in regard to the position of affairs. I frankly admit that in those points, at any rate, this Bill is really desired by enlightened Scottish opinion ; but I go further and say that I think Scottish opinion is favourable to a much freer power than is given under this Bill to make experiments, and I believe it would be wiser to give the people of Scotland a really broad choice over the policy which they, on full information, would have desired to adopt. It is not unfair to say that the Government, or at any rate a large proportion of those who are behind the Government in this matter, are not prepared, like those of us on this side of the House, to trust the people altogether. They are only desirous of trusting the people with those options which they in their wisdom think the people ought to want to choose. As an illustration of this I instance LORDS [July 31, 1913] THIRD READING 293 the whole question of what we have been accustomed to describe as disinterested management. Even the Secretary for Scotland has never challenged the wisdom of the principle underlying disinterested management, and it is an open secret that a large number of his colleagues in the Cabinet are actual supporters of it. Their public declarations show that that is the case. Yet we have the anomaly of a Government in that position, and holding the opinions some of its members hold, making no effort whatever to adjust terms whereby the people of Scotland, or such portions of them as may desire it, can have the opportunity of exercising that option. So far as that is concerned, in the last session of Parliament when minor Amendments favourable to bringing in disinterested management, which is seriously handicapped under the existing law, were proposed, those of us who were in favour of the principle of disinterested management could get no support at all or even tolera- tion from those who are in charge of this Bill. At present the principle of disinterested management is seriously handicapped in the respect that under the present licensing law we are obliged to take out the licence in the name of an official or an individual em- ployed by the company for disinterested management. We cannot get the licence in the name of the company. That is a serious difficulty, because it puts the individual under the general licensing law in whose name the licence is taken in far too prominent and far too powerful a position. This is a part of the licensing law of Scotland wherein it differs from that of England, where, speaking generally, you license premises rather than an individual. In Scot- land you license the individual to sell in premises, and the licence is much more regarded in Scotland as the appanage of the individual than of the premises or of those who are behind him. We asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, even in a small matter of that kind, a reform might be made whereby the company charged with dis- interested management should be in receipt of the licence. There is no real difficulty in it. Yet the answer given to us was that there were certain penalties to be enforced in the case of breach of licence, and that these were money penalties, with the option of imprisonment, and you could not imprison the company if they did not pay. How hollow tliat is I will show your Lordships in a moment. I believe there is no case on record — at any rate, not for a very long number 204 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BIEL of years — where it has been found necessary to put in prison for any of these classes of oflences any holder of a licence for not paying the fine. But even so under the Factory Laws there are many cases in which, if there is a breach of those laws, the penalty is a fine' with the option of imprisonment if the fine is not paid. There arc many limited companies employing hands in factories, and they cannot be put into prison because it is obviously impossible that you can do it. That is an exactly parallel case, and it shows the sort of rubbish which is thought good enough for argument by the Secretary for Scotland. When wc knew that we were not going to get the option of dis- interested management, we confined ourselves to asking that this simple change in the law might be made which would give us greater facilit}' for trying these experiments ; and although this Bill is a Local Option Bill it does contain half a dozen or more provisions for the amendment of the general licensing law, even this simple request was denied us. The Divisions which have been taken on this question of disinterested management are about the most striking and remarkable that I have ever seen, I go so far as to say that this Bill as it stands, without the option of disinterested manage- ment, represents neither the wishes of the people of Scotland nor the untrammelled desires of the House of Commons, and it cannot in an}' way be said to be representative of the opinion of this House. On the Amendment early in the year on which the question of disin- terested management was first discussed, the Government could only get 22 Peers to go into the Lobby with them, and I think I am right in saying that 17 of those were actually members of the Government holding ofiice, and four of the other five had been created Peers within a very short time. The overwhelming sense of the House was in favour of giving the option of disinterested management, and even so consistent a supporter of noble Lords opposite and one who knows Scotland so thoroughly as Lord Loreburn actually left the House rather than support the Government in tlie division which they took upon that particular matter. That, even if it stood alone, is a somewhat striking proof of what the opinion of this House in regard to the principle at stake is. When the point went down to the other House of Parliament, there were challenges over and over again that the Government Whips should not be put on, that the free LORDS [Ji'LY 31, 1913] THIRD READING 295 vote of the other House should be given in this matter, but that was rejected. If that is a true instance of the working of our representa- tive system under the domination of Party and under the working of the Parhament Act, then I am even more surprised now than I have been in the past that this system as it is should be so much the idea of the noble Viscount the President of the Council, who is the most consistent and determined opponent of anything in the nature of a referendum upon any of these matters. I should be the last person to say anything harsh or bitter about those who have worked hard for this Bill. At the same time, I believe that they are in an infinitesimal minority among the people of Scotland. I pay them the tribute of saying that they are earnest and hard-working and self-denying, and that they are much in evidence in local organisations and very skilful in bringing their influence to bear. In the passing of this Bill in the form in which it passes they have their reward. In my opinion they will find that they have won, from their point ot view, a useless victory. It is my belief that the voting on this Bill will prove that they have over-estimated their power and their influence, and that, although in some cases there may be a reduction, in very few instances indeed will they gain their real desire of total prohibition. I go further and say that where the change is most needed I believe it will not come under this Bill either with the rapidity or with the good effect with which it might have come if a more sensible course had been pursued. It is my humble belief that, except in some sparsely-peopled areas where it is not required, prohibition as a policy will not be adopted by the people of Scotland. It is never wise to prophesy until you know, and perhaps I am risking something in making that confident prophecy, but it is my belief that in those congested populations where the reduction ot licences is most required a great danger will be run that success will not follow the efforts which will be made. I believe that the real hope of reform and of improvement lies in improving the management of public-houses, coupled with the increasing growth, and it is increasing and growing, of working-class opinion and sentiment that it is a disgrace to be seen the worse for drink ; and also, I think, we have much more chance if we rely on the slow but sure operation of religious and educational influences in strengthening character and in giving self-control. But for these TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL things to take effect, you must, in my humble opinion, have improve- ment in management. Tlirough all the time I have been on the bench as a licensing magistrate in my own district my experience has been that far more can be done by the personal responsibility of a high-minded man in managing a public-house than can be done by coercion or by unduly limiting the times and driving those who are determined to get drink at times when the law says they are not to have it either into what are known as shebeens or into not altogether creditable clubs. This Bill is passing under the a'gis of the Parliament Act. I cannot deny that the Government can pass it by that means. In my J^umble opinion it would have been wiser for this House to have let it go with all its defects and absurdities in the matter of areas and other things in the form in which it came, rather than make itself responsible for it even in the to the some extent improved form in which it now stands. I admit that the areas are likely to be better now than they were when the Bill was brought to us. But look at it how you like, local government areas are not suitable for this class of legislation. You have the difference between