Commons Chamber

Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

This is a small and simple measure, very limited in its scope, but it deals with a very controversial subject and a very difficult problem on which there may be a considerable difference of opinion among the Members of this House. My attention has been more especially drawn to this matter as chairman of a City Licensing Bench, where the question of clubs and their management has from time to time arisen and been the subject of much discussion and perplexity. I do not bring forward this measure in the interests of party. I believe I have sympathisers on both sides of the House among all Members who recognise there is a genuine grievance. Neither do I bring this Bill forward as an extreme temperance reformer. I recognise you cannot legislate in advance of public opinion, and that if you seek to bring forward extreme measures you only court defeat. Neither do I wish at all to interfere with the work which is carried on by legitimate clubs throughout the country. I do not want to discriminate between rich men's clubs and poor men's clubs. Poor men are quite as much entitled to have their clubs as those in high position in life. I find, according to the estimate published in the Journal of the Clubs Union, there are about 7,600 clubs in which intoxicants are sold. It is estimated that 2,000 of these are working men's clubs and 250 trade union and friendly society clubs, while the upper and middle-class social clubs number about 1,000; Liberal clubs are estimated to be about 600, Conservative clubs 2,000, masonic lodges, works clubs, canteens, golf, cricket, and football clubs 1,750, making a total in England and Wales of approximately 7,600. I also find from statistics which have been furnished that in 1904 there were estimated to be 6,371 clubs, and that in 1910 they had risen to 7,536, an increase of 1,165 in the seven years, while all kinds of licensed houses, owing to the operations of the 1902 Bill, and through other causes, have been considerably reduced during that period. My endeavour to-day is not to deal with or injure any of the legitimate clubs, which we all recognise are performing a useful function in social life, but to seek to regulate what are known as bogus clubs, purely drinking clubs, run for the interests of the individuals who promote such clubs. The Prime Minister, in bringing in the Licensing Bill of 1908, said it was no use to suppress licences as had been done in the 1902 Bill if you did not deal with bogus clubs. The Government's Bill did deal with clubs, and it dealt with them more extremely than I suggest in this Bill of mine. That Bill was passed through this House, but, as you are aware, it was rejected in the other place.

The object of my small Bill is, first of all, that the licensing trade, which is a legalised trade, should receive some measure of fair play as against those who are carrying on clubs. My second object is to carry out more completely and fully in spirit the 1902 Act, which has been defeated in some of its operations respecting clubs. My third object in bringing forward the Bill is because I think that these purely drinking clubs, run for private interests, are antagonistic to good order and to the sobriety of the nation. The scope of the Bill is, therefore, to prevent private individuals for their own interest running these kind of clubs. Clause 1 of the Bill provides that no

"person having a proprietary interest in the club or in the premises or furniture of the club, or being a creditor of the club, or being in any other manner in a position to control the supply of intoxicating liquor to the club,"

shall find it easy to carry out his operations. It does not refer to those who have promoted these clubs previous to the passing of such contemplated Act; they will not be interfered with. It also provides that no officials, committee of management, manager or servant of the club shall "have a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the club of intoxicating liquor or in the profits arising therefrom." The Bill also provides that if "the officials or committee of management or governing body are persons of bad character, or follow no lawful occupation and have no lawful means of subsistence," or if "the club is the resort of criminals or persons of bad character," they shall not be allowed to take any part in the club life as managers. It also provides that where compensation has been granted to any house which has been closed or where the licence has been refused for misconduct, for five years following, those premises shall not be eligible or occupied as club premises. I say, therefore, that my Bill is very limited in its scope, and it really is to prevent clubs of evil repute being run for personal gain by individuals. I am aware that in bringing forward this matter I am only dealing with one or two of the difficulties which beset this subject.

I freely confess that, personally, I would like to go very much further. I should like to see clubs paying the same licence for the sale of liquor as licensed houses, because they are competing with legalised licensed houses. I should like to see clubs subject, so far as the sale of liquor is concerned, to the same hours, both Sundays and weekdays, as licensed houses are. I should also like to see clubs brought under some system of inspection, so that their good conduct inside their walls might be guaranteed. I think, in all fairness to the licensed houses, that clubs should be prevented from selling liquor off the premises. But I know that these are things which no private Member at all events can possibly carry in a Bill. I know they are practically counselling perfection, and in an imperfect world it is not very likely that we shall live to see that fully accomplished. I am content, personally, if I can achieve a partial remedy for some of these evils, and I only ask in this Bill what I think is fairly practicable. I admit that our club system, among all classes, is a real need, but I do think that the club system in some respects is open to very much abuse. No doubt hon. Members are very familiar with some of the cases of abuse. I shall not refer to them in detail I merely wish to remind hon. Gentlemen present of the difficulties which have arisen in Leeds on this subject. Possibly other Members may wish to refer to them, and what has taken place there. I would also refer to what has taken place with respect to a working man's club at Plaistow. The Bricklayer's Arms there was closed as a public-house on 9th June, 1909, and on the very next day it was opened as a working men's club, which in the meantime had been formed and duly registered, with the former licence holder as the steward. When the case came into the King's Bench before the Lord Chief Justice, it was held that what had been done was perfectly legal under the 1902 Act. Lord Chief Justice Alverstone said:— He also went on to say:—

Did he balance himself on the top of a chair on the top of a table?

To show how easy it is to obtain members for some of these clubs, I had a little card sent to me the other day:—

"Blackwell Colliery Workmen's Club, day member's ticket; for three days, one penny."

You could not obtain entrance into a club for cheap drinks at a very much less rate than that. The Lord Chancellor, speaking on this matter some short time ago, said:—

"But of late years another question has arisen namely, the question of clubs. The bulk of them are well-conducted, but the cases in which there is abuse are sufficiently numerous to require interference by the State. It is impossible to prohibit club for social purposes, it is impossible to prevent them from supplying liquor to the members in their own club, and it is even more impossible to make any distinction between the club of the rich and club of the poor. You ought to forbid any club being tied, either by covenant, or in any-other way, to take its supply of liquor from any particular person or firm. Then, when a public-house has been closed, no club ought to be allowed to be opened on the premises for at least five years. The hours of the club ought also to be regulated so as to be reasonable, and the licensing authority ought, in my opinion, to be able to stop the sale of liquor in any club if it is not well-conducted, or is really a drinking club, and ought to have power to forbid any club being opened without their consent, so as to avoid the scandal of a club closed in one street immediately being opened in another."

Those are very strong words from one of His Majesty's chief officers of State. In the "Licensed Victuallers' Gazette," in 1899, the editor says:—

"We must confess ourselves astonished at the amount of indirect support given by the wholesale trade to the clubs."

The licensed traders have on many occasions protested against the supply of liquor by brewers to clubs. The secretary of the Club and Institute Union, Mr. Hall, a man who has had great experience in all kinds of working men's clubs, says

"The chief trouble of the Club and Institute Union is to keep out the clubs which are started by brewers. This is a growing evil, and in 1910 some dozens of such clubs have been refused admission to the Union."

If the brewers believe clubs to be the great evil they represent them to be, they will welcome any restrictive measures for the suppression of bogus clubs. I have a very large number of resolutions passed by county and city licensing benches all over the country. Surely those magistrates who are constantly hearing of these cases of abuse arising from clubs are in a position to have some knowledge and judgment on a matter of this description. I do not want to weary the House by reading the resolutions, but I have thirty-five or forty where presiding magistrates at brewster sessions have spoken strongly and emphatically on the necessity of separating clubs from interested parties or those who are supplying liquor to them, so that there should be no inducement for men, unless they desire to drink, to be supplied with alcoholic liquors. I desire to deal with one or two objections to this Bill. One objection arises from the club interest all over the Kingdom. I have had scores of letters on this subject, and I daresay that other hon. Members have had similar appeals made to them to resist the passage of this Bill. All the objections that have been raised, so far as I can gather, have been raised on two points, namely, paragraphs ( c ) and ( d ) of Clause 1, Sub-section (1). Paragraph ( c ) relates to a club that is mainly used as a drinking club, or has been formed mainly for the purpose of obtaining a supply of liquor thereby instead of under a licence. I have had it pointed out to me that this might operate very unfairly, because a bench of magistrates, if they wanted to close a club, might use the paragraph to close the club. I do not want to do any injury to any legitimate club. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, and goes to a Committee, I wish to suggest that this part of Clause I should be deleted.

Which part is that?

Paragraph ( c ). As to paragraph ( d ), which says

"that the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable, or not desirable, for the purpose of a club,"

it has been pointed out to me, in connection especially with working men's clubs, that they cannot afford to take front situations in main thoroughfares. In these circumstances I am perfectly willing to delete that paragraph. So far as I can judge from the volume of correspondence I have received, these are the two objectionable points, and now that they are likely to be removed I trust I shall not fail to receive the support of hon. Members. There is the objection raised by the extreme temperance reformers. They say, "You do not go quite far enough. You ought to go very much further," and therefore they do not support the Bill. I should regret it very much if any hon. Member refused his support on that ground. There is an objection raised by the licence holders, who also say that the Bill does not go far enough. There is a Bill before the House to-day brought forward by the licensed victuallers in conjunction with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Samuel Roberts), which goes very much further than my Bill, and, personally, I should be prepared, against any objections from my own Constituency, to support that Bill, because I think it is only fair and just to the licensed trade, who are under many obligations and burdens. I do not think the hon. Member would be able to carry that Bill and I think it is quite within the bounds of reason that I might be able to carry a smaller Bill, and I suggest that it is better to seek to obtain some redress for some of the grievances rather than have the Bill thrown out entirely because too much has been asked.

Is the hon. Gentleman sure his friends will let him drop paragraphs ( c ) and ( d )?

I think I may take it that ( c ) and (.d) will be dropped.

Does the hon. Gentleman intend to drop the whole of ( c ) and ( d )?

That is my own personal view that I would drop the whole of ( c ) and ( d ) rather than see the Bill thrown out in Committee. But this is really a different question, and any objection taken to what the Committee has done could be rediscussed on the Report stage

Does the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that he will withdraw the Bill if the proposal to omit ( c ) and ( d ) is not carried?

No, I cannot say I shall withdraw the Bill, but I will use my influence to see that ( c ) is withdrawn, and there will be an opportunity if it is not withdrawn fully and completely for it to be rediscussed when it comes before the House on the Report stage. I want to make an appeal to the Under-Secretary for the Home Department to give me some facilities for the carrying out of this small measure because it is part of what was included in the 1900 Licensing Act, and because, as things are at present, there is a very grave injustice to the licensing trade. The Bill, in my opinion, will correct many abuses, and will remove some injustices. It does not interfere unduly with legitimate clubs, and it is promoted in the best interests of family and home life. I do not think it interferes unduly with the liberty of the subject. All our laws restrict, to some extent, the liberty of the individual for the greater liberty of the community. I am not vain enough to think the measure will be a panacea for all the evils produced by intemperance, nor that any measure of legislation will entirely remove drunkenness, but I believe even this small Bill, limited though it be in scope, if passed, will be of some advantage to the physical, moral, social and economic welfare of the nation. The evolution of society is a very slow process and those who watch its progress are very often disappointed and impatient. I feel sure that this small contribution will be of some value to the community, and perhaps of as much value as some more pretentious Acts of Parliament which have been placed on the Statute Book.

I rise to second the Motion.

I cannot claim to be classed among the temperance reformers, as the expression is understood by hon. Members opposite, but the evils of this unrestricted traffic are so gross and patent, and there is very little hope of making any advance in temperance among the people while it exists, that I am very glad to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman in the promotion of this Bill. I remember when the Act of 1904 was being discussed the prophets of evil warned us that the only result of decreasing the number of licences would be a great increase in the number of clubs. Happily one can generally afford to make light of the prophets of evil on any reform which is adumbrated but we must admit that the prophets of evil have this time not prophesied falsely because there is no doubt the decrease in the number of licences has resulted in an enormous increase among a very undesirable class of clubs. This increase is not to be wondered at because the process is very easy. Twenty-five people have only to band themselves together and pay a very nominal fee to obtain a statutory right to be placed on the register, and when placed on the register there is a very easy going way of procedure because they can keep open as long as they like, there is no supervision by the police, and whereas in a public house if a man plays dominoes for a cigarette or a glass of beer he runs the risk of getting the publican's licence endorsed, a man in a club can gamble and drink all night long and go home in the early hours of the morning without any penalty whatever. The absurdity and futility of the present state of the law is very well illustrated by what happened at Leeds. £l,674 was spent in the extinction of an ordinary beerhouse licence. Immediately it was extinguished a drinking club was formed for the mental and moral improvement of the industrial classes, but it is recorded that men, women, soldiers in uniform, and even young girls, used to leave the place, cursing and swearing at each other, in the early hours of the morning, with every circumstance of disorder and debauchery. The club was struck off the register, but the very next day it was opened under another name, and when it was again struck off the register it was opened round the corner in another street, £24,000 was spent in the West Street district of Leeds in extinguishing fourteen licences, and yet I am told, owing to the starting of these clubs, there was more drunkenness than ever in that district.

The facility with which these clubs are started is very well illustrated by what happened at Worksop. There, during the famous Budget of 1909, the miners were incensed at the attitude of a firm of brewers, and they boycotted the beer brewed by that firm. But this highly honourable, self-denying ordinance was very quickly modified by the establishment of three drinking clubs, which are, I believe, still in existence, and doing a very handsome trade, I think paragraph ( a ) cannot reasonably be objected to by any reasonable person, because very often these clubs are nothing more or less than tied houses. It is true there is no actual agreement, but the house very often belongs to a firm of brewers and is often mortgaged. What more often happens is that money is lent to the managers of the club, and of course the house is a tied house. I do not mean to say that that practice is largely indulged in because a great many firms of brewers are too respectful of the dignity of their own trade, and the welfare of the community to follow it, but it is a fact that it has been indulged in, although it has been condemned by the brewers' society. I do not think that firms with some respect for the welfare of the public ought to be under the temptation of competing with firms who have only the one desire of improving their dividends. Fears have been expressed that this Bill would injure bonâ fide workmen's clubs. Personally I should be the last to support it if I thought it did, because I "believe that working men have just as much right to have their own social meeting places as any other class. I was glad to hear that there will be an effort to meet objections to the Bill. In all cases where clubs are only drinking clubs, being empty all day, and frequented after eleven o'clock at night and kept open till one, two, or three in the morning for drinking, I think the Legislature ought to step in. I am told that the rejection of this Bill is to be moved by an hon. Gentleman opposite. It is not a very logical position to say that spirits and beer are only injurious when consumed on unlicensed premises. Whatever may be the opinion in this House, the opinion outside is that people are strongly opposed to this practice of having drinking clubs which are really keeping the cause of temperance back. There is not a single Member of this House who is not in favour of the promotion of temperance. I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. It is a moderate Bill, and if the House considers it too moderate, I hope it will also give a Second Beading to the Bill which is to succeed this, and refer them both to a Standing Committee.

