especially to those on the Treasury that the working classes were opposed Bench, and desired them to take into to the principle of the veto; that the consideration the question of extending working-man liked to get his beer just the limit. I thought the Government on when he wanted to. Yes, but that was that particular point must have wished to not an accurate statement of the position. have been saved from their friend. Then The working-men in thousands of cases I listened, as many others did also, to in this country cannot please himself what I will venture to describe as a to-day. Why? Not because like the most amusing speech from one of the people in Canada, and in a great portion hon. Members for Bolton (Mr. Harwood). of the United States, he has been conIt was some time before I could find sulted in the matter, but for the simple out in which direction he was going reason that the ground landlord, knowing and what he proposed to do with his that the presence of a public-house on his vote. He is the only Member who has estate deteriorates the property, has made any attempt to minimise the evils vetoed licences. There are many estates of intemperance. I am pleased to recog- on which there is not a single licensed nise that almost every speaker on both house. I challenge the hon. Member sides has admitted that the finding of the further on this point. I say that this prinRoyal Commission was not far from the ciple has had the approval of large numbers mark when they said there was a gigantic of working men in this country. There evil to be remedied, and that almost are scores if not hundreds of hon. Memany sacrifice would not be too great to bers of this House to-day who have stood obtain that end. The part that most for this principle and who, if they did interested me in the speech of the hon. not vote for it in the old Parliament, Gentleman was when he appealed to the at the last general election pledged themGovernment to do away with the selves in working class constituencies democratic nature of this Bill and to vote for. it whenever they had an to take out the local veto pro- opportunity to do so. So far as the vision. I was always given to under- Labour Party are concerned, there need stand that the principle of Liberalism be no misunderstanding as to where we was trust in the people, and I cannot are on this question. When it was rebut describe the hon. Gentleman's appeal ferred to our Annual Conference two years to the Government as being of the most ago a Resolution was put forward which cowardly character. It is a strong word, I may be permitted to readbut I think I am justified in using it, for this reason. He tried to carry the mind of the Secretary of State for the Home Department back to those days when the late Sir William Harcourt was in charge of a measure in this House, a measure having for its object the setting up of a veto in connection with the issuing of licences; his suggestion was that the Liberals suffered for having identified themselves with the principle, and that having been once bitten they should be twice shy. I hope on this occasion, even if the voice of the charmer is that of a Liberal the Government will be deaf to any such suggestion. If they want to take away much of the enthusiasm and determination which is behind this measure in the country as well as in this House, they cannot do so more effectually than by responding to his appeal, and taking from the Bill the provision which gives the veto to the locality. He said, and I challenge his statement most emphatically, "It being admitted by Judges, magistrates, chief constables, Poor Law administrators, governors of gaols, governors of lunaticasylums, ministers of religion of all denominations, and social workers generally, that the drink traffic is a fruitful source of poverty, crime and lunacy, this Conference is of opinion that the time has arrived when the workers of the giving the inhabitants of every locality the right to veto any application for either the renewal of existing licences or the granting of ally situated in thickly populated workingnew ones, seeing that public-houses are generclass districts." nation should demand that a law be enacted There was a discussion on that, and a vote taken, and I should like, Mr. Speaker, to give the result of the figures-"For the resolution, 666,000; against, 103,000." this question came up again in a slightly At the Conference in the following year different form, and the following Resolution was unanimously adopted "That any measure of temperance reform should confer on the localities full and un fettered power for dealing with the licensing question in accordance with local opinion. By this means localities should be enabled to (a) prohibit the sale of liquor within their boundaries; (b) reduce the number of licences and regulate the conditions under which they may be held; and (c) if a locality desires that licences are to be granted, to determine whether such licences shall be under private or any form of public control.” There are we were told that the number employed. by the trade was 1,000,000; then it rose to 1,500,000; and now I believe it is somewhere near 2,000,000. Where are we going to end? Are these figures correct? but in the I challenge them. I say that they are very far from being correct. If So far as the representatives of the we take even those who have written in Labour Party are concerned, their posi- connection with this question not in the tion with regard to this provision is interests of temperance, perfectly