county and burgh and the divisions between wards in your larger cities. Unless the authorities of those different areas work together, you will have all over the country a series of areas with different laws in which men who desire to pro- cure drink will only have to walk a few hundred yards, in some cases only across the street, for the purpose of satisfying their desires. My experience from what I learnt in Wales nearly twenty years ago is this, that anything like a division by streets or by a river, as is sometimes the case, between county and borough is absolutely destructive of the possibility of carrying out a law of this kind. If you are going to have areas in some of which there is prohibition and in others there is not, you ought carefully so to delimit the areas for the purpose by an arrangement in which local knowledge plays its part sanctioned by the central authority, in which, as between one area and another, there will be wide spaces rather than the mere crossing of a street. In very many cases in Scotland there will be different authorities on opposite sides of a river, and although I admit that the areas as they now stand are an improvement upon what they were before, I venture to predict that this Bill will not go any distance, as it now stands, to satisfy the wishes even of its promoters, and so far LORDS [July 31, 1013] THIRD READING 297 as I am concerned I desire to dissociate myself from any responsi- bility with regard to it. Amendment moved — To leave out (" now ") and add at the end of the Motion (" this day three months "). — (Lord Ba/foiir of Bu)ieigh.) Earl Beauchamp : The noble Lord who has just sat down will, I hope, acquit me of discourtesy towards himself if I do not respond at any great length to the speech which he has just made, in view of the important discussion which we are awaiting with regard to the affairs of India. Indeed, if I were to answer, point by point, the various questions which he has raised, I am afraid the debate would be prolonged for a considerable period. He spoke, as we on this side are now becoming accustomed to hear, hard words of the Parlia- ment Act. This is not the first time during the past few weeks that we have heard denunciations of that measure, and I daresay that in the course of the next year we shall hear even a great deal more against it. But I venture to think that in so far as it has promoted the passage of this Bill during the present session, those who were responsible for that Act may at any rate take some credit to them- selves. I believe that on the whole all moderate-minded men would have preferred the passage of this Bill even with the Amendments that have been put in, small though the noble Lord thinks them to be during the present session, rather than its ultimate passage next session without any of those Amendments having been made. The noble Lord laid emphasis on the fact that discussion was useless in the present circumstances. I remember that some years ago, in 1904, we had long discussions upon a licensing measure which had been introduced by noble Lords opposite. A great many Amendments were moved, among others by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. The noble Earl will, I am sure, bear me out when I say that he was disappointed at not receiving all those concessions from the Govern- ment in power which he hoped to get. Amendments were moved, not only by the noble Earl himself, but by a large number of noble Lords who felt on that occasion, as the noble Lord feels to-da}', that discussion is, after all, useless when the Government has made up its mind with regard to a particular measure. We are forced back on this occasion to consider which of the two 208 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILE views most nearly represents the wishes of the people of Scotland — the opinion of your Lordships' House as it was expressed last session, or the opinion of the direct representatives in another place of the people of Scotland. On the whole we prefer to take the ex- pressions which reach us from the direct representatives of Scotland as being the most representative of opinion in that country. There was, indeed, one feature which gave us some satisfaction in the speech of the noble Lord. That was the fact that he seemed rather to blame this Bill for its sins of omission rather than its sins of commission. It is not so much what the Bill does as what it leaves undone that the noble Lord blames. That brings us to the question of disinterested management, as to which Lord Balfour said a good deal in the course of his speech. We have discussed this at considerable length, and I am still not without hope that, within the course of next session, a Bill may be introduced by those who are keen advocates of the proposal for disinterested management which will make that principle apply to England as well as to Scotland. I am afraid I am obliged to repeat myself upon this question. We do look forward to the possibility of such a Bill being introduced in order that it may apply, not only to Scotland but also to the whole of the country ; and I venture to think that if such a Bill could be produced and laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House we should then be able to judge more easily what are the difficulties in the way of the passage of such a measure and how far it will be easy to apply this principle. But if such a suggestion is refused and no such Bill is introduced, I venture to think that those noble Lords who arc anxious for the promotion of the principle of disinterested management will lay themselves open to the suspicion that perhaps after all it is more difficult to draw up a Bill for the promotion of that principle than we had suspected before. To a great deal which was said by the noble Lord it is, of course, difficult to make any reply. Much of it consisted of prophecy as to the uselcssness of our victory and as to the uselessness of the Bill even when it is put into operation. We must wait and see what the actual result will be. But, at any rate, if in the course of the next few years no progress is made with the principle of disinterested management we on this side of the House who believe in the principle LORDS [July 31, 1913] THIRD READING 299 will be able, when we change sides, to claim the support of the noble Lord if we then press upon the Government of the day to support or produce a Bill on these lines. I am glad to think that the noble Lord does not intend to ask your Lordships to divide upon this occasion. Indeed, if a Division had taken place I venture even to think that we might have managed to secure the passage of this Bill. But although it is being passed without the support of the noble Lord I cannot con- clude without expressing my regret that that should be so. We all of us know the interest which the noble Lord has taken in social affairs in Scotland and the influence which he very justly and rightly exercises in that country and therefore we regret the more that in this matter we should not have his support. The Marquess of Lansdowne : My Lords, my noble friend who has made this Motion, will, I understand, not ask the House to divide upon it, and I am glad that that should be his intention, for it would obviously have been impossible for me to go into the Lobby with him. At the same time I rise for the purpose of expressing my entire concurrence with a great .deal of what was said by my noble Friend. I say frankly that I have never liked this Bill, and I do not like it now. I dislike it because I believe it will be fitful and perplexing in its operation. Under this Bill the Law in any given area in Scotland will depend, not upon principles laid down by Parliament, but upon the will, or, I might perhaps say the whim, of the majority of the electors inside the area. I dislike the Bill because I feel convinced — and I am glad in this respect to be fortified by the high authority of my noble Friend — that it is not likely to do much for the cause of temperance. There will be startling discrepancies under this Bill between the treatment of one area and another. You will have one area in which prohibition will prevail, and alongside of it, divided perhaps by the width of the street, you will have another area in which there will be free trade in intoxicating liquors, stimulated and aggravated by the disappearance of all facilities in the adjoining area. I dislike this Bill, again, because I believe it to be unduly severe and harsh in its operation upon the holders of licences, and because it cannot fail to inflict a great deal of uncalled-for inconvenience upon persons who may desire to gratify a perfectly harmless propensity which no law has yet stamped with the brand 300 TENirERAXCE (SCOTLAND) BILL of illegality. And perhaps most of all I dislike this Bill, because although it professes to be a Bill for conferring local option, it denies to the electors a particular form of option which many of them probabl}' prefer to any other, and which upon the merits appears to me to be a more reasonable form of option than any of those included in the scope of the Bill. We tried hard to deal with those defects during the different stages of the Bill, and if we failed I do not think it can be said that we failed ignomi- niously. We failed really because we attempted an impossible task — that of amending an extremely complicated measure without any assistance from the Government who are responsible for it. Our feelings remain unchanged. But we had to take into account that persistence in our views meant the loss of the Bill this Session, followed by its passage into law next year in a completely unaltered shape under the operation of the Parliament Act. My noble