I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

I very reluctantly move this Amendment, because I hold that as regards measures for the promotion of temperance reform no Member of the House feels more strongly than myself. But this Bill is so drawn that I fear if it were passed in its present form no advantage would result to temperance. I think there is some danger that the clubs to which this Bill applies will not get fair play, for this reason. The temperance party, which is very strong in this House—I rejoice it is—is of opinion that working men should not drink at all, either in clubs or elsewhere, and therefore they are in favour of this or any other measure to restrict the facilities for drinking. What I may call the liquor interest—in the strength of which I do not rejoice—is also strong in the House, and it is their opinion that working men should not drink anywhere except in licensed premises. Therefore in dealing with a Bill of this sort interests which are generally hostile pull together, and they will be glad to see the Bill put on the Statute Book. While I admit that there are instances here and there of deplorable conduct on the part of clubs, I think they are most important social institutions and do great good in the country. That they are in the main intemperate, or that they lead to intemperance, I do not for a moment believe. My opinion is that men who drink in their own clubs without being incited thereto by the publican, whose legitimate business it is to get as many customers as he can, and to sell as much as he can induce them to buy, are more likely to be temperate when they are in their own clubs than in public-houses. I say that tends to self-respect, good conduct, and other social qualities. We have had a good deal of criticism about clubs. There are provisions in the Bill with regard to the registration of clubs and the things which constitute offences when committed in clubs, and in respect of which the law may be enforced in the way of striking off clubs. Indeed, the proposal in this Bill is to increase the list of offences for which a club may be struck off the register. I have no objection to the main provisions of the Bill. I think some of them are desirable to place on the Statute Book, but I want to suggest that we should not in endeavouring to do justice and to promote the cause of temperance really do more harm than good.

Let me remind the House that under the Finance Act, 1909–10, we have lately imposed an Excise Duty on the purchase of liquor by clubs. I do not complain of that. I think it is a very desirable thing. I do not complain of any reasonable regulations that can be made. My hon. Friend the Member for the Brigg Division (Sir W. Gelder) has pointed out that the proposal in paragraph ( c ), Clause 1, has been objected to. It provides that one of the grounds for striking a club off the register is

"that the club is used mainly as a drinking club.…"

I think that proposal is open to grave objection. The hon. Member is willing to withdraw that, and if he succeeds in withdrawing it in Committee, my opposition would be largely conciliated, and, subject to the scrutinising of the various Clauses in Committee, I might become one of the supporters of the Bill. Why should not a club be used mainly as a drinking club? What is a licensed house? It is a house licensed not only mainly, but generally solely for the purpose of drinking. We have a good many licensed houses of that kind in the country, and I think we are right in having them. I think it is a dangerous thing that people who are associated for their own purposes should be liable to have their licence confiscated on the ground that the club is used mainly for the purpose of drinking. Apart from the general question, I wish to refer to a case that came under my notice recently. I know a district in this country where the pernicious system of tied houses exists, and a certain kind of beer is the only kind that can be had for many miles. The inhabitants of the district are of opinion that the beer is bad, and my own opinion is that they are right. Suppose a number of men were to meet in that district and arrange to have a supply of wholesome beer sent from outside, and so avoid the painful necessity of having to drink the inferior beer, I think these men would be doing a meritorious action, and yet on the evidence it would be held to be a club mainly for drinking. I am told that such a measure is on foot. I am not sure that a club has not been opened. I would not shut that club. I say that if you succeed in closing clubs because they are mainly drinking clubs, you do not diminish drinking. If you induce men who would drink moderately at clubs to go to the adjoining public-houses, so far from that being an advantage, it is a deplorable misfortune. I think they will do better, be more moderate, and become more self-respecting, if they drink under their own auspices and in premises provided by themselves. I am told that when they drink in public-houses they are subject to police supervision. My ideal of temperance reform is not that our population should be assembled in public-houses where they are under the eye of the police and can be carried home when they are incapable of taking care of themselves. We must not be too austere in these matters. I speak with the greatest earnestness as a temperance reformer. I am not an abstainer, but I think that the doctors do probably right to-day in advising their patients to abstain, though I should have more confidence in their advice if I did not remember that not many years ago they used freely to prescribe dry sherry, and not so very long; before that they advocated old port. But I believe in the growth of temperance and" desire to promote it in every way, and it is being promoted. This country is gradually becoming more temperate notwithstanding what we were told the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is owing to the growth of habits of organisation among men, and the growth of reasonable occupations of various kinds and of the alternatives that have been provided by local authorities and others to the attractions of the public-houses. But still it is considered no sin by the ordinary working man to drink. You remember the model working man in the poem of the late Sir William Gilbert:— pro formâ move it.

I rise to second the Amendment.

1.0 P.M

It seems to me that the greater part of this Bill is covered by Section 95 of the Licensing Consolidation Act of 1910, and the provisions which it covers are therefore unnecessary. The workmen in many parts of the country are very much against this Bill. The Association of Conservative Clubs whose members number about half a million are entirely opposed to it. The other association, with about the same number of members, the Workmen's Club and Institute Union, which I think is mostly composed of Radicals or non-unionists, are also very much against the Bill. It seems to me that the Bill is another attempt to curtail the liberty of the working man. Section ( a ) of Clause 1 is unnecessary, as at present the supply of liquor must be under the control of the members of the committee. Then with regard to Section ( c ), who is going to define what a drinking club is? The thing is impossible. They do want to have a supply of intoxicating liquor in a club. Why should not workmen have it as well as other people? Hon. Gentlemen go to their own club and have drinks there. Why should not workmen do the same? Sections ( c ) and ( d ) should be cut out. Workmen are very much against them, and the hon. Member who introduced the Bill promised to have them taken out in Committee.

I was not in a position to give a promise that that would be done in Committee. I said that personally I would do my best in Committee to see that Clauses ( c ) and ( d ) were taken out.

I quite understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he would use his influence.

I shall be prepared to move the deletion of Sections ( c ) and ( d ).

But there is no guarantee whatever that they will be cut out. Therefore we are bound to oppose the Bill. The hon. Gentleman's intentions may be the best in the world, but if they are not carried out they are not much use. Section ( d ) is also one to which I object very much. I cannot see how people could agree whether or not premises were suitable and desirable. People's opinions differ very much about these things. This Section gives far too great power into the hands of the justices of the peace. After all, justices are human and have their own prejudices. Some might be very strong against any form of workmen's club and others might be influenced in other ways. This would be giving them a power over the working people which ought not to be given in what is still supposed to be a free country. Section ( e ) refers to the case in which officials or members of the govern- ing body are persons of bad character or following no lawful occupation. A man might have no occupation. What authority is to determine whether a body of men are of bad character or not? Do we all walk about with our characters in our pockets? I do not think that the Government would give me a character. I hope the Opposition will now.

Who is going to provide these characters? I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen remember the case of a man at a political meeting who declared that he was the only one there who could produce evidence of his sanity, and, when challenged, produced his document, "discharged cured," from a neighbouring lunatic asylum. I do not see how that protection can be made to work fairly, and with regard to paragraph ( f ) Sub-section (2), I cannot see why you want to penalise working men and prevent them from having clubs, because public houses are being done away with. What on earth has that got to do with it? It seems from the drafting of the Subsection that it comes to this, that for five years the walls of a public-house are supposed to be contaminated. A club may be allowed within ten yards of the defunct public-house, in less suitable buildings, but however suitable the former public-house may be for club purposes, it must not be used for a club, lest there should be about its walls certain licensed microbes that might contaminate the members of the club It appears to me that that is an absolutely absurd provision to put in the Bill. The former public-house might at all events be made into a very good working men's club. A public-house is not always abolished because it has been badly conducted, and I can see no reason, if the premises are suitable, why they should not be used for the purposes of a club. A club is not a wicked thing of itself, even if beer is sold in it. Therefore, in view of those Sub-sections, I must say I feel bound to oppose the Bill in the interests of the ordinary liberty of the subject. I trust the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill will go to a Division whatever happens.

I must confess to a certain amount of regret that the fortune of the ballot should have resulted in a Friday afternoon being devoted to a Bill of this character. Personally, I am of opinion that the working people of the country are becoming a little tired of this form of irritating and harassing legislation. I feel that it is desirable to say that. Furthermore, I believe also that in the view of the large mass of the working people there are far greater questions requiring legislation. The Mover of the Bill has described it as being one of modest aims, and now that he has offered to whittle it down a great deal more, one wonders whether it is worth while his pursuing it further. Nevertheless, we have to consider the Bill as it is now before the House, and therefore I propose to offer a few criticisms upon it, for I feel that I am charged to say a word or two respecting the attitude of those with whom I am generally associated. I always hesitate to oppose the Second Reading of a Bill which contains any germ of good whatever, more especially if we are given to understand that there is reasonable prospect of objectionable features being eliminated from the measure. The hon. Gentleman who submitted the Bill has been perfectly frank and candid in the undertaking that he has given to the House. He is willing, in Committee, to go so far as to move the deletion of the two particularly objectionable paragraphs ( c ) and ( d ) of Clause 1. But, then, we have not of course assurance that he is able to bind other Members of the House. I am quite willing to accept his undertaking; indeed, I would not question the word of any hon. Member of this House; and, so far as I am concerned— and in this I believe I am also speaking in the name of those with whom I am customarily associated—if that undertaking is not faithfully discharged in the Committee stage we shall deem it our imperative duty to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. That, I believe, generally represents the opinion of those sitting on the Labour Benches. The speeches of the Mover and Seconder seemed to me to be really altogether aimed against clubs as institutions. The Seconder of the measure gave a very lurid description, whether from experience or from what he had heard, of the conditions prevailing in some of these clubs. It reminded me of the old criticism, that the immoderate language of some temperance reformers is the greatest possible hindrance to the temperance reform movement.

Theirs is just the sort of attitude which has the effect of alienating a considerable amount of temperance opinion in the country. But the point I want to make here is that if there are cases in existence of the character that he has described, the present law is quite competent to deal with them. Therefore, this Bill is not necessary to remove such an evil, because if there are such clubs I am quite sure that no Member of any party in this House would wish to offer any defence for their retention. On the other hand, I fear that there is another mass of opinion supporting this Bill which is not quite so disinterested, perhaps, as that of the fanatical temperance reformer. I think I am able to perceive behind this measure the licensed trade as a whole. Personally, throughout the time I have had a seat in this House I have never regarded the publican as a sinner. I believe that he is engaged in a legitimate occupation. I have ever refused to look at a public-house as an indubitable scene of iniquity. Some people seem to think that the man who drinks must necessarily be doing that which is evil, and that the man who supplies drink must necessarily be an enemy of society. I have never given any sanction to that point of view. Nevertheless, we are able to very reasonably concede that the publican does regard the club as a form of competition with which he has unfairly to contend. In a circular that has been circulated in support of this Bill we are told that the Brewers' Society has passed a resolution to the effect that it is considered most undesirable that brewers should create or financially assist in a club or institute. It goes on to say, "The club is the enemy of the brewer no less than of the licensed victualler." How is the club the enemy of the brewer? I respectfully submit that the club is the enemy of the brewer as contemplated in this circular, because the brewer is unable to tie the members of the club to the purchase of his own particular beer. I think we are able to see also that the brewers' objection is not a disinterested one. If he has a publican in tied form under him he is able to exact much higher prices for the beer that he supplies.

I have had some little experience in the conduct and management of working men's clubs, and I know that we were able to purchase our beers openly 25 per cent, below the prices charged to the tenants of those brewers. Therefore the club having the advantage of free competition in the market is enabled to buy its beers and liquors at more reasonable prices, and to that extent it is the enemy of the brewers. On the other hand I regard clubs as desirable institutions. Working people like other classes in society are social beings, and it is but natural that they should desire to have facilities for meeting and intercourse. In a club they are a closely knit community, they are very well known to each other, and with the general elevation of working-class character to-day I believe that the fact that they meet togeher and are very well known to each other in club fashion has had a very good effect by restraining the evils of excessive drinking because a member hesitates to-day to degrade or debase himself in the presence of those with whom he thus mixes. Therefore I have always looked on clubs rather as an aid to general temperance. When I first joined a club I did so as an extreme total abstainer, and I there found after all my preconceived notions had to undergo considerable modification. I recognised very rightly that the men will have the desire for a glass of beer or a drop of liquor. I think that that is a legitimate desire, and one certainly that nobody dare propose to-day to deprive them of. If they can have that right and that desire satisfied under the best possible conditions, and I say that, if as I feel those highest possible conditions prevail in club form, then rather than seek to harass clubs one ought to give them some little encouragement. I am quite prepared to support that part of the Bill which makes it illegal for a club to be under the ownership or control of any brewer or distiller. I think to-day there is universal agreement on that particular point. Again, I am entirely opposed to a man being allowed to start a club simply for profit purposes. I think that is entirely alien to any conception of clubs or of club life. In so far as the provisions are made to deal with that particular evil, I am prepared to give my hearty assent thereto.