plain and straightforward. interests of the trade-Mr. Pratt, whohas written a book in defence of the 18 a strong force of organised labour in this country who licensed trade-the estimate of the very largely giving their support to number employed in and about breweries this Bill, not merely on any temperance is about 70,000, and the number emlines, but because, in the first place, it ployed in public-houses is 485,968, or a provides us with the means of regaining total of 556,000. What do we find? that which we ought never to have lost We find that there has been a great -the power and control over existing change taking place in the occupations licences. The hon. Member for Salford connected with the trade by the transfer I think was mistaken when he said that system that has been going on. I have there was no power in the Bill to augment here the figures for Birmingham. I am the number of licences. Provided there surprised, and, having analysed them, is any locality where the number of I venture to say that more men have licences does not reach the number in been displaced as the result of the transfer the schedule, and an application is made system in the Birmingham district than for a new licence, the power of the vote will be displaced by the operation of this could decide in favour of that new Bill. I wonder how it is we cannot get licence. Unless that is the Bill, I am this appeal for compensation and for very much mistaken. If they do not consideration for displaced labour when reach the schedule limit, I think I am it is displaced by other forms of right in saying the people could decide monopoly. I was going through some as to whether the existing number should be increased. There was another point upon which I feel it is absolutely necessary for me to say a few words. One of the objections that has been made by those who have spoken against the Bill is the influence its operation is going to exercise in the direction of the displacement of labour. That point has not only been made in this House. There has been a strenuous endeavour to make it on hundreds of platforms in the country. It is a point in which we are very much interested. I think hon. Members will admit our anxiety in connection with the great unemployed problem. We recognise that it is bad enough to-day, without having it increased unnecessarily by any Bill; and are we delighted to find such sympathy from quarters where we do not always get it, regarding this feature in our social life. I notice that the trade have made very great efforts to find figures of the actual situation that will be created by the operation of the Bill. First of all, of the Government Returns not so very 66 our "I should like to bring to the knowledge of yourself and colleagues in the House an instance of the anxiety of the trade not to throw peopleout of employment. For twenty years I have been on the staff of a trade paper, first as a compositor, and then as a reader. About a month ago a petition against the Licensing Bill was passed round the office. I was the only one who did not sign it in my department, and especially the cause of that absence. remarking that I did not think it should have I think hon. Members will agree that been passed round. A few days afterwards I was given notice to quit, not for refusing to sign the petition, but because I left work without asking permission." one It has been a it would have been an advantage had the Leader of the Opposition been here to wind up this debate so far as the Opposition is concerned. Not only on the ground of the illness of the Leader of the Opposition do I regret the position in which I find myself. I have not the least ambition-I never have to trespass on the patience of the House. I II have no ambition to make speeches. Upon this occasion, however, it has fallen to my lot to wind up the debate for the Opposition. I do not suppose for a moment that I shall be able to add much of any great importance to the arguments that have been already put before the House, but I shall do my best, and that is the most that I can do. I listened this afternoon to a very able speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was. a very able speech, and may I say that its peroration, although I think it was more suited to the platform than the House of Commons, very much affected me. right hon. Gentleman, although he differs from me in politics, I hope does not imagine for a moment that he abhors the evils of intemperance any more than I do. A right hon. Gentleman, a Member of this House, a few days ago in the country spoke of the numbers of The individual concerned is prepared to challenge that reason before any properly constituted body. He is prepared to disprove the charge made against him. Those who are crying to-day about the displacement of labour are prepared to be guilty of an act of oppression such as have brought to the notice of the House. In this debate far too much time has been taken up in dealing with aspect of the case. property, property, property. There has been an attempt, I believe futile attempt, made to show that the Bill is going to do nothing for temperance, and that we are not justified in making the attack upon property because it is going to fail to do anything to promote the public good or sobriety. I question that very much. I think we have not heard sufficient of the temperance proposals in connection with the Bill. We have not heard sufficient of the powers that are going to be restored to the magistrates of the country. We have not