Friend told us just now that in his view it might have been better for this House and more consonant with its dignity if we had chosen that course. I do not entirely agree with him. There was, perhaps, something to be said for it if we had merely desired to bring dis- credit upon the Bill and upon those who are responsible for it, but we had to consider the Bill on broader grounds, and to my mind the most important point we had to consider was that it is a Bill which is distinctly local in its operation. Its operation is confined to Scotland, and we are told — and I think my noble Friend confirmed it — that it is desired by a great number ot people in that country. And again it is local in its operation as regards the different areas concerned. The principle of the Bill is that each area is to be free to choose for itself. That being the character of the Bill, it has never seemed to us to be one in regard to which we ought altogether to exclude the idea of compromise ; and therefore when an overture was made to us, as it was the other evening, by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, we did not think it our duty to disregard that overture. We accordingly endeavoured to come to terms. I say frankly that to my mind the terms are by no means completely satisfactory, but we have to remember that in negotiation we did not meet on equal terms. Noble Lords opposite had a weapon which they were able to hold COMiMONS [AiG. 13, 1913] LORDS' AMENDS. 301 in terrorcm over us, and we had to be content with the best terms that we could get. We have been able in some respects to make it a less unfair Bill than it was. We have in particular been able to mitigate the hardship of the Bill by a substantial extension of the time limit. That I regard as distinctly an improvement. We have also been able to render it less easy to inflict either prohibition or limitation, with all their attendant hardships, upon the areas con- cerned by an alteration in the numbers of those voting under the second clause. We arrived at an agreement upon these bases, and such as it is I am glad that it has been arrived at. We, at any rate, have been parties to that agreement, and that being so we cannot recede from it now ; and it is therefore certainly not our intention to offer any further opposition to the progress of the measure. On Question, whether the word (" now ") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative : Bill read 3a according!}', with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons. HOUSE OF COMMONS. August 13, 1913. {Official Debates. Vol. Ivi.) LORDS AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED. The Secretary for Scotland (Mr. McKinnon Wood) : I beg to move, " That the Lords Amendments be now considered." The House is well aware that the effect of these Amendments, taken as a whole, represents an agreement which, on behalf of the Government, I ask the House to accept. Mr. Morton : I desire to make a few remarks with regard to the compromise which has been arrived at on this Bill. The repre- tatives of Scotland in this House number some sixty Liberal Members and about eight Tories. Here is a compromise in which Scotland alone is affected, and my complaint is that the Scottish Liberal Members were never consulted with regard to it. No doubt we considered fully all the Amendments to the Bill which we expected was to take advantage of the Parliament Act as it went from this House, but by some extraordinary arrangement that goes on, outside interests and the opposition side were consulted, and we Liberal Members were not asked what we thought about this. That must .302 TEMPEKAXCE (SCOTLAND) BILL be wrong. We are sent here by the Scottish constituencies to repre- sent Scotland, and in a compromise of this kind we certainly ought to be considered. On some measures there is no difficulty in calling the Members together, and we ought to have been asked whether we consented to this compromise before it was agreed to by the Govern- ment. It is all very well for the Scottish Office to do as they like without regard to the Scottish Liberal Members, and it may be said they can shove these things through with the help of the Labour part}' and the Irish Members, whether we like it or not. That is what we feel at the present moment, while we Scottish Members support Home Rule and other measures, and we want to secure that the views of the Scottish people should be thought of when a matter of this kind is settled. The Small Landholders Act was spoiled in the same way by consulting the other side and nothing was done for Sutherlandshire. I felt it to be m}' duty to say these closing words. This cannot be allowed to go on in this way, and I hope the Government will turn over a new leaf next Session and take care that with regard to Scottish local matters the wishes and feelings of the majority of the Scottish representatives, who are always practically Liberal, will be considered before they settle these compromises with outside interests. Let me quote from a journal which is a strong supporter of the Liberal party and the Liberal Government, so far as they act in a liberal spirit in carrying on a Liberal polic}'. This is what they say with regard to the compromise : " We cannot profess to feel any kind of pride in or satisfaction with the compromise which has been arrived at on the Scottish Temperance Bill. What wc actually feel is something akin to humiliation that a Liberal Government should have been compelled to accept any other terms than those contained in the Bill — terms which were naturally presumed to be the irreducible minimum. But the 'Trade' and their alHes in the Lords have been able to will it otherwise. The time limit has been increased from five to eight years, a very considerable concession, and what is of equal impor- tance, a change has been made in the dimensions of the poll necessary to put the options into effect. As the Bill stood the majority necessary tocarrycithcr of those items or a no-licence oralimiting resolution must include not less than 30 per cent, of the electors in the area. This figure is increased to 35 per cent. On the other hand, it is true that the Opposition has made a concession. As proposed, a No-licence Resolution in order to be carried required a percentage of 60 in favour to 40 against. The Lords here intimated tlieir willingness to accept COMMONS [Aug. 13, 1913] LORDS' AMENDS. 303 a percentage of 55 to 45, which means a drop of 5 per cent, in the majority required. In practical working we do not think, however, any advantage will be got. The disturbing fact is the increase from 30 to 35 per cent, in tlie number of those on the roll who are really required to vote in favour of either prohibition or reduction in order to carry a resolution. Everybody with experience in municipal politics knows how difficult it is to bring the electors to the poll, and it is quite evident that under the conditions imposed the friends of temperance will have a stiff task to obtain the required percentage. It is really wonderful how the trade manages to get the dice loaded in its favour no matter what is on hand. Lord Rosebery a good many years ago said that if the country did not control the liquor interest the liquor interest would control the country. He spoke for the nonce with the voice of a prophet." I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland has read what appears in that paper, but I do trust when he walks out again to give away our rights to any interests, the House of Lords or otherwise, that he will bear in mind that that article which I have quoted from an influential and most respectable paper in Scotland in the Liberal interest no doubt speaks the wishes and feelings of the people, and I should like to see the Secretary for Scotland better able to appreciate Scottish feeling on this question of temperance and other matters in connection with local government. I am sorry to have to make these remarks, but it is certainly time for some Scottish Member or Scottish Members to speak out in the best interests of the people of Scotland. Mr. Munro : I regret that I cannot entirel}^ agree with some of the observations which have fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherlandshire [Mr. Morton]. I think, if I may say so, on this occasion that the Secretary for Scotland, so far from being scolded, deserves to be congratulated upon the compromise which he has effected. He has succeeded where his predecessors have failed in ensuring that a Scottish Temperance Bill, after many years of delay, shall be placed on the Statute Book. That has only been done after negotiations requiring much tact and firmness and patience in their conduct. So far as the matter which has been raised by my hon. Friend is concerned, I think there are just two questions between us. One is, whether a good bargain has been made. Personally, I have not the smallest doubt upon that matter, and if my hon. Friend has any doubt about it I would recommend him to read some of the 304 TEMFEKANCE (SCOTLAND) BILE rather lugubrious speeches which were made in another place by those who felt they were bound to assent to the compromise but who, I think, very plainly showed that they thought that the Secretary for Scotland had driven a rather hard bargain. So far as the compromise is concerned, on the merits I think it is a very satisfactory one, and so far as consulting the Scottish Members is concerned I am bound to say I do not labour under any sense of injustice in that matter. If you are engaged in litigation and you have got to settle it 3'ou must really trust your counsel, and v;hen the litigation is in the course of being settled you cannot have your counsel alwa3's running