Nevertheless, I feel that this evil is greatly aggravated in the minds of some Members. In fact, I am apprehensive that this is another case of people starting out to reform others without having previously adequately reformed themselves. We are told here very glibly, but without an atom of substantial evidence, that wherever a licence has been suppressed a club inevitably springs up in its place. We have been told that during recent years clubs have increased to the extent of some 1,100. We are not told that during that time some 7,600 licences have been suppressed. Therefore it is not true to say that wherever a licence has been cancelled a club has necessarily arisen in its place. After all, club figures are very illusory. You may have a cricket club, or a club which requires facilities for supplying refreshment to its members. Thus, when we deal with club statistics it is necessary that we should be a little more careful than the promoters of this Bill have been this morning. We are told that clubs conduce to excessive drinking, gambling and all the other ills that human flesh is heir to. I do not know how people find out those clubs. I have travelled pretty widely throughout the country, and I must confess that although I have visited many clubs I have never encountered one of the extremely ill character depicted in the speeches here to-day. If such exist at present, the present law is plenty strong enough to deal with them and to strike them off when they apply for registration. On the other hand, I have found that clubs are generally very well conducted. I am a member of a working man's club myself, and I have never regarded that I have done any ill there. We seek to conduct that club in a way that will allow a man to take his wife in without any loss of self-respect. That is the view I have always taken of the great drinking question. If public-houses are not of the standard that we would desire, then promote that higher standard so that nobody need be ashamed to go into them. If there are evils in connection with the clubs then everybody is prepared to remove them, but I feel that the evils which may exist have been unduly exaggerated here this morning.

Some remarkable facts have been supplied to me as to the elevating effect of clubs. Twelve years ago, in the county of Durham, I am informed, not a single club was in existence. At the present time there are about 150. There has been a most remarkable decline in that period in the number of convictions for drunkenness, and that we may claim in some measure to have been attributable to the existence of clubs. I am not going so far as to say that it is entirely due to them. I entirely endorse what a previous speaker has said that the whole standard of working class life is being elevated. The spread of education, better conditions of employment and facilities for recreation are undoubtedly having the effect of enormously improving the general character of the working class. It is in that direction rather than in repressive measures that in my opinion true temperance reform undoubtedly lies. Again, it is said that the amount of drink consumed in clubs is very large. We have not heard a word of justification for that statement to-day, but recent legislation has afforded facilities for getting at the facts under this head. Under the 1909 Budget a club tax of 6d. In the pound on purchases was imposed. In 1910 this tax produced £45,747 for England and Wales. This represents club purchases to the extent of £1,930,000, which, adding club profits, may be said to represent sales amounting to some £3,000,000. On the other hand, the annual drink bill of the country is estimated by persons who speak with authority to amount to £157,000,000. Therefore in these clubs, where it is said that such grave and great evils exist, there is an expenditure of £3,000,000, or one-fiftieth of the total expenditure, on drink in the country. These figures seem to me, at any rate, to exonerate clubs from some of the graver charges which have been so freely alleged against them, and "because present legislation is in my opinion sufficiently strong to deal with these worst evils, I feel that the Bill is not quite necessary. As the objectionable Sections ( e ) and ( d ) are to be eliminated, there is not much left in the Bill except that which aims at preventing the clubs from becoming the tied property of brewers and distillers. We have no objection whatever to that provision; in fact, we heartily welcome its being placed on the Statute Book. All parties will be in general agreement under that head.

dissented.

The hon. Baronet excepted. I had been informed that there was general agreement, and I read an extract from the "Brewers' Journal" which I thought would perhaps have met with the hon. Baronet's approval. I wish to refer again to the statement, which is often repeated, that clubs increase proportionately to the reduction of licences. I do not believe that there is any necessary connection between the two. It is quite possible for clubs and licences to increase side by side. I am informed that in thirty-one out of seventy-three county boroughs there have been 778 licences suppressed and a decrease of sixty-two clubs; but in one county—Surrey—there has been an increase of eighty clubs and an increase of 129 licences. I mention those facts to show that there is no necessary connection between the reduction of licences and the increase of clubs. I feel that the hon. Gentleman, having been suc- cessful in the ballot, might have selected a topic of greater public advantage for consideration. For instance, he might have sought to relieve the tied publican from his attachment to the brewery and distillery companies. That undoubtedly is a great evil and a hardship that is felt by those who have to pursue that particular calling. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has a free right of selection, and he has submitted this measure to us. On the understanding that if the two Sections to which I have referred are not eliminated in Committee, we shall vote against the Third Reading, I think that those with whom I am associated will be prepared to support the Second Reading of the Bill. Although my observations have been mainly those of criticism of the Bill and of the methods of many temperance reformers, nevertheless I am always prepared to associate in any scheme that I conceive to make for the real temperance of the people, and, in so far as this measure may be contemplated as helping to remove an acknowledged evil of the system, the hon. Member has my good wishes.

In the course of my experience of this House I have never heard a more inconclusive speech than that of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. G. Roberts). He said that this was one of the Bills that caused irritation to working men throughout the country; he greatly regretted that a Friday afternoon should be given up to its discussion; he proceeded to criticise practically every detail of the Bill and to show that it was unnecessary; he declared that the Club question was not a real evil in this country; but he stated that he should support the Second Reading, and he ended in characteristic fashion by saying that he had devoted the main portion of his speech to criticising the measure. I am quite unable to understand what has induced members of the Labour party to support the Second Reading. I prefer to support the early statement of the hon. Member that this is a Bill which will cause irritation to working men and to genuine working men's clubs. I do not believe it will carry out any reform of any kind. I was much disappointed at the conclusion of the hon. Member's speech, because the middle part of it was so eminently reasonable. The hon. Member said what is too seldom said on that side of the House, that he personally saw no objection to any man enjoying a glass of beer or other liquor provided he took it in moderation, and he proceeded to pay a tribute, not in the least exaggerated, to the high level maintained by the majority of these working men's clubs. What possible object can this Bill serve? Everybody knows that this club question is a very difficult and intricate one. Undoubtedly a number of bogus clubs have grown up during the last few years, but I maintain that they have grown up purely as a result of the Government's licensing policy, and it is for the Government and not for any private Members, however well-intentioned they may be, to deal with the situation. It cannot be dealt with in the piecemeal fashion proposed by this Bill. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that the number of bad clubs, clubs which exist merely as drinking shops, which give entertainments on Sunday mornings during Church hours and indulge in other undesirable practices, has been exaggerated. But the number has undoubtedly increased owing to the licensing legislation of the Government.

What legislation?

The general effect of the licensing proposals of the Government in the Budget of 1909. There has been, too, threats of legislation, and the general tendency of benches of magistrates and licensing committees, whose attitude has made it harder and harder for the licence holder to carry on his business: that has had the effect of increasing the clubs. In many respects I am not prepared to say that it would not be a good thing to have fewer clubs, even if they are good ones, but there is no reason for bringing in a "half-baked" measure of this sort. I believe the general case of the clubs and club law—and I invite the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of the Home Department to this pointߞwill have to be reviewed by Parliament within the next few years, and the matter should be dealt with by a Government measure and not by the Bill of a private Member. Take the Bill by Clauses and Sub-sections. As to the ground on which a club may be struck off the register, take Clause (1), Sub-section (1), paragraph ( a ), which says:—

"That the club is bound by any covenant, agreement, or undertaking, or is otherwise under any direct or indirect obligation of any kind to obtain a supply of any intoxicating liquor of any particular person by reason of that person having a proprietary interest of the club or in the premises or furniture of the club or being a creditor of the club."

I do not myself so much object to this Sub-section as I do to the next Sub-section. I most strongly object to paragraph ( b ), and I venture to call the attention of the House to a point in connection with it that has perhaps escaped their notice. The paragraph says:—

"That the officials and committee of management or governing body of the club or the manager or servants employed in or by the club have a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the club of intoxicating liquors, or in the profits arising there-from."

What will be the result of this? Take the case of a club, a perfectly respectable London club, which may have on its committee some gentleman who is a wine merchant—say Mr. Hau, or the head of a firm of wine merchants—

Or a shareholder?

Or a shareholder. Or some member of the firm of Messrs. Pomery and Greno, or a member of a firm of champagne growers, who is a member of the committee of that club. Surely nobody in this House is so bigoted on the temperance question as to object to a wine merchant being on the committee of a club. But if such a gentleman were a member of a committee, and the club purchased any of its wines from him, he would have as an official of the club here an interest in the sale of those wines. Surely no hon. Member here—not, say, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Samuel Roberts)—would really desire to prevent in any club of which he happened1 to be a member, say the Carlton, any wine merchant from becoming a member of the committee? But the consequence would be that the club would be unable to purchase its wine from that committee member's firm. I think we are entitled to-draw attention to the loose way—and in particular the five hon. Members whose names are on the back of the Bill—in which these private Bills are drawn. I think such a provision as I have just named is a perfectly ridiculous one. I think it is just as desirable that this provision should be taken from the Bill as should paragraphs ( c ) and ( d ).

Paragraph ( c ) says:—

"That the club is used mainly as a drinking club, or has been formed mainly for the purpose of obtaining a supply of intoxicating liquor thereby instead of under a licence which has been forfeited or not granted or not renewed."

What is the justice of that provision? If you admit, as I suppose it is admitted by every reasonable man in the House, there is no harm in a man drinking a glass of wine or beer, then what harm is there in a number of men forming a club for the purpose of having their beer, even though the club may be mainly formed for that particular purpose? What right has this House to say that such a club shall not exist because it mainly exists for the purpose of obtaining liquor? There is in this country more hypocrisy in this matter than any other part of our national life. Though I do not hold many of the views of foreign observers as to the hypocrisy of the English and the Scottish, when I see a Bill of this kind, containing all these kinds of provisions, I am inclined to agree with the foreigner. In paragraph ( d ) we are told:—

"That the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable, or not desirable, for the purpose of a club; or"

What in the name of reason does such a provision as this mean? Who is going to decide whether or not the premises are suitable for the purposes of a club? What in our Statute law will enable us to judge of the meaning of this provision as to what premises are or are not suitable? Is it intended that a certain sort of street is suitable for a club, and that another kind is not? If this remains in the Bill you may have a decision by the judges. Hon Members opposite have complained very bitterly lately of judge-made law, but you might have a decision by a judge that a street given over to residential purposes was not a street suitable for the erection of a club. You might, again, have a decision that a street given over mainly to shops was not suitable. Take paragraph ( e ):—

"That the officials or committee of management or governing body are persons of bad character, or follow no lawful occupation and have no lawful means of subsistence; or"

No one objects to the first part of this Sub-section, "if the officials or committee of management or governing body are persons of that character." But, as one hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Shrop- shire said in his speech, it is very difficult to decide what is the meaning of "a person of that character." I do not think, by the way, that there is any such phrase in law to define for us what a person of that character is. As for "following no lawful occupation," there are a good many people in this House, so far as I know, who, under the law follow no lawful occupation. I am not aware that being a Member of Parliament is following a lawful occupation. Paragraph ( f ) says:—

"( f ) That the club is the resort of criminals or persons of bad character."

It has been pointed out in one of the speeches that under the law as it stands at present—and not one of the promoters of this Bill seems to have take the trouble to read the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, or the Clubs Act—that a club known to be the resort of criminals or persons of bad character can be closed by the police. It is proposed that there shall be a substitution for paragraph ( f ) of Sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910. It reads as follows:

"That the club occupies premises in respect of which within five years next preceding their occupation by the club a licence has been forfeited or the grant or renewal of a licence has been refused, or occupies premises which are in the same building as premises in respect of which a licence has been so forfeited or the grant or renewal of a licence has been so refused, and which were at the time of the forfeiture or refusal under the same occupation, or occupies premises in respect of which an order has been made that they shall not be used for the purposes of a club."

I can conceive of no greater interference with the liberty of the subject than this! I do not always agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) on these Friday afternoon Bills. I think he takes rather extreme views.

Hear, hear.

I am very pleased to have his cheer, but in this Sub-section I think there is a serious possibility that the liberty of the subject is going to be very grievously menaced. The real crux of the matter is that this Bill does not deal with some of the worst scandals which exist or have arisen in connection with clubs. It does not deal, for instance—though I would not be in order in referring to the matter, and I just make one reference to it by way of illustration— to that great scandal of the giving of what are practicaly music hall performances in these places on Sunday mornings during church hours. It does not deal with giving such performances in the hours during which all reasonable persons ought to be in bed—that is between one and two in the morning. I am told that at some of these bogus clubs regular music hall performances are given in the early hours of the morning. The Bill does not deal with all these questions at all. It shows in my opinion bad draftsmanship. I think it is a thoroughly bad Bill, and I hope the House will reject it.

I am always ready to learn, and the hon. Member for Norwich gave some interesting suggestions to us who are sometimes called temperance reformers. He gave us a piece of advice to the effect that we should be moderate in our speech, and that we often do harm to our cause by the intemperance of our language. Every great cause is supposed to suffer from that, even the cause of Socialism. I agree with his general remarks with regard to clubs, only I do not think they were very pertinent to this Bill. Clubs, of course, are extremely jealous and sensitive bodies, and they might well claim as their motto that which surrounds the Scottish thistle, "No one shall touch me with impunity." They must be unduly sensitive if they feel any alarm about this particular Bill; at all events, after the concessions foreshadowed by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. I am one of those who think that this Bill is very modest and extremely limited in its scope, but that it may yet be of use and fulfil useful functions. The Noble Lord who has just sat down has complained that we have very little information about club law. If I may venture to respond to that criticism I might ask him to pursue his study into licensing law and licensing proposals a little further than he has just gone. For instance, he falls foul of Subsection (2), paragraph ( f ), of Section 1, which he regards as being a serious interference with the liberty of the subject. That is the Clause which says that there shall be five years between the loss of the licence of certain premises and their use as a club. Very likely he knows that that is practically the same Clause as was in the Unionist Act of 1902.

Even so.

Then in that case his quarrel is with the former leaders of his own party.

They make mistakes sometimes.

Yes, and as a matter of fact that Clause is only here because the Act of 1904, which succeeded the Act of 1902, abolished the interval, so that now it is quite possible that some licensed premises, after losing the licence and receiving hundreds and perhaps thousands of pounds compensation, might open next morning as a club under exactly similar conditions. I cannot honestly think anybody could regard that as right. If the Noble Lord thinks this question had better be left to be dealt with by the Government, I may tell him that the private Members who have drafted this Bill have, in this case at least, taken Government precedents for almost all the proposals, and if the hon. Baronet opposite disagrees with these proposals again in that case he quarrels with his own Leaders.

He always does.

