in this House, the Member for Barnard | 2; that is to say, the majority of the Castle. He has pointed out that work- population may decide by their votes ing men very often invest their savings that there shall be no licence in their in house property, and, with the aid of neighbourhood. I ask the Government cheap transport, they take their families if they can give me an answer on that to live in places where there are no point. ["It is so."] I am told that it public-houses. But, unfortunately, in is exactly as I have interpreted the Bill too many cases brewers' agent namely, that unless Parliament does follows them up, and sometimes precedes legislate, this local option becomes autothem, and working men, having invested matically operative under the provisions their money in houses situate in areas of Clause 2. That is a provision to where they hoped to be free from the which we attach the utmost value, because public-house, find that they have not the Parliament of some future day, not escaped it after all. This provision for being like the present one, might not be local option in regard to new licences so keen to entrust the people of this will be of great importance in the country with the right to veto licences. growing suburbs of our cities, and Let it be remembered that to those who the people will be able to keep them free advocate temperance, local option is the from public-houses, if they desire to do one great issue between the forces of tem80. Let it be remembered that when a perance and of drink the world over. It public-house comes into a neighbour- is by local option that the people of the hood other property goes down in value. United States have been successful I noticed in the speech of the Prime in vetoing the liquor traffic. In the Minister, in introducing the Bill, what I debate on the First Reading, statistics venture to think was an error. He said were quoted to show that local option had that you could arrive at the value of a not diminished drinking, but I noticed licensed house by comparing it with the that the licensed trade in America value of the house, exactly similar, next became so alarmed by the results of door, but without a licence. That, I local option and prohibition in the States think, is a fallacy. The moment you that they summoned a great convention grant a licence to one of two houses which met a month or two ago. exactly similar and next door to each purpose was to put the trade right before other, that house which has not got the the American Press and public, who licence immediately becomes diminished had misunderstood that trade, and to in value. Indeed, a great part of the offer to assist towards obtaining a model value of licensed property in this country licensing law for the solution of the is positively sucked from the surrounding great problem of regulating the liquor property. We have this proved by the traffic. That does not altogether look rents which are obtained in districts where as if they were satisfied with the progress there are no public-houses. Not only of local option in the States, where some is there to be local option with regard to 36,000,000 are living to-day in no-licence new licences, but it will come into opera- areas. Another feature of the Bill to tion with regard to all licences at which I attach value is the increased the end of the time-limit. On this power which is given to the local licensing point I would like to ask the Govern- authority. Power is given to the local ment a question. Section 2 of Clause 3 licensing authority to put an end to onprovides thatsale of liquor on Sundays. I do not see why the option should not be the other way, and that there should be complete Sunday closing unless the justices decided otherwise. I accept the justices as the authority, but there is a certain amount of inertia about the benches in some parts of the country, and I cannot but think it would be better to enlist on the side of Sunday closing all the power of inertia which resides in them, and only enable them to escape

"Local option shall, after the term ination of the reduction period, become exerci sable in such a manner as Parliament may determine, both as to prohibition and as to the limitation

of the number of licences."

What I want to ask the Government is this: As I understand it, if no fresh legislation be passed by Parliament, the licences, being new licences at the end of fourteen years, will become subject to the local option provisions of Clause

Its

from Sunday closing if they actually of the Government is to go as far as take the trouble to do so by administra- the House will support them in going tive act. Then I should have preferred in this matter, and I should be to see election day closing made statutory only too happy to place my services instead of being left to the magistrates. at the disposal of the hon. Member. That has been tried in many parts At the end of the time-limit, when the of the world, and there is only one Bill has been in operation for fourteen testimony in regard to it, that elections years, we shall reach a licensing system are purer and more satisfactory where on what Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, this disturbing element is removed from in his speech to a deputation in 1906, the electoral system. Another point called a clear logical basis. Then the on which I welcome the words of the system will recognise that the trade mover of the Amendment is the ex- exists for the people of this country, clusion of children from public-house and that it never was intended that bars. I think Members would be almost the people of the country should be unanimous in strengthening this clause. the victims of the trade. They will Whatever you may think of public- have the right to decide for themselves houses as a resort for grown-up people, whether or not the trade shall be carried they are not nurseries in which our on in their neighbourhood. If they so children should be reared, and if the decide the number of houses will bear some Government could see their way to reasonable relation to the requirements make the exclusion of children under of the population to be served, and the fourteen from public-houses a statutory local authority, the licensing justices, provision in that part of the Bill there will be armed with great power to protect would be little or no opposition in their districts from bad methods of this House. In regard to clubs, carrying on the trade. That is a system may I say I think these provisions which will be a v st change for the better, at all events have not been wholly and for which, I think, the country will understood by the people of the greatly and heartily thank the Governcountry. They have been criticised from ment. I know how strong is the trade two points of view. One is that they are agitation against the Bill. It is well too drastic. By the way, the seconder organised, but it is on a very narrow of the Amendment managed to combine basis, and in my study of the pro ests I both points of view in his criticism. have received ag.inst the Bill I have The second is that they do nothing to found very few which did not check the evils which exist in clubs. from people who are in some way Very great powers under them are given or other interested in the carrying to the licensing justices. They have on of the trade. The circulars and power to close any club which in their letters that come to me are very nearly judgment is used mainly or wholly for all from brewery companies or investors. drinking purposes. I think that is & I have to remind myself that there are very large power to place in the hands other interests to be considered in this of any body of men, and if they desire. matter besides those of investors in and I have no doubt they will the liquor trade and those who are desire it, to put down bogus drink- interested in carrying it on. The trade ing places--clubs merely for drinking opposition to the Bill has not been purposes--they have full power under altogether scrupulously exercised. the provisions of the Bill as it stands. Threats are held out to the bishops of I noticed the hon. and learned Member the withdrawal of subscriptions, and for Liverpool made a most eloquent speech have met with dignified protest. outside this House almost entirely taken When the Bishop of Birmingham speaks up with the weakness of the Govern- in support of the Bill he is instantly ment Bill in this matter of clubs. I reminded that he would not be a bishop want to assure him that I would support to-day if it had not been for the brewers' him most heartily in any Amendment subscriptions, and that there will be which he might think fit to propose to no more cathedrals built if the Bill strengthen the clauses of the Bill in goes through. The threats of boycott regard to clubs. I am sure the wish to traders, which were recommended