backwards and forwards in order to be armed with fresh authority for ever}' detail in the course of the settlement. So far as this settlement is concerned I am sure I speak for the large majority of Scottish Members when I say that they are entirely satisfied not only with the terms of the compromise but with the manner in which it has been conducted. The master fact of the settlement is, of course, that it is an agreed settlement, and inasmuch as it is, I take it that involves that this Bill is fairly secure in its future history; whereas if the other 'course had been taken and it had been passed under the Parliament Act I doubt very much if I should have been able to say so under those circumstances. While I had no desire to intervene in this Debate, I did feel bound to make these observations and to add that the criticism which my hon. Friend has read from a Scottish newspaper is really founded on a misapprehension of the parliamentary situation. Mr. Pringle ' I approach the consideration of the Amendments which are now before the House from a somewhat different point of view from either of my hon. Friends. I wish, however, to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Wick Burghs [Mr. Munro] in con- gratulating the Secretary for Scotland on the settlement which he has reached in regard to this matter, and I feel all the greater pleasure in doing so because I found myself at variance with him on the last occasion when the Lords Amendments were considered in this House. On that occasion I made a plea for ^negotiation, for accommodation, and for compromise. That plea at that time may have been premature. In any event, I am glad that now at a later period negotiations have taken 'place, and that those negotiations have been completely successful. While we congratulate the COMMONS [Aug. 18, 1913] T.ORDS' AMENDS. 30,5 Secretary for Scotland, I think that Liberal Members on this side should not fail to recognise the services which have been rendered by the hon. Baronet the member for Ayr Burghs [Sir G. Younger]. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutherlandshire [Mr. Morton] regards any such acknowledgment as a matter to be treated with contempt. I, however, think that it is of the utmost importance that on a Bill of this kind a settlement should have been arrived at by consent. Had this Bill been passed under the terms of the Parliament Act it would have gone to Scotland simply as a party measure and as a measure passed simply by the House of Commons. Now that a settlement has been reached this Bill goes to Scotland as the agreed Bill of both parties, and in the case of a measure which vitally and intimately affects the social life of the people, and the successful working of which depends on the goodwill of people of all parties in Scotland, I think we cannot over-estimate the importance of this happy settlement which has now been arrived at. I do not desire to enter at all into the merits of the Amendments. I ^think that the Secretary for Scotland has made an admirable bargain. Both sides have, of course, given way, and that is essential to any satisfactory compromise. I desire to say that the procedure upon this Bill seems to me to afford an example of how the Parliament Act may be worked in regard to normal measures. Of course, in regard to contentious measures, measures of first-rate importance like the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill, it is natural that the House of Lords should exercise their powers of delay to their fullest extent ; but in regard to other measures not of such importance, where the House of Lords only seeks to revise and not to obstruct, I think we have, in regard to the Scottish Temperance Bill, and our experience in connection with it, a justification of one of the methods which the Parliament Act will bring into operation, namely, the method of bargaining between the two Houses and between the two parties. Nobody at present speaks well of the Parliament Act. Hon. Gentle- men opposite have always denounced it, and many Members on this side of the House have very little to say to its credit. On the other hand, I am one of those who believe that the conditions of the Parlia- ment Act are probably the most favourable conditions which will ever be obtained for the passing of Liberal legislation in this country, and u 300 lEMPEUANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL it is because I believe, in respect to the Scottish Temperance Bill, and not in respect of Home Rule or Welsh Church Disestablishment we see what will be the normal working of the Parliament Act that I welcome this compromise, and I welcome it not only from the point of view of Scottish temperance but also because it proves the successful working- of the Parliament Act. Mr. Charles Roberts : I wish to say a single word as an English temperance reformer, and I desire to express the thanks of temper- ance reformers in England to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of Scotland for his services in connection with this Bill. I think many of those who agree with me throughout the United Kingdom will feel that they owe a very warm debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has accomplished, and will recognise that he has shown great firmness and very sound practical judgment in making his bargain so as to get this measure under the conditions in which he has got it. Of course, I regret that the Act is delayed a little while in coming into operation, but I hold that those who look at this question from my standpoint, have gained on the other points of the compromise quite as much as they have lost, and I fully agree it is a matter of great satisfaction that the Front Opposition Benches in both Houses have at last accepted the principle of this Bill, although I do not think that they understand the principle they have accepted. It is, at all events, satisfactory, although there is some delay, that this Bill, after long controversy, will now pass as an agreed measure on to the Statute Book. I agree that it is thanks to the Parliament Act that we have got the measure without essential damage. That has been admitted by the noble Lord in the Upper House, who practically said he was forced into this agreement, because the Parliament Act hungtn terroreni over his head. This is one of the first-fruits — it is literally the first-fruit — of our recovered Constitution. Personally, I should like to express my thanks to the Government for what they have done in this matter, and to state that our aim now is that this measure which has been passed for Scotland, and the principle which has been agreed to by all parties in this House, should be extended to other parts of tlic United Kingdom. Mr. Scott Dickson : The hon. Member who last spoke seems to think that the principle of this Bill was only accepted when the Lords agreed to the compromise which has been arrived at, but COMMONS [Ai G. 18, 19i:3] T.OHDS' AMENDS. 307 I think he should remember that on many other occasions we accepted the principle, and, therefore, I cannot understand what he means by saying that it has only now been accepted. That, I think, is a total misrepresentation of the facts. Mr. C' Roberts : I do not wish to misrepresent the position, and if it is true that the principle has been accepted all these years, it only increases my satisfaction. Mr. Scott Dickson : Certainly, the words which the hon. Member used gave me the impression that, in his view, there had been a new departure in this respect, whereas the slightest acquaintance with our procedure would have shown him that that is not so. I will not, however, deal further with that point. With regard to the observa- tions which fell from the hon. Member for North-West Lanark [Mr. Pringle] and the hon. Member who has just spoken [Mr. C. Roberts], 1 feel that they entirely misunderstand the position when they say that this in any sense represents the first-fruit of the Parliament Act. The hon. Members have only to read what was said by the Lord Chancellor in the other House about the impossibility of passing this Bill under the Parliament Act to recognise that that was not the standpoint from which the Bill was approached. It is quite out of the question to take this as an indication of how the Parliament Act could be strained so as to pass a measure of this kind, and I venture to think that is not the position which responsible Ministers take in regard to the powers of the Parliament Act. I quite agree with what fell from the hon. Member for Wick [Mr. Munro], namely, that so far as a measure passes under the Parliament Act, it is quite recognised on both sides of the House that it involves no finality ; that it is merely a temporary measure which requires to be reviewed whenever the opposing party gets into power. But that is a question we need not discuss here. I confess that my views, so far as this Bill is concerned, have not changed. I do not think it will do the good which its promoters anticipate, but they will have the opportunity, if they live long enough, to see how it works when it comes into operation. It is impossible to say what the social position may be in 1920, or what the position of the trade may be in that year, but so far as the Bill is concerned, I, personally, still think it is not calculated to achieve any of the great results which those who believe in it think likely to result from it. I do not in any way 308 TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL dissent from the congratulations that have been expressed on both sides on the fact that a compromise has been arrived at, but I think that to refrain from jubilation on one side or the other will probably tend more to give the Act a chance