This provision is a Government Clause, taken out of the Licensing Bill of 1908 and supported by the authority of the Licensing Commission. The next Sub-section and Sub-section D are verbatim from Front Opposition Bench Amendments in reference to the Scottish Temperance Bill. These were proposed by an hon. Gentleman who sat upon the Front Opposition Bench, and were accepted unanimously, so that this Bill ought to receive support from the Unionist party opposite. In fact, the Bill is a selection of Clauses which have been taken from Government proposals or proposals made from the Front Opposition Bench. The Noble Lord who has just sat down told us that we were dealing piecemeal with this matter, and not attempting a full and comprehensive treatment of the question. It is indeed impossible to satisfy the critics of any legislation proposed in reference to the drink question or touching that question in any way. I well remember the taunts that came from the Unionist party opposite during the Licensing Bill of 1908. I know what was said in reference to the club question. They told us we should really grapple with the whole matter and with the whole problem of clubs. In this Bill we have some very modest proposals. Yet, with the exception of the hon. Member for Not- tingham, we do not seem to be getting very much support from the other side. If we bring forward a measure which is very Radical, and goes to the root and deals comprehensively with the whole problem, hon. Members opposite get up and say, "You are always attempting extreme courses. If you would only bring forward some modest proposals you would find us at your back," and then when we bring forward some extremely moderate proposals hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "Why this limited measure? Why palter, why tinker with this subject?" These are the kind of debating points which they use against every Bill we bring forward. I do not quarrel with the position which was outlined in reference to clubs as a whole; I am quite ready to learn from what hon. Members have said and to inform myself about the facts. I have very little sympathy with the attempts made by the trade to use clubs as lightning-conductors for their own responsibility for the evils of the liquor trade, or with the trade attempts to blacken the character of the clubs with a view to evading their own responsibilities. I have very little sympathy with that line of argument. I quite agree that the hon. Member for Norwich put forward certain points in reference to clubs which are certainly correct. It is quite true the drink bill of the clubs is only a small proportion of the drink bill of the nation. I think there is some evidence that some of the clubs have a drink bill which is too large. Of course, naturally from my point of view, I should wish to see club life dissociated from drink altogether, but that is a counsel of perfection.

It is a counsel of despair.

It is a counsel of perfection, but if you abolish the whole of the drink bill of the clubs it would not greatly affect the whole drink bill of the nation. I also agree with what the hon. Member said that where these institutions are well managed and are legitimate social institutions they may have, and I think do have, an influence tending in the direction of moderate drinking. At any rate there is no pressing to drink "for the good of the house" in those institutions. They are under disinterested management, but even that is no guarantee against excesses and abuses. I think there is evidence to show that in those clubs we sometimes get a tendency to raise the standard. I have myself known cases in which disciplinary measures have been taken by the suspension of members and so on with a view to keeping up a high standard of conduct in the club. I entirely agree that the statement that wherever a public-house is suppressed a club takes it place is a gross distortion and exaggeration of the facts. To some limited extent that does take place, but there are other causes tending to the creation of clubs, and when the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) tries to lay upon the Government the blame for the creation of these clubs he is showing an almost ludicrous ignorance of the facts. It is doubtless natural for the other side to assume that the Government is responsible for everything, but the Government is certainly not responsible for that.

The Noble Lord seemed to think that the increase in the number of clubs is in some way or other connected with the Budget of 1909. As a matter of fact I have here the figures, and of the 1,165 clubs registered since 1905 only 213 have arisen since the year 1909, so that at least 900 of them started before the Budget was heard of. I agree to that extent with the hon. Member, but admitting all that—and it is only fair to the clubs to do so—I think there is a mass of testimony from constables, benches, police and others testifying to the existence of abuses and complaints which do require a remedy. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that there is no need for this Bill, even if it does in the case of unduly sensitive clubs cause some irritation. I think there is good reason why this Bill should be brought forward. Not merely are there complaints as to abuses and to the weakness of the law, but there is also evidence of a distinct attempt to stultify the effect of legislation by the creation of these clubs and by using the institution of clubs as a weapon to paralyse the action of the licensing justices and reduce the process of the reduction of licences to a farce. That is a tendency which is already there, and which may strengthen in the future, therefore it seems to me that there are quite two distinct problems.

2.0 P.M.

In the first place, there is the problem of the further control and supervision of the club with which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) proposes to deal; and, secondly, there is the distinct point which can be isolated and taken separately, the problem of the suppressed public-house rearising as a club. The branch of the subject which the hon. Member for Sheffield takes in hand deals with the question of off-sales and music-hall entertainments, which the Noble Lord opposite says he desires to regulate. If such a proposal as that had been made I imagine the Noble Lord opposite would have been the very first to complain that it was an interference with a legitimate freedom of working men.

Is the hon. Member in order in dealing with the hon. Member for Sheffield's Bill when this Bill is before the House?

I did not gather that the remarks made by the hon. Member were out of order.

My hon. Friend has isolated one particular point out of the whole club problem, and he deals with a point which it is desirable to deal with at the present time. I do not wish in any way to deal with the hon. Member for Sheffield's Bill except to explain that this is a single point which is being isolated and can be isolated. Of course it might be desirable to go very much further, but private Members' powers are very limited. One has much experience of that over and over again in this House, and I do not think that anybody who realises the difficulties with which a private Member has to deal when he attempts legislation can in any way be surprised if the hon. Member has limited his proposals to something which is extremely moderate in scope, and which in consequence has a much greater chance of being passed into law. Coming to the Bill itself, does anyone really desire to see clubs arising as much under the control of the brewer or distiller as public-houses are at the present time? Everyone realises that if the Legislature had been really wise in time, and perhaps if some modest Bill had been introduced on a Friday afternoon before the gigantic system of tied houses had arisen, it would have helped very much towards a solution of the problem.

No, no.

I did not know before that the hon. Baronet was a great supporter of the tied-house system. On this point I will quote from "The Club and Institute Journal" for April, which, referring to this Bill, says:— d ) would have been useful. Much objection is taken to Sub-section ( d ), but once more it comes straight from the Front Opposition Bench, for it was proposed in the Scotch Licensing Bill by an hon. Member sitting on that bench, and it was received without any criticism. The objection is being taken on the ground of the use of the words en bloc from the hon. Member who sits on the Front Bench opposite. I cannot help suggesting to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill that there is really no need for him to drop the whole of Sub-section ( c ). I think the latter part of Sub-section ( c ) might be well retained, and I really do not believe when those words are examined there will be found to be any real objection to them. This Bill, so far as I can understand its purpose, is avowedly not a complete treatment of the whole problem. It leaves much to be done, but what it leaves cannot be done, I believe, by a private Member. We may well ask, as the Noble Lord does, the Government to deal with the problems of the clubs, but I very much doubt whether it is possible for a private Member, in face of the difficulties of legislation in this House to deal with the whole of that problem. We certainly could not deal with it by imposing extra Licence Duties; that requires Government authority, and can only be proposed by a Member of the Government. The complaint that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill has not put that into the Bill therefore certainly falls to the ground.

On the other hand, here is a small and limited problem, the problem of the extinguished licences which are converted into clubs. It is not an unimportant matter to stop that loophole and manifest evasion of the law. I cannot see why the clubs themselves need fear the measure. It would be a fundamental mistake in tactics on their part if they linked their fortunes as genuine legitimate institutions with the fortunes of these bogus clubs which are really started for the purpose of frustrating the licensing justices and carrying through a flagrant evasion of the Licensing Law. It is to stop that loophole in administration that this Bill, as I understand it, is being proposed. It is highly desirable to do it, and I trust, though the Bill is limited, that the House, nevertheless, will give it a Second Beading, and that in Committee the whole matter can be considered. On these grounds I trust that the Bill will be allowed to pass its Second Beading stage.

:I think it must be common ground that the intention of this House in passing the Bill of 1910 was to adopt means of preventing the resuscitation of condemned public-houses. I am afraid it must be admitted that to some extent that intention has not been successfully carried out. Several instances have been given in this House of cases in which when a public-house has been suppressed one day it is reopened the next in the form of a club. Instances were given by the Noble Lord, who seconded the Bill, and I confess that I rather resent that he should have gone for his instance to a town in my Constituency. I think he might have looked a little nearer home, and I am quite sure that the Working Men's Club in Worksop, the one with which I have been in communication with regard to this Bill, was not started with any object such as he has described, or under circumstances such as he has described.

As far as this Bill attempts to carry out the admitted intention of the 1910 Act it has my entire sympathy. I do think that the time limit in the Act of 1910, namely, one year, over which the prohibition is extended providing that the club may not be started on premises for which the licence has been forfeited, has been proved to be too short. Therefore, I should view with sympathy some extension of that time, though I think the five years in the Bill is unduly long. I also confess that the Clause in the Bill which provides that no official of the club is to be interested personally and should make no profit out of things that are sold to the club has my sympathy. But the Clause reads in this way that the officials, committee of management, or governing body shall not have a personal interest in the purchase by the club or in the sale in the club of intoxicating drinks. I cannot for the life of me understand why this Clause is to be limited to intoxicants and is not to extend to other things as well. The principle of a club is co-operation—the obtaining by members of the club at a reasonable price of things they require, and I cannot understand why it should be considered reasonable that an official of the club can make profit by supplying ginger beer to the club if he is not to make a profit out of supplying Scotch whisky. It seems to me that a serious objection to the Clause is the difficulty which it will raise in the future. The principle is good, but the Clause is obviously unjust. I think that with same possible limitations applying only to the clubs which it was intended to cover this Clause should be extended so as to apply to the supplying of goods of any kind in the club, and that no officer should be allowed to make personal profit out of any such transactions. Then we are faced with Clauses ( c ) and ( d ), which, to my mind, are so obnoxious that unless I can be convinced that these Clauses stand no chance whatever of being part of the Bill I should certainly give them my opposition. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill led me by his speech to feel that we need have no fear on that point, but the speech which we have just heard has resuscitated my fears, because it is quite obvious that on this particular matter the Mover of the Bill does not have the whole-hearted support of those behind him who are interested in the Bill.

The hon. Member who has just spoken deprecated these Clauses being dropped, and suggested to the hon. Member who has introduced the Bill that he might persist in them. I hope, however, that the undertaking given by the hon. Member who introduced the Bill will be loyally carried out, even although he may not get the full support of those behind him. Just consider for one moment, and I say it with all respect, how ridiculous these Clauses are. You provide that a club may be removed from the Register of Clubs if it is used mainly as a drinking club. Now that is a phrase incapable of logical definition. You will have one bench of magistrates determining in one way, and a neighbouring bench of magistrates deciding in exactly the opposite way. You will get no continuity and similarity of decision on this very important point, and you will be faced with this really obnoxious task, that in order to get at the clubs which are used mainly for drinking you will have to make some comparison of the occupation of the members of the club, which implies that you are to consider what the occupants of the club are mainly occupied in doing. Now, some of these working men's clubs are able to provide themselves with bagatelle boards, billiard rooms, and games, and doubtless while the members are playing their games they; will be able to have the drink which they require. Then you may get a bench of magistrates, if a complaint is made against one of these clubs, saying, "Here is a club in which the members play certain games. It is true they drink also, but upon these facts we are able to determine that the club is not mainly used for drinking purposes." Next door you may have a club of working men which is poorer and may not be able to afford a bagatelle board or billiards, and you may get a bench of magistrates saying, if a complaint is made against this club, "All that these men have to do is to read and talk and drink, and consequently they must be mainly occupied in drinking."

It is a ridiculous thing to leave the question open in this way as to whether a club is mainly used as a drinking club. Take another case. A great number of these clubs exist in the country and some have bowling greens and also have quoits and other outdoor games. In the summer, when the weather is hot and the men are thirsty, it may be that they will consume a certain amount of drink. A complaint may be made and the bench of magistrates in comparing the amount of intoxicants consumed during the summer with the membership of the club, may come to the conclusion that the statistics show that this club must be used mainly for drinking. On the other hand, a complaint made in the winter may fail because then the members, it may reasonably be supposed, would be sitting round the fire looking for the return of the hot weather. These are only a few of the really ridiculous results which you would get if these Clauses remain in. I submit that they are not required. All you really want is to ensure the sobriety of the club, and the existing law provides for that, because the Act of 1910, Section 95, Sub-section (1), says a club may be struck off the register of clubs by Subsection ( c ) if it is proved that "there is frequent drunkenness on the club premises." You really do not need anything more. You want to leave full liberty to the members of the club, under the control of their own committee, to take such intoxicants as they please, and the State is only concerned in seeing that proper sobriety for the good of the community is maintained. I maintain that Section 95, Section 1 and Sub-section ( c ) of the 1910 Act gives you that, and this extension of the law provided by the Bill now before the House seems to me as unnecessary as it is ridiculous. Under paragraph ( d ) you are giving a new power of complaint to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to strike a Club off the register of Clubs if the premises or the situation thereof is not suitable or not desirable for the purposes of a Club. Desirable for whom? The members of a Club, the people who live in the town, or the bench? How is this to be interpreted? You say if the premises are not suitable. One bench of magistrates will say, "We like low rooms because they are artistic." The next will say, "We like them high because they are healthy." One bench will like a certain amount of ventilation; another will have a fad about the drains. Then another comes along and says, "We think all clubs ought to be in the main street of the town; they are the pride of the town, and should be exhibited in the main street." The next bench says, "The main street is not the place for the club; it ought to have the privity of a side alley." You give the bench of magistrates a discretion which is altogether unreasonable. The real objection to it is that you expose members of a club to vexatious applications for removal from the register. It is quite possible that you may have a bench of magistrates who are supposed, rightly or wrongly, not to be too friendly to the existence of working men's clubs, and you open the door to vexatious applications which, whether they succeed or not, would put the club to considerable trouble and expense.

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—

I was pointing out when the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) was kind enough to intervene, the unsuitability of paragraph ( d ). If I was convinced that paragraphs ( e ) and ( d ) would be removed, the greater part of my opposition to this Bill would go too. There is-no necessity for paragraph ( d ), because Section 95 of the Act of 1910 provides all that you really require. Section 95 provides that a club may be struck off if it is-not conducted in good faith as a club. Subsection (2), Section 95, provides:—

"For the purpose of determining whether a club is conducted in good faith as a club the Court shall have regard to the nature of the premises occupied by the club."