heard sufficient of the powers to deal with the evils so far as child-life is concerned. None of those who have attacked the Bill dare say that a licence is a freehold. They knew perfectly well that their own leader, in the discussion on his Bill, declared that it was not a freehold, that there was no freehold in a licence, that his Bill did not propose to give any freehold. They have nevertheless concentrated their attack upon this aspect of I venture to say that if the temperance proposals had been brought more prominently before the House it would have been to the advantage of the promoters of the Bill. I am delighted to think at any rate that the Bill appeals with force to the Labour members on this side of the House, and that every Member of our Party who is able to get to the House will be here to give his vote on behalf of the Second Reading of the the case. measure. SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University): I can assure the House that nobody regrets more than I do the absence to-night of the Leader of the Opposition, men The in this House, whom he met here, who, he said, were ruining their careers by their intemperate habits and their addiction to intoxicating. liquor. I do not think it was a very worthy thing for the right hon. Gentleman to do, for I do not see much advan-tage in the country, nor do I believe it to be true, to represent that the House of Commons is not worthy to represent them. At all events, I do not suppose for a moment that my right hon. friend in his peroration included me amongst those who were wrecking their careers. by their intemperate habits. I only wish I had the eloquence or even the memory to imitate the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman upon this question of intemperance. I can assure him I agree with every word he said.. If I could repeat his speech from memory I would make it part of my own on the present occasion. But when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the great evils. of intemperance in this country, he forgot to explain to us how the Bill before the House was going in any serious way to affect the question. He forgot to show us, perhaps he did not forget, but could not by any material figures explain to us what was the connection between the number of licences and the amount of intemperance which he was so vividly depicting to the House. Do not let him imagine for a moment because I say that that I say there is no connection. I was a party to the Act of 1904. I put it before the House as a temperance reform. I believe it was such, and I believe that the way it has worked out has proved that in what we said we were right upon that occasion. I say as regards the present Bill there is nothing of temperance reform which can be worked out in relation to the reduction of public-houses contained in the present Bill which is not in a much more satisfactory way worked out in the Act of 1904. But the only disadvantage of our Act to hon. Gentlemen opposite was that it worked out this result without injury to anybody, whilst the Bill of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister seeks to work out the same result with injury to hundreds of thousands of persons. That seems to be the great ambition of all Radical Members when they produce measures before this House for what they are pleased to call social reform. There is no merit in any Bill proposed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite unless it does an injury to somebody-the injury and not the benefit to the community is the gist of this Bill. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] I quite understand the laugh. I do not mind it. You have never been able to settle much since you came into office, and that is because you have refused to settle anything by taking away the sting as regards those to whom you are opposed. That is the reason why you have failed to settle what I wish you would settle with all my heart-the education question, which has been before the House for so many years. Well, Sir, as regards the result of this Bill and the amount of injury it will cause: after all you look upon relative benefit and relative injury. You must take some sort of perspective view. What I mean is this. You ought not to confer an infinitesimal benefit upon a small portion of the community and the maximum amount of injury upon a large number of individuals. I could not help thinking of the words that were uttered the other night by that very sincere and very extreme temperance reformer, the hon. Member for the Spen Valley. In a speech of undoubted sincerity and great force he said "In England and Wales there are 50 per cent. more licences in proportion to the popu lation than there are in Scotland, Scotland is in the position that England and Wales will be in fourteen years after the passing of this Bill." Well, Sir, if after fourteen years after doing what I believe to be incalculable injury to a large number of people who have unfortunately invested their money -if we in this country and in Wales are only to be in the position of Scotland, I should like to know are we reaping sufficient benefit to compensate for the injury inflicted by this Bill? That is after fourteen years, when you have reduced your licences to the same proportion to the population as they are in Scotland. Have not we a right to ask what is the effect of that proportion upon the people of Scotland? Does anyone want this country to be in the same position as the people in Scotland? I do not say a word against the