when it comes into operation in 1920 than indulgence in recrimination or blame. The Bill as it now stands will be amended as a result of the co/npromise, and we are content, so far as this side of the House is concerned, that the measure, if, and when, it comes into operation, shall have fair play. Mr. Hogge : I cim afraid I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there is no good in this Bill, because he and his Friends are responsible for some of the changes which were put in in order to achieve some good. I think the right hon. Gentleman will probably agree that the Clause concerning clubs put in in the House of Lords, and one or two other minor Amendments, have improved the Bill from that point of view, and that ought to be borne in mind. I do not think some of my hon. Friends on this side have adopted a fair way of looking at the Bill. Surely, the most vital point that has been settled in this attempt to deal with the difficulty of intemperance, is the establishment of a time limit that is reasonably long enough to enable the trade to put its house in order, without affecting those who are concerned in it in a disastrously financial way. If it requires eight years' time limit in Scotland to cover that risk, I do not know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln [Mr. C. Roberts] will look forward with much pleasure to the period that will be required in England. But that is by the way. What I wanted particularly to say was that, although I have opposed this Bill right through its course in Parliament on one particular question, I am glad it has been settled on the basis of this com- promise. Everything that is in it now I am glad to see in it, I want to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland whether he and the Ministers who sit in this House take the same view with regard to the option which was most in dispute during the discussion of this Bill, namely, the option of disinterested manage- ment, as was taken in the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor and by Earl Beauchamp, who represented the Government in this matter. I read their speeches very closely in dealing with this particular matter, and I think they made it quite clear that, so far as they were concerned, the only obstacle to the adoption of disinterested COMMONS [Arc;. 13, 1913] T.ORDS' AMENDS. 809 management as an option was that it was not convenient to put it into this particular Bill, but if a Bill was introduced into Parliament dealing not only with Scotland, but with the whole of the United Kingdom, both the Lord Chancellor and Earl Beauchamp, and ail those associated with the Government in the House of Lords, will be glad to see that Bill become law. I want to ask the Secretary for Scotland if that is the view of the Government in the House of Commons ? Mr. Speaker : That is not relevant to this discussion. There is nothing about it in the Lords Amendment. Mr. Hogge : I only wish to convey an intimation that if it were not so I might feel it my duty to oppose the Amendment. But if we were assured that that was the view taken, we might allow the Amendment to go through easily. I will not pursue the point, however, as it is not relevant. I will conclude by repeating that the main gain which has been achieved by this Bill has been the establish- ment of a principle which will make temperance reform easy, not only in Scotland, but in England. When it was tackled in future years, namely, the fact that temperance sentiment has now recognised that it is not fair to make these changes in the trade without giving the trade reasonable notice to put their financial affairs in order. Sir J. M'Callum : I congratulate the Government on the Bill, and I also congratulate them on the able way in which the Secretary for Scotland has conducted the proceedings throughout. We who have long worked for this Bill, see the fruits of it in this measure, and to me it is delightful to hear both sides taking up the position they have adopted this afternoon. Question put, and agreed to. Clause i. — {Date of Act coming into Operation^ This Act shall, except as otherwise in this Act provided, come into operation on the expiration of five years from the first day of June nineteen hundred and twelve. Amendment made : Leave out the word " five " [" expiration of five years"], and insert instead thereof the word " eight." Clause 2. {Poll of Electors on Resolution Submitted.) (i) If, in the manner hereinafter provided, a requisition demand- ing a poll under this Act in any area is found by the local authority 310 TEMrERANCE (SCOTEAXD) BILL to have been duly signed, the local authority shall cause a poll of the electors in such area (hereinafter called " a poll ") to be taken in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) The questions to be submitted to the electors at a poll shall be the adoption in and for such area of (a) a no-change resolution, or (7/) a limiting resolution, or (c) a no-licence resolution. (3) On a poll in any area — (rt) if three-fifths at least in number of the votes recorded are in favour of a no-licence resolution, and not less than 30 per cent, of the electors for such area on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to be carried ; or if (/») a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of alimiting resolution, and not less than thirty per cent, of the electors for such area on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to be carried ; or if (r) a majority of the votes recorded are in favour of a no- change resolution, or if no other resolution is carried, a no-change resolution shall be deemed to be carried ; and an}' such resolution so carried shall come into force on the twenty- eighth day of May immediately following the taking of the poll. (4) An elector shall not be entitled to vote for more than one of the resolutions submitted at the poll, but if a no-licence resolution be not carried, the votes recorded in favour of such resolution shall be added to those recorded in favour of the limiting resolution, and shall be deemed to have been recorded in favour thereof. (5) Any such resolution if carried shall remain in force until the resolution is repealed or superseded as hereinafter provided. Amendments made : In Sub-section (3), paragraph («7), leave out the words "three- fifths " [" if three-fifths at least "J, and insert instead thereof the words " fifty- five per cent." Leave out the words "in number" ["in number of the votes "]. Leave out the word " thirty " [" thirty per cent."], and insert instead thereof the words "thirty-five." Para- graph (b), leave out the word " thirty," and insert instead thereof the words " thirty-five." Clause 6. — {Structural Alterations.') As from the passing of this Act, and until the first day of June nineteen hundred and seventeen, it shall not be competent for a Licensing Court to order any structural alterations of licensed premi'^es under Section forty-two, Sub-section (3), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903. COMMONS [Arc;. 13 1918] T.OKDS' AMENDS. 811 Amendment made : Leave out the word " seventeen " [" nineteen hundred and seventeen "J, and insert instead thereof the word " twenty." Clause 8. — {Amcudinoit of Law Rclaling to Clubs.) (i) Section seventy-eight, Sub-section (i), of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903 (hereinafter in this Section referred to as "the Act of 1903 "), shall be amended {a) by substituting the words " and the names and addresses of the members " for the words " and the names of the members " ; (Z*) by substituting the words " two mem- bers either of the Licensing Court or of the Court of Appeal for the county within which such premises are situate, or one member of each of such Courts not being the same member, or, where such premises are situate within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace who for the time being are members of the Court of Appeal from the burgh Licensing Court or by two magistrates of the burgh, or by one justice, as aforesaid, and one magistrate," for the words " two justices of the peace for the county within which such pre- mises are situate, or, where such premises aresituate within a burgh, either by two justices of the peace, as aforesaid, or by two magis- trates of the burgh, or by one justice and one magistrate " ; and (c) by adding the words "(i) any such justice of the peace or magis- trate may, within ten days from the date on which he signed the certificate, withdraw his name from the certificate granted by him ; and (2)," after the words " Provided that." (2) Section seventy-nine, Sub-section (2), of the Act of 1903 shall be amended by including amongst those persons who may lodge objections to the grant or renewal of the certificate of registra- tion the procurator fiscal and any person, or the agent of any person, owning or occupying property in the neighbourhood of the club, and by substituting the word " twenty-one " for the word " ten." (3) Section seventy-nine, Sub-section (4), of the Act of 1903 shall have effect as if the power conferred thereby on the sherifi' (to award expenses against the unsuccessful party where objection has been taken to the grant or renewal of a certificate) included the like power where a summary complaint has been lodged, (4) Any person or council competent under the Act of 1903 to lodge objections to the grant or renewal of a certificate of registra- tion may, within twenty-one da3'S of the receipt of the notice of application for the grant or renewal of a certificate, lodge with the registrar objections to such grant or renewal of the certificate on one or more of the following grounds, and that in addition to the grounds specified in Section