If you desire to meet the case where a suppressed licensed house is reopened, or premises two or three doors further down are opened as a club you might possibly alter the words of the Act of 1910 in this direction:—"the Court shall have regard to the nature and position of the premises occupied by the club." Perhaps some alternative of that kind may be required, but the extent to which this Bill goes is altogether uncalled for. I listened with the deepest attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. George Roberts), which in its main principles had my entire sympathy. I speak the general opinion of every man in this House when I say how much we appreciate the growing existence of these working men's clubs, and how much we should deprecate doing anything that would injure them. I confess I am one of those who think that these clubs do more to promote temperance in the country than any legislation which you can introduce. I believe that a man, in nine cases out of ten, goes to the public-house in the first instance not so much for drink, as for the society and relaxation he gets there. I think it often leads to drinking habits ultimately, but in the first instance he goes there because he treats it as his club. It is to him what the club is to the man who lives in London and in the West End. If you conduct well-established, well-managed working men's clubs yon are forging the most powerful weapon on behalf of temperance that can be found. If I can be assured that paragraphs ( c ) and ( d ) will really go out of the Bill, it will have my support, but unless and until I have seen that done I shall certainly vote against it.

My hon. Friend, who has just sat down, said that unless he can receive an assurance that paragraphs ( c ) and ( d ) of Clause 1 will be removed from the Bill he will vote against the Second Reading. I hope he will not think it presumption on my part to point out to him, from the experience I have had, extending over a good many years, that there is not the remotest chance of these paragraphs being struck out of the Bill, certainly upon the Committee stage, and I think not upon the Report stage. When the hon. Member in charge of the Bill said that he would move the omission of these paragraphs in the Committee I intervened with the request to know whether, in the event of the hon. Member being defeated and these paragraphs remaining in the Clause, he would then withdraw the Bill, and the hon. Member said he would not. Therefore his statement that he will move in Committee the omission of these paragraphs is worth absolutely nothing. Hon. Members on the other side of the House—and I see two of them at the present moment, the right "hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker) and the bon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Charles Roberts)—will probably be present in the Committee, and they will have a devoted band of followers there. The other Members of the Committee will be few in number, and they will be totally unable to enable the hon. Gentleman to carry the omission of the paragraphs. If the hon. Member had said he would withdraw the Bill he might have put chains upon the energy of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir T. Whittaker) and other reformers, but as he has explicitly stated that nothing will happen if these paragraphs are not omitted the result will certainly be that they will not be omitted. The hon. Member said there might be an opportunity upon the Report stage. I am not so sure of that either. When is the Report stage going to be taken? Will it be on a Friday when there will be very few Members in the House again with the exception of the temperance army?

Yon and I will be here.

We can do a great deal, but we cannot contend against force of numbers, especially those who will not listen to reasons or arguments. Therefore we shall be powerless. The hon. Member (Mr. C. Roberts) commenced his speech by saying he supposed he should be accused of being an advocate of temperance reform. I did not understand what he meant by that statement. I always thought it was a glory, that it was the greatest attribute that the hon. Member had that he was an advocate of temperance reform. I cannot conceive why he said that unless he thinks the Bill is going to do no good whatever to temperance reform, and with that I thoroughly agree. The hon. Member said that unless the Bill was carried licensed premises could open as a club now without an interval of five years. Why not? I never heard any reason why they should not. Supposing there is a building which is suitable for a club, why should it not be opened as a club? Are we to understand that a club, because it is a club, is a bad thing? I am of the opinion that there should be some legislation with regard to clubs, but to say that because premises have been licensed they are not to be open as a club until five years have passed seems to be absolutely absurd. What is the magic of five years? Is the place to remain empty or is it to be turned into something else during the five years? I can see no object whatever in that provision. Then the hon. Member said that on the Licensing Bill of 1908 we on this side of the House said that hon. Members who were in favour of that Bill should, if they were really honest in their intentions, deal with the question of clubs, and he rather threw it in our teeth that when they were now attempting to do something of that sort he understood there was opposition on this side of the House. It is true that was said in the Debates in 1908, but what we said was that we did not believe in the Bill at all. We did not believe that this attempt at licensing reform would bring about what it was supposed to bring about, temperance reform. But if you did hold that view, if you were going to deal with one branch of that question, you must deal with the other, and, as far as we were concerned, we did not propose to deal with the other branch of the question in the same manner as was being done by the then Government. That was a perfectly logical position to take up, and it is a perfectly logical position to take up now to say we will not approve of the provision of this Bill.

Then the hon. Member said tied houses were bad. Why are tied houses bad? The hon. Member (Mr. G. Roberts) also said he was an official of a club, and he found he could get beer 25 per cent, cheaper from someone than if it had been a tied house. I accept the statement, but the hon. Member did not tell us whether the beer was equally good. Supposing I prefer to have Guinness's stout, why should I not have it? Why should I have a nasty decoction because it is 25 per cent, cheaper? Or if I desired to be tied to my hon. Friend behind me because I know how excellent his beer is, why should I be obliged to have the beer of some hon. Member opposite which is not good at all, and which is made of some very deleterious mixture. I see no argument in that position at all. On the contrary, it is against temperance. It is not the good liquor which is bad for you, it is the bad liquor which does you harm, even if you only take it in moderate quantities. I have endeavoured to deal with the arguments of the hon. Member (Mr. C. Roberts) because there can be no doubt that he is absolutely sincere in his desire to promote temperance. We think he is wrong in his methods, but no one can deny that he is absolutely sincere, and that he believes, himself, that these misguided measures will attain the object he desires. I do not doubt that there are bad clubs. Everyone will admit that there are in this world many things which are bad, but because there are occasionally bad clubs it does not at all follow that we ought to pass this measure. I admit that occasionally clubs are started absolutely and simply in order to enable a certain number of people to obtain drink, and a very large number of people go to them merely in order to get drink and they abuse the opportunity of getting it. But we have now Acts which deal with bogus clubs. In the Act of 1910 there are very stringent provisions with regard to the registration of clubs. There is a penalty for supplying liqour in unregistered clubs, and Section 95 authorises clubs to be struck off the register, and there is power for a magistrate to grant a search warrant to a constable to enter a club and see if anything wrong is going on, and there are other provisions of that sort. There was not a single argument brought forward by the mover of the Bill or by the hon. Member (Mr. C. Roberts) to show that the Act of 1910 was inefficient or was not doing its duty with the sole exception of the statement that public-houses are now, if the licence is taken away, at once turned into a club, and I do not know if that is a very good argument because the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck) said that, in Leeds, where a licence was taken away a club was formed and when it was closed it was immediately started again in some other street. He said that that club was opened three times. He went on to say—and I commend this to the notice of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley—that more drunkenness took place after the suppression of public-houses than before. The right hon. Gentleman advocated more than anybody the suppression of public-houses, and now we have the testimony of the Noble Lord, who is on his own side in this matter, that as the result of the suppression of public-houses more drunkenness has taken place than ever before. I am sorry to have to point out that this has been the result of his legislation. It gives me great pain, but I have to perform a public duty, which I should not be doing if I did not call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that result.

But it is not true.

I am quoting the Noble Lord, and he is on this particular occasion an ally of the right hon. Gentleman. If I had said it, I could quite understand the right hon. Gentleman not believing it, but the statement was made by his own supporter.

It does not make it true.

I cannot enter into the question whether it is true or not. I always accept the statement of any hon. Member made in this House.

I say it is not true. Do you accept that statement?

I cannot accept a statement in contradiction of another hon. Member, especially as the Noble Lord who made the statement is in the House himself. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill (Sir W. Gelder) dealt with the fact that in certain clubs of which he had knowledge working men only pay a penny subscription. I think that is an extremely weak argument. Working men are not over-supplied with this world's goods, and if they can get a club for a penny subscription why should they not? If they can get this at a cheap rate, I should be the last person to interfere with their so doing, and I cannot see that the fact their subscription is so low is any reason whatever for suppressing that particular club. That is certainly a strong illustration of one law for the rich and another for the poor, which I object to. I am for equality and the same law for everybody. That is one of the reasons why I oppose this particular Bill. The hon. Member also made a very extraordinary statement. He said he hoped the Home Office would give facilities to this Bill, because the provisions of it were in the Licensing Bill of 1908. Now "we are getting on," as the Prime Minister said a little while ago in answer to a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. We are indeed getting on. I see a very great vista opening before us. I see the provisions of the 1908 Bill being gradually brought before this House in little Bills by private Members with requests for facilities being given to them, so that in the course of time the whole of the provisions of the 1908 Bill will become law. Then we will have another consolidating Bill, and we will get by a side issue the horrible and iniquitous Bill of 1908 introduced in this House. I thank the hon. Member for his kindness in showing that what lies behind this measure is the 1908 Bill which must not be brought forward too openly, because the Government have so much to do in taking away the property of the Church and in dismembering the Empire, that they have no time to bring in a Licensing Bill themselves. I acknowledge that there is a great deal of subtility in hon. Members on the benches opposite. They are to be the instruments by which this is to be done. The hon. Member has let the cat out of the bag, but I think he ought first to have got his Second Reading on this particular occasion.

The hon. Member for Norwich made an interesting speech in which he said he was going to support the Second Reading because he hoped certain provisions of the Bill would be omitted. I may observe that this is a very extraordinary theory. The Bill has been described by hon. Members opposite as being small and moderate. It is so small and moderate that the hon. Member for Lincoln can hardly make up his mind to support it, but he is going to support it because he does not think any stronger measure would get through. The hon. Member for Norwich wishes to leave out half of it as the only bribe he can give the House to get it through. There will be a still smaller portion of the Bill left when the desire of the hon. Member who introduced it has been effected. The hon. Member for Norwich said he hesitated to oppose the Second Reading of a Bill which may have a germ of good in it. He need not have any hesitation. It has not any germs in it at all. My experience is that very few Friday afternoon Bills have anything good in them in the form of germs or anything else. I wish to deal with the provisions of the Bill itself. Paragraph ( a ), Clause 1, says that a club may not be tied to any firm of brewers. I have already dealt with the disadvantage of this provision. I must say that paragraph ( b ) is an extraordinary one. This Bill is not confined to clubs of the working classes, and I think quite rightly. I do not complain of that. I do not hold that there should be any difference between the club of working men and the club of rich men. To my mind, we are all members of the same country, and we ought to be all treated alike. Sometimes I have been accused, quite wrongly, by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway of desiring to do all sorts of dreadful things to working men. My desire is to treat the working man as I should desire to be treated myself, and that is one of the reasons why I oppose this Bill. With regard to the result of this Subsection, take this illustration. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Walter Guinness) is a member of the Carlton Club, and provides the most excellent stout imaginable. He is a very good man of business. Lender this Bill, if he were on the committee, we should not be able if we had a few oysters to have with them a glass of Guinness's stout, which is the only stout worth drinking—I am sure that the hon. Member opposite will agree with me—and this would be because the hon. Member, who is so eminently fitted to occupy a position on the committee, happens to be concerned in the making of this very excellent stout.

3.0 P.M.

Sections ( b ), ( c ), and ( d ) will have to go out. Paragraph ( c ) will have to go also, because it is not capable of interpretation. The Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Ellis Griffith), whom I congratulate on the office which he occupies, and who has a very eminent position at the Bar, will not contradict me when I say that it would puzzle even him—and it would take a great deal to do that—to say what unlawful occupation means. Is membership of this House lawful occupation? It was not before we got the £400 a year, because lawful occupation I could argue, though I am not a lawyer, if I were concerned in a case under this Bill, means some professional occupation by which you are earning a livelihood. Well, you were not earning a livelihood in the House of Commons before you got the £400 a year, and therefore membership of this House was not a lawful occupation. Now that we get the £400 a year it could be held to be a lawful occupation. But suppose this £400 a year is taken away, as I hope it will, then it will not be a lawful occupation again. Paragraph ( e ) will have to come out, and there will be practically nothing else left in the Bill. There will be Clause 2, which says that no club shall be registered whose secretary or committee of management were connected in a similar capacity with a club that had been struck off the register. That is an extraordinary proposition. You are taking away a man's occupation as secretary of a club. He is never to get back his good character, which he may have lost by inadvertence. You desire to make people sober by Act of Parliament by penalising them in a most in inquitous manner. I would advise the hon. Member withdraw this Bill and bring in another Bill which will contain workable provisions by which he can stand, so that when he gets up to move its Second Reading he can do so without having to apologise for a great many of its provisions. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Will you second it? "]. I will not give a pledge with regard to my action at the moment, but I will read it carefully and consider its provisions, and if they are good I will second the Second Reading. It comes to this, "We are still following a shadowy, vague Will o' the Wisp; we are still trying to effect temperance by bringing Bills into this House. We cannot make people sober by Act of Parliament j we can make them sober by example and precept, and it would be very much better if we devoted our energy to remedying abuses which undoubtedly do exist, and endeavouring to encourage people to avoid the evils of intemperance than to attempt on Friday afternoon in a half empty House to bring forward measures which is no way conduce to the cause of temperance and will cause a great deal of indignation among our working people and prevent the honest Englishman, whatever his rank in life from entering a club and having his glass of beer when he wants to have it. For those reasons I shall have much pleasure in voting against the Second Reading of this Bill.

The hon. Baronet has said that he has no objection to tied houses, but he altogether objects when he goes into a public-house to be put off with some inferior stout instead of getting the high-class article which he is asking for. That is just the objection to the house being tied. One of the reasons why many of us object to a house being tied, is because it affords that very opportunity of putting off on the public and practically compelling the public to consume an inferior article in lieu of a superior article. A long experience of the administration of the Licensing Law has convinced me that the system of tied houses is a wholly objectionable system and we shall never get to the root of these licensing difficulties until we take in hand most drastically the tied house system. It seems to me that all the arguments that apply against tieing public-houses apply equally to tieing clubs. Therefore so far as this Bill prevents or seeks to prevent clubs being tied for particular articles of consumption, I do not care whether these articles are intoxicating liquors or other things, it seems to me altogether objectionable that clubs or public-houses should be carried on upon a system by which the proprietors or the persons carrying on these establishments have their hands tied as to the market in which they may get the things to be consumed in these public-houses or clubs. Turning to the other provisions of this Bill, although agreeing largely with the principles of the measure there are proposals in Clause 2 to which I for one cannot for a moment assent. If these provisions are to be insisted on it would be impossible for me to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. Some observations have been made already with regard to the provisions in paragraphs ( c ), ( d ) and ( e ).