Scottish nation, but I heard a Scotsman once described as a man who keeps the Sabbath and everything else he can lay his hands upon. When I am told that the reduction. of licences, with the enormous amount of disadvantage to innocent investors in licensed property in this country, is going to leave us at the end of fourteen years in the condition of Scotland, I ask is the game worth the candle ? Therefore, I say that when the right hon. Gentleman made his speech this evening, which I can assure him with all sincerity appealed to me as, I hope, one who takes no low view of the duties of this House in relation to this question, I felt that if we are going to inflict this hardship on these investors, we ought to look for some better result than what we are told has followed in Scotland. The truth of the matter is, the reduction of the houses, I was going say, is only on the fringe of the question. I doubt very much if it approaches the fringe of the question. As regards the reduction of houses, it is not a question of temperance Irish landlords there are hon. Members reform; it is a question, as all these licens- opposite who say: "It is only the Irish ing Acts are, of policing the districts in a landlords; perish their interests." [OPmore convenient way with a view to pre- POSITION cries of "No, no."] If it venting the houses being carried on impro- happens to be the interests of English perly. So far as that is a matter of tem- landlords which are at stake-and there perance reform I admit it, but no further. are specimens of English landlords on So far as that is necessary, you have the other side of the House-then they do already got it without injury to anybody not hesitate to take their part and plead under the Act of 1904. The Prime Minister on their own behalf. When it happens says the Opposition have miscalculated to be a question of colliery rights hon.. the character and the potency of the Members opposite are just as quick at forces arrayed behind the Bill. I do not realising their own interests as hon. deny that great forces are arrayed behind Members on this side. When it is a the Bill, but I believe they are forces question of creating a privileged class which do not take a prospective view amongst the community in relation to of the real situation. May I be perfectly the laws of labour, hon. Members below frank with the House, as I hope I always the gangway are not in the least backwill be, and say that a large number of my ward, and, what is more, they are exown constituents are arrayed as forces ceedingly successful. I do not in the behind the Bill, although it does not least begrudge them their success. But apply to Ireland. I should not be candid it is not sympathy with the brewers with the House if I did not admit so much, that is creating the agitation against because I have had many communications the Bill. It is the feeling that a preon the subject. But I believe they mis- cedent is being set up by this Bill which understand the question, and so far will have far-reaching consequences in as I have been able to communicate relation to all property and all vested personally with many of them I believe interests. We ought to be very careful they will come, after hearing my argu- about these precedents. I will not quote ments, to a very different conclusion. Socialist and Radical journals as to what So far as I am concerned, I should con- precedents may be created by this Bill. sider myself a dishonourable man and I might quote paragraphs from the Daily unfitted to represent my constituency if I News, which once, at all events, was a were to give any countenance to the main great newspaper representing the political provisions of the Bill I am now criticising. interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is the Government and not the Oppo- I am glad to see the Solicitor-General sition who have miscalculated the forces present. I take a peculiar interest in in the country with regard to this Bill. my hon. and learned friend's office. It is not apathy to the drink evil that [An HON. MEMBER: "A pecuniary makes so many persons oppose the Bill. interest?"] No, it is not a pecuniary It is the belief that any temperance interest, for it pays me much better to be reform effected by the Bill will be in- where I am. The Solicitor-General is finitesimal, while the hardships inflicted a great expert in creating precedents. will be very great. No greater mistake He made a most interesting speech on can be made than to suppose that the this Bill, and I can assure the Solicitoropposition to the Bill comes from sym- General that I listened to him with pathy with the brewers. To talk no unfriendly feeling. The Solicitorof brewers is not to speak of a small General's argument was that the Bill class like the Irish landlords, but of is nothing but an extension of the Act of 300,000 or 400,000 people interested 1904. Thus the reduction of licences in breweries. It is useless to abuse is but an extension, and when it is urged the brewers. Why should they not that all licences should receive compendefend their interests? Why should sation, it is pleaded that it is simply an they not fight for their existence? extension of the previous Act to say that Nothing amuses me more in this House after fourteen years no licence will enjoy than the way in which individual interests compensation. It is claimed as an exare fought for upon both sides. When tension also to say that old as well as it is a question of the interests of the new licences are to pay the monopoly |