eighty-one of the Act of 1903 : (a) That the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable or convenient for the purpose of a club ; or that in-2 TEMrEKANCE (SCOTLAND) RILL there is a drinking-bar or other part of the premises mainly or exclusively used for the consumption of excise- able liquors ; or (/») That tlie club is to be used mainly as a drinking club; or (c) That the owner of the premises, when the same are not owned b}' the club or the immediate lessor of the pre- mises, or the officials and committee of management, or governing bod}', or the manager, or a servant em- ployed in or by the club have, or has, or will have, a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the club of exciseable liquors, or in the profits arising therefrom ; or (ff) That persons are habitually admitted or supplied as members without an interval of at least two weeks, between their nomination and election as ordinary mem- bers or for a subscription of a merely nominal amount ; or (f) That the officials and committee of management or governing body or the members are persons of bad character or who follow no lawful occupation and have no lawful means of subsistence ; or (/) That the club has been or will be used as the resort of criminals or persons of bad character ; or (g) That men or women of bad fame assemble in or frequent the club. (5) Section eighty-nine of the Act of 1903 shall be read as if the words " an application with the accompanying documents specified in Section seventy-eight. Sub-section (i), of the Act of 1903, any one of " were substituted for the words "an application for regis- tration." (6) This Section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act. Amendment made : At the end of paragraph (g) insert the words, " or (/i) That exciseable liquors are sold or supplied for consumption on or off the premises between the hours of two in the morning and ten in the morning." Clause 15. — (Defintlions.) The several words and expressions used in this Act shall unless otherwise provided or unless there be something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction have the same respective meanings as in the Licensing (Scotland j Act, 1903 : Provided that in this Act — "Area" means — (a) in the case of a bnrgh divided into wards, the population COMMONS [Arc. i;i, 19i;i] LOHDS' AMENDS. :n;j of which burgh within the poh'ce boundaries thereof according to the census for the time being last taken is not less than ten thousand, any ward of such burgh, and in the case of other burghs, the whole burgh ; and " Elector " means, in the case of — (a) a burgh, any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of town councillors for that burgh, and when used in relation to any area in a burgh means a person so registered as entitled to vote at an election for that area ; and in the case of — .(b) a parish (excluding any burgh or part of a burgh therein) any person registered as entitled to vote at an election of parish councillors for that parish, excluding as aforesaid : Provided that the supplementary register made up in the year nineteen hundred and sixteen under Section twenty- eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, shall continue in operation for the purposes of a poll under this Act in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen, and pro- vided further that for purposes of a requisition in the year of a triennial election of county conncillors before the register of parish council electors is made up "elector" means any ratepayer within the parish, excluding as afore- said. Lords Amendments : In paragraph (a) leave out the words " according to the census for the time being last taken," and insert instead thereof the words " as ascertained in the year nineteen hundred and nineteen for the purposes of this Act in manner approved by the Secretary for Scotland." In paragraph (a) leave out the word " ten " [" ten thousand "], and insert instead thereof the word " twenty-five." In paragraph (a), after the word " burgh " [" any ward of such burgh "], insert the words " unless, where the population of any ward of such burgh as so ascertained is less than four thousand, the town council by resolution passed on or before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty, determine that such ward shall for the purposes of this Act be combined with a ward con- tiguous thereto." In paragraph (b) leave out the word " sixteen " [" in the year nineteen hundred and sixteen "], and insert instead thereof the word " nineteen." In paragraph (b) leave out the word "seventeen" ["in the year ;n4 HEVEXFE lULL nineteen hundred and seventeen "], and insert instead thereof the word " twenty.' Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments." 'es Mr. Morton : With regard to the first Amendment- Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member cannot discuss that now. He should have stopped me before. Mr. Morton : Shall I be able to deal with any of them ? Mr. Speaker : They have all been put. The hon. Member is too late ; he should have interposed earlier. Question put, and agreed to. A re; IS r 1.5, 11) 13. PROROGATION. The King's Speech contained the following reference : " I view with satisfaction the passing, by agreement between the two Houses, of a Scottish Temperance Act, which will, I sincerely hope, advance the cause of Temperance in that Country, and thereby conduce to the general welfare of the community." July 22, 1913. {Qfjidal Delates. Vol. Iv.) BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Revenue Bill. The Prime Minister : . . . With regard to the Revenue Bill, as hon. Members will perceive, it is a 15111 proposing to make certain concessions which have been demanded largely from the other side of the House, and also by some hon. Members on this side, in regard to what are called the Land Taxes. The Government believe that these concessions are of such a nature and that- they have been so carefully worked out in consultation with persons interested, that they might well be treated as non-controversial. If they are so treated we hope the Bill may go through by consent as an agreed measure. But I am bound to add that, if there is any opposition to the provisions of the Bill, or if its introduction is made the occasion for an attempt to enlarge its scope so that it will not be possible to give it consideration at this stage of the Session, the Government will, with great reluctance, be obliged to withdraw it. Mr. Austen Chamberlain : May I remind the right hon. Gentle- COMMONS [Jn.v 22, 1913] BUSINESS 815 man that that is the only Bill on which we can have, this year, the ordinary liberty of reviewing the general finances of the country. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the limitation which he has just imposed to deprive us of that opportunity to discuss and review financial matters ? The Prime Minister: There will be a Second Reading. Mr. Austen Chamberlain : It is by that Bill and that Bill alone that the Resolution we have already passed and with which the right hon. Gentleman is familiar — the Resolution for the general amend- ment of tlie law in relation to finance — can be given practical effect. The Prime Minister : Yes, Sir, I quite agree. We are most anxious that that opportunity should be afforded, but if we are to have on the Paper a dozen, or twenty, or fifty new Clauses — I think there were a hundred last 3'ear — that would obviously make the dis- cussion of the Bill as a practical measure impossible. That is what happened before. I hope it will not happen again. The Government are certainly most anxious to pass it, and to give an opportunity for the discussion the right hon. Gentleman desires. . . . * * * Mr. Bonar Law : ... It will be in the country more than in the House that regret will be felt that particular Bills — such, for instance, as the Hops Bill, which I am sorry is to be dropped — that particular Bills have been dropped. ... As regards two Bills to which he has referred, I must say a word or two. The first is the Revenue Bill. I think the way in which he has treated it shows that he is absolutely unacquainted with all that happened earlier in this Session in regard to that Bill. In my judgment that is not a Bill which by any possibility can be treated in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman treats it. Look what it means. We have altered our system — the whole system on which the finance of this country is discussed in this House — and we have altered it at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, as everyone understood, with the intention that no privilege that we enjoyed should be taken away, but rather that further opportunities should be given us for reviewing the finance of the year. What is it that the right hon. Gentleman proposes ? This Bill is treated as something which is not to be gone on with unless the House as a whole allows it to pass almost as .