The hon. Baronet opposite particularly called attention to paragraph ( e ), Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill, and I agree with him that it is an entirely objectionable provision. It is one of the most extraordinary provisions that I have ever seen in any project of law brought into this House or in any other legislative assembly, that no person who lives upon his own means shall be qualified to sit upon a club committee. That is what it means. It also provides "that the officials or committee of management or governing body are persons of bad character." That, of course, is a very loose phrase to put into an Act, and one which might give rise to a very great deal of difficulty in the application of it. Then come the words, "or follow no lawful occupation, and have no lawful means of subsistence." It is wholly objectionable that a provision should be put in the Bill which prohibits persons from being on the committee of a, club merely because they do not follow a profession or occupation. [An HON. MEMBERS: "It does not."] 1 know that hon. Members keep saying that it does not, but I am not unaccustomed to construe documents, and I submit that in all probability a bench of magistrates administering the Act would take the view that it did. It is entirely absurd that such a provision as this should appear even in a measure designed to deal with the evils of the sale of intoxicating drink. Take paragraph ( c ). "That the club is mainly used as a drinking club." I do not know whether many Members who I am now addressing are accustomed to the administration of the law by the licensing bench of magistrates, but just conceive the Section being administered by a bench of magistrates the vast majority of whom were pledged teetotallers.

That is not an infrequent thing, it is not an unusual thing. What is to be their notion of what constitutes a drinking club? They are left wholly unassisted by any expression in the Bill, and it is quite conceivable that the most modest consumption of drink on the club premises might be taken by some benches of magistrates to constitute that club a drinking club. The expression is far too loose and far too indefinite to be put into an Act of Parliament. It practically constitutes a criminal offence, and a club is to be adjudged a criminal club because a bench of magistrates come to the conclusion that that club is mainly a drinking club. For myself, I am not disposed to vote for any such absurdity as this paragraph discloses. The next paragraph ( d ) is again one of the utmost looseness and indefiniteness. It says "that the premises are or the situation thereof is, not suitable, or not desirable for the purpose of a club." Those words would let in an enormous amount of prejudice, with the possibility of an enormous amount of injustice in administering the law. I understand a suggestion has been made by the promoters of this Bill that those provisions ought to be omitted if the Bill goes further. I, of course, accept that entirely, but unless there is before this House a distinct pledge that these paragraphs ( b ), ( c ), ( d ) and the major part of ( e ) will not be persisted in and shall not be included in the Bill, if it does go further. I, for one, am entirely prepared to vote against the Second Reading.

I desire to associate myself with the hon. Member who expressed regret and surprise that a private Member who has been fortunate in the ballot should, on a Friday afternoon in the present state of public affairs, have found no more urgent question for discussion and statesmanship than the regulation of the quality of beer which is to be poured down the working man's throat in his own particular club. Looking at the Bill as a whole, I put this to the Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Ellis Griffith), who will speak for the Government, am I right or wrong in saying that, except with regard to the provision as to tied houses, and of people having an interest in the supply of liquor, and extending the period during which closed licensed premises may not be used for a club, there is nothing whatever in this Bill which is not already covered by the existing law? I put that with very great, respect and confidence to the Under-Secretary. The present Act which governs these matters provides that any club may be struck off the register if it is not conducted in good faith as a club. The words are wide enough to cover almost every conceivable offence. There is another provision in the Act that a club may be struck off the register if there be frequent drunkenness on the premises; and there is the further provision that in considering whether a club is conducted in good faith or not the Court shall have regard to the nature of the premises occupied by the club. These three provisions seem to me to cover everything in the Bill except the two or three points I have mentioned. I listened with great respect to the hon. and learned Member who has just addressed the House. He said there is great evil in the tied-house system. There may be, and it may be that the licensed victualler is often the victim of necessity and cannot carry on his business except under that system. I sympathise with him; but that does not apply to clubs. The members of a club may tie themselves voluntarily to a brewer or distiller, but they need not do that unless they get some consideration in return. If they are enabled to get their club furnished, and are offered facilities for making such a bargain with a brewer or distiller, what right has the House to interfere and say they shall not do it? I do not think it is the most disreputable class of brewers or distillers who enter into those contracts with clubs. I represent a Constituency in which there are more working men's clubs than in any other Metropolitan borough, and I do not find that the members complain of the quality of the liquor supplied to them, nor do I find that what they consume is detrimental to their health or their sobriety. I listened to the hon. Member who moved or seconded the Bill to hear what are the evils of the tied system for clubs. He enlightened us with an illustration. He described how on one occasion in a club a man, more or less elevated, mounted a chair which was on a grand piano, and sang a song. I should have thought that was rather a tribute to the man's sobriety. I agree that a man who volunteers to sing a song is primâ facie in a state of intemperance or lunacy. But that is not confined to clubs. We see the same thing going on in drawing-rooms, and there they play the piano as well. I say, as regards the tied system, that if a body of working men care to make a bargain with the brewer or distiller, it is incompatible with the theory of freedom and of free government for this House to interfere with their doing so. The quality of the beer they get is a matter for them and they can make their own agreement. The provision that nobody shall be concerned in the management of a club if he has any interest in the supply of liquor would prevent possibly many working men who are employed by brewers and distillers, and it certainly would prevent any shareholder in any brewery being on the committee of a club and would result in any amount of misunderstanding and annoyance. There is then the extension of the period after which licensed premises have been closed to five years. Why have these premises any malevolent influence incompatible with the well-conducted club? I should not require a period of more than five minutes if the premises are closed and if they are suitable. What is the argument? I ask the Under-Secretary why premises which were once licensed premises should not become respectable in the shape of a club? You could go next door, and what on earth is the difference between No. 1 and No. 2 in a street for the same purpose? Licensed premises might easily, in some cases, be adapted to a club and might be a very good illustration of practical temperance to show what kind you might make licensed premises instead of the present clumsy arrangement by turning them into a club.

Those are the general provisions of this. Bill. I think that the other Clause that the secretary or officials of a club which, has been struck off shall not be in those positions in another club is an equally poor proposal. That could be got rid of easily after registration. The whole effect of this Bill would be constant application, against clubs, embarrassment, and annoyance. The general principles on which I oppose this Bill are that it is based on the idea that men should not be allowed to do what they like in their own way in private. After all, a club is a home in law. The hon. Member who proposed the Bill let the cat out of the bag when he told us what he would really like to see done, and no-doubt what he intends to do if opportunity occurs. I should not apply the phrase to him, because of the moderation with which: he proposed this measure, but both he and other hon. Members, to whom the phrase is not so unfamiliar, with that unconscious self righteousness which is one of the most disagreeable things in a temperance reformer, told us they would like to see applied to clubs all the provisions of the licensing law preventing drink of any kind, and compelling members who go to their clubs to drink cocoa and ginger ale. They gave that as a counsel of perfection. I venture to say that it is a counsel of despair. On all those grounds, and because clubs as a whole are well conducted, and because there ought not to be any differentiation against workmen's clubs, and because this is really a Bill striking not: at the West-End clubs but at the working men's clubs, and because it is really art attempt to introduce the principles of so called temperance into the very few opportunities for hospitality and recreation the average working man gets, I hope the House will not assent to the Second Reading. As to paragraphs ( (c) and ( d ) they cannot be withdrawn without the leave of the House, and nothing that the hon. Member can do now will secure that. I hope the Under-Secretary will not overload the Government programme by promising to take this unnecessary and unworkable Bill on his shoulders.

I have in my hand six or seven different letters from various clubs and institutes in my Constituency, and amongst them there are working men's clubs, Oddfellows' clubs and institutes, and Liberal clubs. All those have written asking me to oppose this Bill unless Clause 1, paragraphs ( c ) and ( d ) are withdrawn. Those clubs in that district are all in clean, airy, fine buildings. They have a large membership, and they tend largely to promote temperance and to raise the status of the working men in the district. I support them with much enthusiasm, and on the part of those clubs I say definitely that unless those Clauses ( c ) and ( d ) are definitely withdrawn I cannot support this Bill. I cannot see any reason whatever why former licensed premises should not be taken over for a club without the lapse of five years.

I desire to make the suggestion that those two paragraphs to which the hon. Member has just referred, should not only be the subject of an undertaking by the hon. Member who proposed the Bill that he will move their omission in Committee, but that he should go a further step and say that if they are put upon him in Committee, unless that is merely a device to destroy the Bill, that be will undertake to withdraw the Bill if they are so put upon him.

The undertaking has not been given.

I am perfectly well aware of that, but when the hon. Member refused he had not had the benefit of hearing the hon. Baronet's persuasive speech. There must be many of us in all parts of the House who think that the rest of this Bill would be a very valuable addition to the Statue Book. It does seem to me a great pity when there is a very strong opposition, an opposition with a great deal of force of all kinds behind it, directed to those two particular provisions that the fortunes of the Bill generally should be imperilled or hindered in any way by those two provisions being allowed to remain in. The attack upon the Bill made by the hon. Member for Hackney, in a way with which the House is familiar, and carrying out previous speeches, was a speech which had not behind it anything like the support which the specific objection to these two proposals have. The members of working men's clubs through their well-known organisation are not opposing this Bill if those two provisions are struck out of it. On the other hand, everyone who has had any experience of licensing Courts, and of the real difficulties and complexity of this problem will, I think, at any rate, be most inclined to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill to send it to a Committee to deal with the other proposals which it contains, namely, that which deals with tied clubs, and that which deals with the provision of an interval between premises ceasing to be a public-house and becoming a club. The House will remember that the provisions of the Act of 1902 have unintentionally, but really, been largely rendered ineffective by the provisions of the Act of 1904. When you get a person like the Lord Chief Justice suggesting that an Amending Act would be of benefit, and in judicial pronouncements declaring that as the Act stands at present it is possible for a house to be kept open as a public-house pending payment of compensation, and if that payment was long delayed that in practice it becomes a club within a few days of ceasing to be a public-house, surely that in itself is a reason why this House should consider the matter and a Committee upstairs deal with the point. Therefore, those of us who think that the term five years may not be verbally inspired, but that it may be too short or too long, can at any rate all vote for the Second Reading of this Bill and send that matter to be discussed upstairs. With regard to what are for convenience sake called tied clubs, no one wishes to prevent working men who voluntarily meet together from buying their refreshments where they like and how they like; but what undoubtedly is to defeat the object of the Legislature in existing Statutes is to allow a tied public house to be in effect carried on under the thin disguise of a club. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will complete in the form I have suggested the undertaking he has given, so that it may be entirely free from any danger of misconstruction. If he does that, I believe the Bill will receive, not only on Second Reading, but at every other stage, considerable support, and that it will pass into law with the general approval of all sections of the community.

After the volume of opinion which has been expressed in respect to paragraphs ( c ) and ( d )—I have said that I would move their omission from the Bill—to show my bona fides in the matter I will go further and say that so far as those two Clauses are concerned, I will withdraw the Bill if the Committee does not accept their omission.

My name is on the back of this Bill, and to that extent I support it. The hon. Member for Brigg (Sir W. Gelder) has owned that he would go further than the provisions of this Bill, and has said that he is of opinion that the law regarding clubs requires much more strict alteration than that proposed in this measure. I cannot refer in detail to the proposals I wish to introduce in a subsequent measure, but I may say briefly that I wish clubs to be much more on the footing of the public-house. The hon. Member who introduced this Bill said that he personally would be in favour of making clubs pay the same Licence Duty as public-houses, and of their being closed at the same hour and subjected to the same police supervision. After the undertaking the hon. Member has just given the proposals of this Bill are very limited indeed. They simply add four grounds on which clubs can be struck off the register. Under the present law eight reasons can be argued why a club should be struck off the register. This Bill proposes to add four more: first, that it is tied for the purchase of liquor; secondly, that the officials of the club are interested in the sale of liquor; thirdly, that the officials or the committee are of a bad character; and, fourthly, that the club is the resort of criminals or other persons of bad character. There is also the provision that the period of twelve months should be extended to five years where a club has been struck off the register. At present, on payment of a fee of 5s., any club can be registered; the justices have no power of refusal. I should like to see some provision made to prevent bad clubs getting on the register in the first instance, either by way of giving a certain amount of police supervision, or by making it obligatory upon the secretary of a club to make an annual application; and also that some payment, I do not say as much as the Licence Duty, should be made for the privilege of registration. I would further provide that where liquor is sold in a club the bar should be closed at the same hour as the public-houses. The provisions of this Bill, however, are of an extremely limited kind. I do not see much harm in its being read a second time, and I shall therefore vote for the Second Reading.

I should like to add a few remarks about clubs in general. There has been a very large increase in the number of clubs, largely owing, I believe, to the compensation provisions of the Act of 1904. Statistics show that although both off-licences and on-licences have largely decreased since 1905, the number of clubs has increased. From 1905 to 1910 the number of clubs has increased by 947, while in the same time off-licences have decreased by 967, and on-licences by 8,994. But it does not stop there. There is also the question of membership. Unfortunately we have not the figures to show the total membership of clubs, but there are two places which I may quote where we have the necessary figures, namely, Bradford and Leeds. In the case of Bradford, in the three years 1907–10 there has been an increase of only two clubs, but there has been an increase in the number of members of no less than 5,498. In Leeds there has been a decrease of one club, and an increase of 3,700 members. I looked at the accounts of one club in Leeds, which was founded for the promotion of political and social intercourse. What did the accounts show? That papers and books came to £15 10s.—and that is the only item of expenditure that can possibly be put down to anything like political and social intercourse. All the other items relate to matters of indulgence or luxuries—pipes, matches, glasses, new pumps, taps, etc., billiards, bagatelle, cards, and sales of liquor—which is very much the largest item—£l,547. The clubs have this about them, that at the present time the law is so extended towards them that they are competing in an unfair manner with the licensed victualler. I think I can show the House clearly how that is. At the present time there is absolutely no restriction on the sale of liquor either by night or day in the clubs. They can keep open the whole of the twenty-four hours, Sundays included. The police have no right of entry, although there is one Section of the Consolidation Act of 1910 by which a police officer can get a search warrant; but he has to procure it from a magistrate under oath. Clubs do not contribute any Licence Duty or monopoly value payments to the State. There are no restrictions as to entertainments at clubs. I have in my hand a magazine called "Club Life." On looking through the advertisements of the different clubs, principally in London, I find that on Sundays and Holy Days there are a variety of entertainments, both morning and evening. I am sorry to say that a great many of these clubs are Radical.