Come

co-operative societies and, I confidently establishes the elementary points of some claim, every agency for uplifting the form of socialism. I dislike the Bill people of the country are behind the because I do not think it does what it Government. Let the Prime Minister professes, and in a great many ways it persevere with the Bill and his Government does that which it does not profess to do. will be remembered hereafter as a Govern- There are four different means of disment which staked its existence to tributing liquor, the clubs, grocers' deliver the country from the grip of a licences, steamboats, and public-houses. dangerous monopoly and prevailed. I do not want to touch further upon clubs, but I distinctly put it to the House that the Bill appears to single out public-houses and leaves the other three means of distributing liquor out of consideration and does not treat them in any way with the same severity. It is a mockery to say that a policeman may, just when he pleases, march through these clubs. It is certain that the uncontrolled clubs are getting rid of an enormous quantity of alcohol at the present time, and if we get rid of another 30,000 houses this evil will become still more pronounced. It seems to me that the Bill does not apply the same principle to the other three distributors that it does to public-houses. The bishops say that they do not want anything unfair, either in the time-limit or in the business considerations. The Prime Minister has been reminded of a speech he made in the City in which he stated that he desired to have regard to the rights of property, and that the Government were willing to give a business consideration to the parties concerned. But that is just what the Bill does not do. The principle of the time-limit and its interpretation is a thing which, in my opinion, is not well understood. Up to the present I always thought that the time limit meant coming back to the position before the Act of 1904, and now I find that it means something quite different. It means that at the end of fourteen years the monopoly position is to come into force. The hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division says that the brewers will not be injured because they will do the same volume of trade. Quite so, but they are doing it now under conditions with which we are well acquainted. I am not going to prophesy, but already the weak breweries are in trouble. People who have invested money in these breweries are inclined to withdraw it, and before the end of the time-limit is reached the trouble will become something gigantic and terrible. The last speaker asked

MR. BARNARD (Kidderminster): I am sorry the last speaker should have ended his speech by fancying that those who do not agree with him are prompted by unworthy motives. I can assure the House that as far as I am concerned I have no share or any interest of any description in matters affecting this trade, but I happen to have been associated with it twenty years ago, and it would be a very mean and cowardly thing if under those circumstances I did not try to say one word in connection with a subject which to some extent I understand. It appears to me that the last speaker is very much mistaken in supposing that the brewery companies of this country have intentionally in any way whatever misled the public or tried to make them invest in their shares. I am very sorry myself that the Act of 1904 was ever passed, because I dislike its having taken away the magisterial discretion. But at the same time that Act established three principles: first, it established compensation from the trade to the trade; secondly, it created the position to-day in connection with granting of new licences, of which I think we all approve; and thirdly, it dealt with the ante-1869 licences which I, for my part, should have liked the Prime Minister to have mentioned in his speech, and I should be very glad if the last speaker had dwelt upon that point a little more. Iam not going to try and deal with the big principles which are involved in this measure, but just to point out one or two minor points which I fancy may be easily overlooked. The Conservative Party dislike this Bill because it touches the rights of property, but they need not talk so much about that, because in the Act of 1904 they deliberately took away the rights of 30,000 licence-holders which, before, nothing could have taken away except misbehaviour. The Member for Blackburn says he likes the Bill because it