^ir. I^KVRNITE \U\A. uncontrovcrsial ; it amounts to this : that the House of Commons will have abandoned absolutely all power of criticising the adminis- tration of finance or suggesting any Amendment of any kind to any part of the finance which is not proposed as new taxes. I think that is an absolute outrage. It is something which would never have been dreamt of b}' any Mniister who occupied the place of the right hon. Gentleman before. It is abandoning one of the chief functions of the House of Commons, and it is more than that. It is this aspect of it to which I referred when I said the right hon. Gentleman was not acquainted with what took place earlier in the Session. I have not the extracts with me, although two have been handed to me at this moment, but I have most clearl}' in my mind the distinct promise made b}' the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the change which he was making would give private Members in all parts of the House every opportunit}' to which they had been accustomed to deal with the whole of the financial questions in a way in which they have been dealt with previously. I am quite sure that promise was given, and I am quite sure that when the right hon. Gentleman looks into the facts he will see that the course he now proposes is one which he cannot take without departing from what was the clear belief of every Member of the House at the time the proposed change was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Two extracts have been handed to me, and I think they bear out what I say. The first is the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself: — "There are certain Amendments we ourselves propose to the licensing provisions of the Act and to the land valuation provisions. I have no doubt there are several other Members of the House who would also like to try their hands at amending these provisions." And for that purpose the Revenue Bill was introduced. Then in addition to that, the Financial Secretary said this : — " It is because we think it fair to give hon. Members the oppor- tunity for criticism that they desire that we have brought this Resolution." It is in order to give them the opportunity of criticism that they brought it, and now they propose to drop it and not to give them the opportunity of criticism which they themselves said they should have. Even from the point of the Government, I do not see how they are justified in the course they take. If they believe, as the COMMONS [Jur.v 22, 191.3] BUSINESS 317 speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer show, that some Amend- ment is necessary in order to prevent the subjects of the Crown suffering injustice, they are bound to have these Amendments carried out now. He told us that one of these Amendments which was necessary was in regard to licensing, but, strange to say, when you look up the Revenue Bill there is no reference to this Amendment which he promised, and which he considered necessary, but there are references to Amendments of the Land Act ; and not only did they introduce these subjects, but they consider that they are necessary in the interests of justice, and I think, however anxious the Government may be, or the House may be, for their holiday, they are not justified in leaving their own work undone in that way. Whatever view they may take of their proposals, it is clearly in the highest degree unfair that the House of Commons should be denied the opportunity which they were definitely promised of criticising the whole finance of the year upon the Revenue Bill. * * * Mr. T. M. Healy : The course the right hon. Gentleman has taken is reasonable as regards most of the measures to which he has referred, but I certainly endorse every word which has fallen from the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the Revenue Bill. . . . May I also express my disappointment at the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep his undertaking with regard to the licensing proposals ? Undoubtedly there are licensing anomalies to which his attention has been called. He gave the House a distinct assurance that one of the subjects which would be dealt with in this Revenue Bill was the question of licensing. I read his Memorandum this morning, and I read the Bill this morning, and to my surprise the question of licensing has not been touched upon, and I understand that is due entirely to the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I heard through the ordinary channels of information that Clauses were being drafted to deal with these provisions. Why these Clauses have been struck out of the Bill I cannot understand. . . . * * * The Prime Minister : . . . We must bring as far as we can a certain sense of proportion to bear on the question of what should be retained and what surrendered. . . . First of all, with regard to :U8 REVENUE BILL the Revenue Bill . . . there is no desire or disposition on the part of the Government, and never has been in any way, to curtail the rights and privileges, and discretion of the House of Commons in respect to finance. . . . During the present Session we have devoted six days already to the discussion of the finance of the year . . . and, in addition to that, a seventh day has been given to the dis- > ; ) 1 of the financial administration of the country upon the Inland Revenue vote . . . and we still have the prospect before us of the Committee, Report, and Third Reading stages of the Finance Bill, . . . We attach very great importance to the Revenue Bill. ... It is all a question of time. If the House is ready and anxious to give time to it, I am perfectly content that they should, but I must at the same time enter this caveat. If opportunity is to be taken on these proposals for Amendment, which, in principle, are virtually, if not universally, accepted on both sides of the House, to enlarge the scope of the measure to an extent which makes it unreal and impossible, then, of course, the House, as master of its own procedure, may feel that it should curtail discussion within i-easonable limits. . . . July 29, 1913. {OJJidal Behates. Vol. Ivi.) REVENUE BILL. Second Reading. Motion made and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr. Boy ton : ... I am sorry that there is no proposal in the Bill to repeal, or even amend Section 2 of the Finance Act of 1912. In the early hours of the morning, towards the end of last Session, there was passed an amendment which enabled the holders of untied licensed property to charge their landlords with a proportion of the increased duty. That has worked out in a very extraordinary manner. The holder of premises let at, say, ^^50 a year, in the sense COMMONS [July 29, 1913] SECOND READING 319 that he has bought a profit rent of ;^50 in the open market, finds himself cast in a contribution of perhaps as much as ;^I50 or £i6o. I ask the House to reahse what that means — to buy a profit rent of ;^5o in the open market and to be asked to pay towards the Licence Duty levied by the Government a contribution to the holder of the licensed house of something like ;^I50 or ^i6o. As this seems to be entirely overlooked, because I do not hear of it in any quarter of the House, for the information of the House I might take the following example. Rent paid to lessor ;i^i05 a year. Premium paid for lease reduced to annual value £664, total £76g, less estimated value of property in licence ;^I20, total increase of rent paid in respect of licence ;;^649. The amount of additional licence duty is £190, and then the lessor's proportion is 649/769ths of ;^i6o, and the immediate lessor of the brewery on whom the claim is made is not the free- holder. He has bought an improved leasehold rent of the house on the same terms that the brewery has it of ;^50 in 1907. He received from the brewery ^105, and they ask him to pay £160. Surely something must be wrong when a Government Depart- ment does not attempt to deal with an anomaly of this kind. It is one of the most pressing things, and has been ventilated in the Press. I do not know whether it has got into the High Courts yet, but at all events there are several judgments in the County Courts imposing these penalties on the people who did not touch the original premium. They did not receive the premiums which passed when dealing with this licensed property, but they bought perhaps ;^50 or £60 or ;i^ioo a year as profit arising from licensed premises, thinking that by so doing they were buying a safe investment. There is a case here recited of a poor widow actually buying £$0 a year who would have to pay ^50 back to the lessee of the public- house. An extraordinary anomaly of this kind which was created in the early hours of the morning in the latter part of last Session, should be redressed at once, and I cannot conceive the Law Officers knowing what is going on in connection with this anomaly, doing nothing to remedy it. . . . * * * Sir G. Younger : . . . The last point to which I wish to refer is with regard to Section 2 of the Act of last year. I regret very much I was responsible for putting that Section in the Act of last year. [V20 REVENUE BILL The Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to accept it, but it was a very old friend. It appeared on the Paper in the Report stage during the Budget discussion in 1909, and it was intended at that time to embody it in the measure in a somewhat different wording as an addition to Clause 46 of the Finance Act. But Mr. Speaker ruled that as it placed a new charge on certain indi- viduals, it was impossible to introduce it in the Report stage of the Bill. It appeared upon the Order Paper in the subsequent discussions on the succeeding Finance Bills of 19 10, 19 u, and 191 2. Everyone remembers the conditions under which those Bills were discussed, and that no time really was given for a discussion of the new Clauses. It was not until 191 2 that there was an opportunity of getting that Section introduced into the measure. It was intended to cover the case, mainly from my point of view, of the free tenant in Scotland, and it has worked admirably there. There has not been a single complaint about it, so far as I know, there. It was designed to deal with this case, that whereas in England a brewer whose tithes were made responsible, if he charged a high rent or a high price for beer, for whatever portion of the monopoly value he would receive in respect of rent or profit. By Clause 46 he was held responsible to pay that particular share of the Licence Duty. It was felt that a private