On a point of Order, Sir. May I ask whether you will permit a. general discussion upon matters not raised by this Bill?

I have just got a copy of the Bill to see whether the observations of the hon. Member were relevant to it.

The reason why I was trespassing was that other hon. Members have been allowed to deal with the general subject matter of clubs. They have gone far beyond the merely technical—at least I think I am perfectly right in that. I thought I was not trespassing more than other hon. Members have been allowed to do. But I will bear in mind your hint, Sir, and not pursue that aspect of the subject further, except just to finish my observation. The next point that I wish to make is that clubs are in no way subject to any authority in regard to their structural arrangements. At the present time they are frequently opened, as has teen mentioned by several hon. Members, in the neighbourhood of public-houses which have been closed. That is a very great grievance, and it is one which this Bill will meet. For, consider, there is the case of the public-house, closed and compensation paid by the compensation authority, and within a very few days reopened as a club! I have got a case here concerning which I asked a question of the Home Secretary. It relates to a public-house called the "Burton Arms." situated in Attercliffe Road, Sheffield. It was closed a few months ago, and compensation paid. It was very soon opened as a non-political working men's club. I asked the Home Secretary whether he was in favour of the law being altered so as to stop a case of that kind taking place. He replied:—

"The case in question is an instance of the occurrences with which certain provisions, which found a place in the Government Licensing Bill of 1908 and now appear in the hon. Member's Bill, were designed to deal—I mean those conferring on justices power to refuse the registration of a club. I am in favour of those provisions, but cannot undertake in answer to a question to express any general opinion of the hon. Member's Bill."

What has happened to this particular club? A meeting was held on 12th March at which there were present four persons, only one of whom was a committee man. The owner of the property, who is a lady, had a brewer's traveller at her house to "bargain for the drink to be sold, and there appears to be no doubt that she is tied to that brewer. On Good Friday, as soon as the club was opened, a man went in, was made a member straight away, and was able to take in a friend. On Sunday, 28th April, three men went into the club at ten o'clock in the morning who were not members. They were all served with drink, and two were made members afterwards. These are distinct instances where a non- bond fidâ club under the present law has been allowed to be established in the place of a public-house on which compensation was paid. It is a fraud on the rest of those engaged in the trade. It is a fraud on the compensation authority who are carrying out their duties under the law, and who are trying to do away with houses which are not suitable for the sale of liquor. The Licensing Commission, giving their opinion as to the present law, say:—

"Evidence has been given before us that the excessive limitation of the number of licensed houses, or the undue restriction of their public use leads to the substitution of clubs, which even when conducted under every guarantee, may be productive of mischief."

The Prime Minister is also of that opinion. Speaking of the publican, he said:x2014;

"From the point of view of the publican, it is an extremely unfair thing that he should be exposed to the illegitimate competition of an unregulated rival, while be himself is subject in many ways to restraints very properly imposed upon him in the interests of public order and morality. There are a considerable number of institutions masquerading under the name of clubs, which are really nothing more nor less than disguised public-houses.…"

I will not trouble the House further with any quotations. This Bill is a small attempt to meet some of these objections. In my opinion it does not go nearly far enough. What I should have liked to propose to my hon. Friend who moved it was that we should try to agree together on some compromise, for we are all aware that probably this Session no Private Bill has any chance of becoming law except by agreement. If both sides could agree upon a Bill—

Which are both sides?

If I say both sides I mean both the liquor trade and the temperance people. [AN HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is what I mean. There are hon. Gentlemen who consider themselves temperance reformers in this House, and there are hon. Gentlemen who advocate justice to the liquor trade. I thins it is perfectly consistent that a Bill might be agreed upon which would meet the wishes of both parties. In my opinion the previous Bill which I put down would do justice to all the parties concerned. It would regulate the clubs at the present moment, and would prevent them from unduly interfering with the trade.

I think anyone widely acquainted with the liquor question and the licensing question will agree that sooner or later the club question will have to be dealt with on much broader lines than this Bill deals with them unless the licensing legislation of the last forty years, from which great benefits have accrued to this country, is to be rendered largely futile. This Bill, as it was introduced, was a small and a limited Bill, but the hon. Member who introduced it has in the course of this Debate made two concessions which still further limit its scope. Personally, I wish these concessions had not been made, but I quite realise and recognise the difficulty in which the hon. Member found himself. Even those of us who have only been in the House for a very short time know that it is practically impossible for a private Member to carry a Bill to the Statute Book unless it is entirely non-contentious. Therefore I quite understand, and have no intention of complaining, that the hon. Member has found it necessary to make concessions in order to meet the position. The points now in the Sub-section and many other points in connection with clubs will have to be dealt with, in fairness, as the hon. Gentleman who last spoke said, to the licensed trade. It is not fair that we should be dealing strictly and stringently with the licensed trade and allowing practically a non-licensed trade to spring up. It is quite true that technically in the eye of the law the sale of liquor in a club is distribution among its members, who are joint owners, and is not technically a sale; but everybody knows that as a matter of practical fact it is a sale, and it is not in my judgment fair and reasonable competition with the licensed trade that we should have unregulated and almost unrestricted sale of liquor in clubs at all hours, on all days by anybody anywhere.

Apart from that, on broad public grounds we have for 400 years in this country and practically in every other civilised country decided that the liquor trade shall be regulated and restricted, and whatever be the view of individual Members, they are all of opinion for the need of restriction and regulation in the interests of the country. But if, at the same time, you allow to grow up by its side, free and unrestricted, unlicensed public houses, as they are practically in many cases, then all your legislation is futile. The hon. Member found it necessary to make these concessions, and therefore none of us will think that this Bill is a solution of the very intricate club question; but I venture to think what is left in the Bill is valuable, and it is almost confined to one point, and that is preventing brewers and publicans who lose their licences from some cause or another evading the law and the bench of magistrates by setting up a club, practically a non-licensed house, in its place. This House has made arrangements that facilitate the reduction of the number of public-houses, either by paying private compensation or, if the licensing authority to whom that duty is delegated decide in the public interest that a particular house should be no longer licensed, either that its licence should be withdrawn on grounds that do not entitle it to compensation or that compensation should be paid in order that the number of licences in that district should be reduced. It is simply reducing the whole thing to a farce if the next morning the house that had been closed can be turned into a club, and that the brewer-owner of that house can perhaps sell more liquor in that club than he sold in the public-house without being subjected to the same charge for the public revenue or to the same restrictions. Obviously that reduces the whole thing to a farce.

The tied-house system, which recommends itself to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), facilitates this kind of arrangement. It is true, so far as premises are concerned, this Bill makes a little advance. It is suggested that the matter could be arranged by opening the house next door, but then the brewer will not facilitate the opening of a club next door or in the immediate vicinity, and therefore these two Clauses, although they by no means accomplish all that is desired, would do a great deal to prevent any violation of the spirit of the enactments, some of which have been put upon the Statute Book by the party opposite, and therefore, while this is an emasculated Bill, I venture to hope that what remains of it will be carried to the Statute Book, because it is an advantage to the community.

One observation which fell from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Samuel Roberts) puts me, and I hope it will put other independent Members on their guard. He spoke of the possibility of a Bill being introduced which might be supported by both sides, and when he was asked what he meant he said he looked forward to the time when the trade and temperance reformers would go hand in hand.

Upon the club question.

I doubt the wisdom of that state of things. When two extremists get together they generally hit upon some plan detrimental to the public, and personally I should not fall in with a scheme put forward on those lines. It is just the same as when you see in this House the two Front Benches in collusion and supporting one proposal or another. On such occasions I always take the opportunity of going into the Lobby against the two. Looking further into this Bill I am inclined to think there is a great deal in it that wants to be thoroughly criticised. No sooner was it brought before the House and subjected to a very little debate when two out of six of its Clauses were thrown overboard. I am prepared to say that if this Bill comes back to the House of Commons I shall propose to eliminate paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ). It seems to me extremely undesirable that vague and indistinct accusations may be brought against the committee of any club, adducing as reasons why that club should not have the privilege of registration that its officials or members of the committee are persons of bad character. Who is to be the judge of bad character in administering this Bill? The Licensing Committee? I object to setting up magistrates as judges of character. Magistrates are not there to judge character, but facts, and to administer the law, and when you give to a bench of magistrates, however estimable the gentlemen composing the bench may be, a power to decide a question of mere character on the purely vague lines laid down in this Bill, I think it is open to very grave suspicion and objection. Supposing men holding extremely Radical views founded a club, they would naturally appear to a Conservative bench—if there is such a thing, and it is quite conceivable—men of bad character. I am pleased to say that, being a strong Radical, I should look with extra suspicion on men who were extreme Conservatives, and that is undesirable.

With regard to paragraph ( e ), I hope that will be dropped. Then there is the part dealing with those who follow no lawful occupation. I went down to my club in Pall Mall to vote at an election of members, and eight members were put up for election, and two of them were described as of no occupation. Those two gentlemen were fellow members of my club, and one of them was actually proposed by a Peer of the realm, and yet they were men of no occupation. That may be all right in Pall Mall, but a man in a vil- lage or a small town who can be described as of no occupation is at once a suspected person. Why do you put in a Bill of this character such vague and doubtful phraseology? The phrase reads: "No lawful occupation and have no lawful means of subsistence." Suppose a man has no occupation and is so described, and suppose he has no means of subsistence but those found by his wife, who has a large income. He may be a perfectly proper member of society and a perfectly good man to manage a club, but he would come under this Clause, and could be ruled out as incapable of being on the committee of management. It is quite obvious that this Bill is loosely drawn, and although it has a good object, part of it is a sort of sloppy legislation, and when it comes to Committee I hope we shall restrict these conditions to the first paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) of Clause 1, and not carry out those conditions which seem totally inappropriate and highly objectionable and vague and open to misconception. I shall go into the Lobby in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill, but I hope the alterations I have suggested will be made in Committee.

4.0 P.M.

I came down to the House with the intention of supporting this Bill, but the course of this Debate has left me in a position of considerable doubt. The hon. Member introduced this measure in a most apologetic speech, and with the excuse that it was a very small one. He has been attacked in various quarters for consenting to omit two Sections of the Bill, which in my opinion, are the pith and substance of this measure. It seems to me rather that the House should complain of his complaisance in undertaking to get those Clauses deleted. Incidentally I should like to ask the hon. Member a question in regard to the cases he quoted in Nottingham which he gave as if clubs there generally were pernicious institutions. I believe there is no ground for that accusation, although there may have been an individual case. My attitude would be exactly opposite to that adopted by the hon. Member for Somerset. He pointed out that whenever there was an agreement of moderate and reasonable opinions he always went into the Lobby against it.

I said when two extremes; meet I go against them.

The hon. Member said whenever the two Front Benches agreed he opposed them. I think those are the occasions on which the wrong bench may possibly be right. I claim in this matter a position of great impartiality, because it has been my fortune to be attacked on the benches opposite as a friend of the publican who is there always regarded as a sinner, and since I have been on the other side of the House I have been exposed to persecution of an improper character as a friend of temperance. Therefore I have some reason for criticising this Bill. I proved to the satisfaction of the House on one occasion that the interests of the licensed trade and the brewers and the teetotallers were identical, for which I was very much attacked. I will now come to the two Clauses, the deletion of which I complain of, because this course will leave the Bill hardly worth supporting even from the point of view of those who come here to support it. It may be some advantage to have paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) as regards tied houses; but if paragraph ( c ) is not the pith and marrow of the Bill, I am at a loss to see what it is. It says that among the grounds on which a club may be struck off is "if the club is used mainly as a drinking club."

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, in an extremely fair and handsome manner, said he thought that this competition was unfair to the licensed trade. It was on that ground that I came down to support this Bill, and if that Clause is left out as a concession to the hon. Member for Lincoln and his Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]—if that is not the reason, I do not know for what other reason it is being done, but it must be a bad reason, whatever it is. If that is not the operative and most important part of the Bill, I should like to know what is. The hon. Member for Sheffield referred to some of these clubs, and no doubt many of them are exceedingly proper and useful institutions. Some which he described seemed to regard it as a qualification of a member that lie should have a drink sufficiently early in the morning. There can be no doubt there are a great many of these clubs which are used principally as drinking places, and where excessive drinking is carried on in competition with properly licensed houses under proper restrictions. Such clubs should come under proper restrictions and be restrained. I do not think a bench of magistrates would have any difficulty in arriving at a conclusion whether within the meaning of the Clause a club was "used mainly as a drinking club." In spite of the hon. Member's undertaking, I understand those paragraphs are still before the House; indeed, if they are cut out, I do not see that there is very much left to debate. I do not think anybody can take any very serious objection to paragraph ( d ), but in my belief the ordinary law would be sufficient to effect the objects which it is endeavoured to effect by the superfluous paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ). Some criticism has been bestowed upon the words "follow no lawful occupation." I suppose it is perfectly clear that what is meant is "follow an unlawful occupation," and it is only usual that the draftsman's expression should have to be replaced by something intelligible in the working of an Act. That is not peculiar at all to this Bill. "If the club is the resort of criminals or persons of bad character," I believe the police are perfectly competent to deal with that under the existing law. There can be no object in proceeding with ( e ) and ( f ), but I do think the retention of ( c ) is absolutely necessary. There may be some object in re-enacting that which is already enacted in special legislation relating to the subject, and as I believe in the common law, but, if so, it can only be on the principle that the more laws the better.

It always seemed to me when I was formerly a Member of this House, and I can see no reason to alter my opinion now I have returned to it, that the House of Commons differs from what the Roman historian said, that " the more corrupt the Republic the more numerous the laws." The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Hunt) objected to the provisions of this Bill on the ground that they curtailed the liberty of the working man. It is rather late to think of that. Everybody's liberty is being curtailed in every direction, and it can make no very great difference if a few more provisions are added to the already long list. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) made an announcement of very great importance. He said working men were tired of legislation. I shall watch with great interest the hon. Gentleman's conduct throughout the Session and that of his Friends to see if it exactly bears out that announcement. If the announcement were made with any real authority it would be of the utmost importance, and would be to me, at any rate, exceedingly welcome. Then he said the club was not the enemy of the brewer. On that point the right hon. Gentleman opposite is against him.