owner who exacted monopoly rent in respect of the licence from a free tenant should in that respect and to that extent also pay a portion of the new Licence Duty on the same principle, but the law of England and the Customs of England and the law of .Scotland are two very different things. But why the very sharp English lawyers who sit around me and on the other side did not realise how very much further this Clause would go applied to England than to Scotland I am not able to say. I disclaim responsibility for the fact that they did not notice it, but the fact remains that cases of very great hardship have arisen, as my hon. Friend here has just explained, and there is no one more anxious than myself to see an Amendment introduced to put an end to those hardships. It is quite ridiculous that a person should be asked to contribute a much greater sum in Licence Duty than the rent which he receives — that is an absolute absurdity. The intention was that he should only contribute in respect of such portion of the monopoly value as he received, and which the Government was taking back COMMONS [July 29, 1913] SECOND READING 321 under the Budget of 1909. I understand it to be extremely difficult to construct an amending Clause, although some hon. Members are at the present moment in consultation about it, but I am quite sure of this, that there is no one more ready or more willing than the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept a Clause which is quite reasonable on the subject, and which would remove these inequalities, which are unfair and unju^^ I entertain the hope that before this Bill passes out of the House some Clause of that kind would be inserted, and no one will be more thankful to see it done and the injustice removed than I will. * * * Mr. Lloyd George : . . . I come now to the very difficult question of licences. As the hon. Baronet said, it is perfectly true that when I introduced my Resolution, I did say that it was the intention of the Government to bring in some amending provision in regard to licences and I had this in my mind. The Clause was introduced on the initiation of the hon. Baronet last year, and I think he will admit it has not been a success. Sir G. Younger : It has been in Scotland. Mr. Lloyd George : Well, it has not been in this country. The hon. Baronet was drawing upon the experience of his own country. There, I believe it is a success, but it has not been a success in its application to this country. It has inflicted injustice that is perfectly indefensible. I really have had two or three cases brought to my knowledge where the facts were very striking. It was a question as to amendment or whether we should not get rid of it altogether. If anyone in this House has an alternative suggestion — because there was a good deal to be said for the proposal of the hon. Baronet — 1 shall be glad to hear of it, because on the face of it this is a very equitable provision. But this Clause shows how very difficult it is for you to forecast what the effect of an Act of Parliament will be. This Clause was on the Paper for two or three years. It was considered by the Revenue officials and by everybody interested ; by the hon. Baronet himself, who really has a great stock of informa- tion on the subject, added to which is the experience of his own country ; yet in spite, here is a Clause \vhich the whole House considered to be a perfectl}' fair one, and which the Government X 32-2 KEVENUE BILL accepted and incorporated in an Act of Parliament. It has produced the grossest inequity. Sir G. Younger : The Clause ought to have worked exactly as I thought it should work. Mr. Lloyd George : Here is an ^Vct of Parliament in relation to which I believe the intention of the Government as well as the intentions of the whole House were perfectly clear. Somehow or other, the moment it goes into Court, a totally different interpre- tation is put upon the Statute. It is not for mc to say who is to blame. The issues were contended for b}^ very clever lawyers, and in tlie case of the kind it depends upon counsel persuading the judge to accept the point of view put forward. It shows how difficulties get into Acts of Parliament. It shows how in the interpretation later on, some word, it may be, of which the effect has not been quite realised, may alter the whole purpose of the Act. This is a case in point. I shall be very sorry to see this provision go, because its intention, I am quite sure, was very fair, and its purpose was upright, but there have been these exceptional cases which have come in, where it has inflicted undoubted hardships. If the hon. Baronet, in consultation with those who advised him on this subject, can find any other way out of the difficulty, I shall be glad to hear. Failing that, I am afraid it must be eliminated out of the Act of Parliament altogether. The reason why I have not carried out the pledge I gave in this matter is because we did not see our way to any amendment, and we thought we would give the hon. Baronet an opportunity of putting forward an alternative suggestion. Of course, the primary responsi- bility is upon the Government, but I thought it was a perfectly fair way to give the hon. Baronet an opportunity of suggesting an Amend- ment. Failing that, I shall certainly not shirk the responsibility. I\Ir. Austen Chamberlain : . . . I know it is very difficult to forecast the proper legal construction of our work. The right hon. Gentleman made that observation on the Clause originally moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs [Sir G. Younger]. I would observe on that point that perhaps the House of Commons does not express its meaning most clearly, nor is it in quite the best mood to appreciate the consequences of its action when it is dis- COMMONS [A[JG. 1, 1918]COMiMITTEE STAGE 323 cussing a Clause of that sort at 2 o'clock in the morning, at the end of a long and weary Session. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us an opportunity of discussing these things rather earlier in the Session, and at a rather more reasonable hour, perhaps he will have less reason to complain hereafter of the Courts taking a different view of his language than that which he has taken of it himself. Since I mention that Clause, I would say at once that I am very glad, on the whole, to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in regard to it. The Clause has worked hardships which none of us foresaw, and which none of us can defend, and if there be no alternative between the original terms of the Budget and the amend- ing Clause as we passed it, then I think our last case is worse than our first, and we had better go back to the original proposal. But I still hope that the right hon. Gentleman may be able to give some relief to the tenants without causing the hardships that the particular Clause has done. In any case, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if it be, as I believe it is, that the Clause works perfectly w^ell in Scotland under the different circumstances of that country, then he need not withdraw the remedy given in that country merely because of those circumstances which produce greater hard- ships here. That is merely a matter thrown out for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration before he drafts the Amendment for a new Clause, and before my hon. Friend provides one which is satis- factory, too Aug. 1, 1913. {Ojfickd Debates. Vol. Ivi.) COMMITTEE STAGE. * * * The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lloyd George) : . • . There was a very general desire expressed on both sides that the Government should find time for the discussion of the measure, inasmuch as there were provisions which, generally speaking, were desired by Members sitting on both sides of the House. ... It was decided, therefore, to give time for it ; but obviously, we cannot give very much time, and looking at the Amendments carefully, it would be quite impossible if they were discussed at any length, to find time 324 REVEXUE BILL lo get the Bill through. And therefore, I must invite the co-operation of Members on the other side of the House as well as Members supporting the Government, in helping us to get the Bill. I should like to say this, at the beginning, that it is the intention ( f the Government early next Session to bring in a Revenue Bill dealing with other matters which we had intended to include in this Bill — Licensing and Death Duties, and one or two other matters of that kind which have to be dealt with. :|c 4c 4: Aug. 12, 1913. {Official Debates. Vol. Ivi.) COMMITTEE STAGE (concluded). The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lloyd George; : Mr. Speaker, 1 promised j'-esterday, on the motion to report Progress, that an effort would be made to adjust the differences between the various sections of the House with a view to saving this Bill. I regret very much that after a good deal of effort, not merely on my part but on the part of all those interested in the Bill, the negotia- tions have failed and I am afraid now it will be my duty to move that the Bill be discharged. . . . All I have to say now is that I very much regret that we have failed to come to some arrangement, and on behalf of the Government I can only promise that at an early stage next Session these Clauses, I will not say in this identical form but in a form substantially Uke that in which they are now embodied in the Revenue Bill, will be re-introduced. . . . UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. '^n-'C "■ '^t REC'D LD-URO ORION r Form L9-25m-9/47(A5618)444 UNIVERSITY OF C M ^> ' jKNIA AT LOS ANCj^LES 3 1158 00778 6741 IaA UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 000 430 709 6