There is a difference between the publican and the brewer. The publican does not like the club. The brewer frequently does, because he supplies it.

I fell into the error of regarding their interests as somewhat identical, but I am not prepared to maintain it as a principle. I understand, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman to be directly opposed in their opinions upon the subject. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman in what he said is absolutely right, and for that reason more than any other I believe perhaps it may be well to vote for the remnants of the Bill that will be left after the deletions to which the hon. Member who moved the Bill is already pledged. The hon. Member for Lincoln, if I understood him rightly, said he did not think that the increase of clubs has proceeded in equal ratio to the suppression of licences or that there was anything alarming in the increase. He said such increase had only been since 1909 but the figures of his own books do not seem to support him. [Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS indicated dissent.] I misunderstood him then. Perhaps that is a sufficient explanation. Certainly his remarks appeared to bear that interpretation, and I am glad that I mentioned it, because it has given him an opportunity of repudiating it. Perhaps it was the hon. Member for Norwich who took that line. The hon. Member for Norwich said he never went into a club which he saw badly managed. The explanation is that no club and no member of a club would venture to behave badly in the presence of the hon. Member. His whole attitude convinces me that that is the line which he takes. His line is a very high line, therefore everybody else's must be a high line. The fact is that there are clubs of all sorts, and that many of them are notoriously so badly conducted that they do call for restriction, and that, I think, is the only excuse for voting for the remnants of this Bill, which does endeavour to provide some restriction upon the activities of such clubs as are improperly conducted. I said, and I repeat, that the course of this Debate leaves a Member who desires to support this Bill in a condition of considerable doubt. I wish that the Bill of the hon. Member for Sheffield had come on instead of this one, because it is a more complete effort to deal with the question. The hon. Member for Lincoln, in attacking those who do not agree with him, said that when there was a big Bill it was rejected, and that when there was a little Bill it was criticised as being only a piecemeal dealing with the subject. I maintain that that is a perfectly legitimate and proper attitude, and that the attitude of those with whom the hon. Member for Lincoln finds himself always at variance in regard to temperance legislation is probably the far more temperate attitude to adopt. He referred to the Debate of 1908, which I remember, and he gave the views of the then hon. Member for Hackney. I do not quite know why he put that hon. Member forward as being in a position to speak generally with authority on behalf of the clubs on the club question. Perhaps he has some ground. I heard that Debate and took part in it, and there was nothing done, so far as I can remember, on this side of the House which was at all inconsistent with the attitude that has been taken to-day. For the reasons I have endeavoured to give, Mr. Speaker, and chiefly because of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I think, though with some diffidence, it will be my duty to vote for this Bill to-day.

It is always an extremely embarrassing thing for a man who is a strong supporter of temperance to say anything in hostile criticism upon a Bill which purports to be in favour of the promotion of the principle of temperance. But I am bound to say that although I have taken during the whole of my Parliamentary career the keenest possible interest in the promotion of temperance by legislation and administration, I feel myself compelled with very great reluctance to oppose this Bill. The hon. Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whit-taker) referred in his speech to public-houses being superseded by clubs as an actual event. That is a misconception. If one takes the statistics, which are the only guide we possess as to the increase of clubs since temperance legislation, we find, allowing for other conditions, that the ratio of increase has not been in the smallest degree accelerated. That is the first proposition I advance against the suggestion that clubs are taking the place of public-houses. The second proposition, which I am perfectly sure is right, subject to reservation, is that the worst-managed club is, generally speaking, better than the best-managed public-house. From observations I have been able to make— I have a personal experience, not financial, but purely political and social, of clubs— I know that 95 per cent, of the clubs of all sorts and conditions which I have visited are entirely free—when I say entirely of course that is with some reservation, because even in the best-managed club, whatever class or society it may belong to, there is occasional intemperance—in this sense I say they are entirely free from the taint of intemperance.

The first objection to the Bill that can be raised is this, that nearly almost the whole ground of the Bill is covered in the Licensing (Consolidation) Act of 1910—a very drastic Statute—which is at the present moment in force. I will not trouble the House by quoting from it, because if they have not done so Members ought to have read its provisions before coming to vote on this Bill. If they will look at paragraph ( b ) of Section 95, and at Sub-section (5) of the same Section, and at Section 96 in the Statute, they will see that almost in words the provisions of this Bill are already in force. There is a provision that the club is used mainly as a drinking club, that the premises or situation thereof is unsuitable, that the officials or management are persons of bad character, that the club is the resort of criminals or persons of bad character—every one of those paragraphs in the Bill is at present, not only in substance, but even in technical phraseology met by the Sections of the Act now in force. Therefore the whole of that portion of the Bill is purely superfluous. What remains? The first proposition attaches a permanent disability to a structure because it has been a public-house. I have heard of a cathedral requiring re-consecration because of sacrilege, but to suggest that because a structure has sometimes been used as a public-house it is therefore henceforth never to be used for the purposes of a club, is a ludicrous proposition. It is already met by the present Statute, which provides that a period of one year must elapse. Why do you extend it to five years? What good purpose do you see in that? These houses are fitted not for dwelling houses or shops, they are structures fitted for persons to meet together in rooms, and why should you suggest that such a structure should remain for ever as a useless incubus upon the proprietor and not be used for the most natural object, a club. I say this to the Under - Secretary: by all means strengthen your legislation to put down drinking clubs if it requires legislation. I do not think it does.

Let us go on to the most important provisions in this Bill. They are very drastic. Paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) propose, first, that no club shall be formed where the proprietor has a direct interest in the club, and, secondly, that no officials or management of a club shall derive any benefit from it. You strike at the root of proprietary clubs. Three parts of our clubs in this country, whatever class they belong to, are proprietary clubs. I do not approve of proprietary clubs, but we all know very well that is the modern form of club, and that even some old clubs in the West End have ceased to be members' clubs and have become proprietary clubs. But what is really at the bottom of this? It is a very humiliating confession to make, but it is absolutely true that almost every club, however well managed, except perhaps a few exceptional clubs like the Travellers and one or two others, derives its means of support from the sale of intoxicating liquors. I have belonged to a little social club in the country where I never saw the smallest sign of intemperance. Many of us were temperance people like myself. That club, where we had scientific lectures and all kinds of means of contributing to the education and the interests of the people of our class in that district, could not have subsisted for a year had it not been for the sale of intoxicating liquors. You cannot prevent that, but what then? What takes place with regard to the establishment of a working men's club in a colliery village? Working men as a rule are either indisposed or unable to find the necessary capital for establishing a club. They must go somewhere, and they must go to some person to whom they can give sufficient security that the money which he advances shall be repaid. Liberal, Conservative, and social clubs do it. You go to a brewer and you ask him to find a certain amount of money to pay for the premises. What sin is there in that? It is a very unfortunate thing that cocoa, tea, and beverages of that innocuous description do not afford sufficient remuneration to the person who sells them to allow him to advance the money.

If you impose that disability, the result, although you do not interfere with existing clubs, will be that you will henceforth stay the promotion of clubs throughout the country. This is my confession, and I hope it will not be supposed that I am in the least degree wavering in my devotion to the temperance cause. It is because I believe that clubs are a great instrument of temperance that I urge on those who are responsible for dealing with this Bill the absolute necessity of proceeding by direct rather than indirect legislation. Punish all breaches, exercise the very drastic powers which are given you by the Statute, but do not render it impossible for working men to form clubs. This is class legislation of the very worst sort, and, strongly as I am in favour of temperance reform, the local veto, and the most drastic reforms in the direction of temperance, I will not be a party to that which is unconsciously a measure for the assistance of public-houses. One of the most urgent representations made to me in favour of the Bill was from a trade organisation society, a publican body. I admit that the drink element does play a large part in some clubs, but I have received from some thoroughly respectable clubs, where there is no suspicion of intemperance, most urgent solicitations to oppose this measure. This legislation weakens the position of our party in the country, and I do beseech my hon. Friend who is to speak on behalf of the Government, and who like myself is a friend of temperance, not to throw into the scale in support of this measure, which is no doubt conceived with the best of motives, the weight of the Government. I am sorry to have had the invidious task of making these observations.

I have listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Atherley-Jones) in opposition to this Bill. As to legislation of this kind, I approach it, not from the point of view of whether it is favoured by the temperance party, not whether it is favoured by the trade, or whether there is a holy or unholy collusion between these two parties in the House, but whether this measure is a good or bad thing in the interest of the community generally. Nor do I take into consideration whether it is a good thing or a bad thing for any particular party in the House. It would have been very interesting if we could have had this Bill, which is the first Order, and another Bill, which is the second Order, both discussed, with the view of seeing whether we could not have a closer consideration of the question from a non-party point of view. I am sure we are all anxious on both sides of the House to do what we can in the interest of the country generally with regard to these clubs. I may say, in the first place, that the Government recognise the necessity of an alteration in the law dealing with clubs. We gave a guarantee of our opinion on that point in the proposals of the 1908 Bill. I am not sure whether my hon. and learned Friend supported that or not.

Hear, hear.

The two main provisions of this Bill are taken verbatim from the Bill of 1908. Since that Bill was before the House our experience has confirmed us in our view that there is necessity for doing something. I will put before the House the information we have in order that the House may come to its own conclusion on this matter. During the interval we have had a great many resolutions from licensing authorities all over the country. These licensing authorities are demanding some change in the law in so far as it affects clubs. The resolutions were detailed and explicit, and they called for legislation mainly on four points. They are from big boroughs and counties. First of all, they want power to enable the justices to refuse to register clubs in the first instance; secondly, they want provisions for closing hours for clubs as for licensed premises; thirdly, they want some provision made for the closer supervision of clubs; and, lastly, they want power to facilitate the striking off of clubs from the register. Thereupon, after receiving these very numerous communications, stating these four points which I have detailed to the House, we consulted the police authorities. We have had communications from a number of authorities all over the country as to the difficulties of this question and what ought to be done. Those reports give us fair samples of what the police think upon this question. The first deficiency in the existing law they point out is that clubs are substituted for public-houses whose licences are extinguished. This is not a universal or very common practice. It is true that often when public-houses disappear clubs take their place, and it is also true that as public-houses decrease clubs increase. It is equally true that, whereas public-houses are decreasing comparatively rapidly, clubs are increasing slowly. Figures have been given up to 1910; I am in a position to give them for 1911. For the period 1905–11, the figures are these: On-licences have decreased by 8,217, that is from 29 to 25 per ten thousand of the population; while clubs have increased by 1,323, from 1.94 to 2.19 per ten thousand of the population. The rate of increase in the number of clubs is also an increasing rate per year. So that really we are in danger of approximating a state of affairs where any advantage that may be gained by the decrease in the number of public-houses may be counterbalanced by the increase in the number of clubs. I am sure the House will agree that that is an important point to be taken into consideration. It is quite true that in some cases brewery companies have taken the opportunity when a public-house has been closed to institute a club on the old premises. The police authorities also inform us that there are a great number of clubs in the country which not only reproduce the evils of badly managed public-houses, but, owing especially to the lack of police supervision, are liable to reproduce them to a greater extent.

How do the police know that?

As the House knows, there is a great difference between securing a conviction for drunkenness against a public-house and against a club. All you have to do in the case of a public-house is to find a drunken person coming from the premises. But that is not enough in the case of a club. In the latter case you must prove that there is "frequent drunkenness on the club premises." That is a very vague phrase. That discrimination between public-houses and clubs in my view, speaking personally, is not a very good thing. I think they ought to be on the same footing, at any rate as far as the law regarding drunkenness is concerned. In 1908 the Government of the day made four suggestions—first, annual registration; secondly, power in the Court to refuse to register on the same grounds as those on which a club can be struck off the register; thirdly, stricter supervision over clubs; and, fourthly, certain amendments in the provisions prescribing the grounds on which a club may be struck off the register. This Bill does not deal with any of the first three points, but it does deal with the fourth. We still think, as we thought in 1908, that there ought to be annual registration, so that the claim of a club to be registered may be reviewed from year to year. We still think there ought to be some more supervision than exists at present, and we still attach some importance, a great deal of importance, to increasing and strengthening the existing grounds upon which a club may be struck off the register. All will acknowledge that this Bill is a small instalment; it does not do all we think requires to be done in regard to the law relating to clubs; but, as it will make it easier to strike off the register clubs which are mere substitutes for public-houses, clubs which are badly managed, and clubs which are mere reproductions of other clubs already struck off the register, we bespeak a Second Reading for this Bill.

I regret very much the attitude of the Government in reference to this Bill. The hon. Gentleman, in his his observations, has taken the official view, and I heard no expression in his speech about those great principles of liberty of action which hitherto have been the pride and glory of Liberals. I regret to say that it has been my painful duty, Friday after Friday, to hear representatives of the Government get up and discuss certain Bills merely from the machinery point of view. I quite agree that the hon. Gentleman made out a fair case from the machinery standpoint, but those who represent the Departments of the State in this House are too fond of advertising each his own Department, and frequently they are tempted to look at Bills of this description in the light of whether or not they give additional powers to a Department—something which will mean new officials to appoint and new provisions to expound. I am not altogether sure whether it is worth while to put the House to the trouble of a Division over the remnants of this measure. It reminds me of the unfortunate young man in one of Mark Twain's stories, who lost his arms, then his legs, and was scalped by Indians, and whose girl rejected him because he was such a small contribution to the original match to which she had pledged herself. Paragraphs ( c ), ( d ), ( e ), are to be dealt with, and other considerable Amendments are to be made in the remainder of the Bill, and I do not think, therefore, that at this period of the Session we should trouble the Grand Committee with the measure. I was a little surprised to hear from the hon. Member for Durham that he had received a circular from the trade giving support to the Bill, because I have here a circular issued by the Licensed Victuallers Protection Association in my neighbourhood, asking me to oppose this Bill, because in no single detail did it do anything which the licensed victuallers require. It has been said by an hon. Member that there were two sides on this question, one for the brewers and their friends, and one for the United Kingdom Alliance. There is no recognition whatever of what is really I should think possible, that the great majority of Members would consider their duty to their constituents before either of those. I would, therefore, ask the House not to trouble any Grand Committee with this measure. I am not very much against it, because there is not much to oppose in it, but I have not the slightest faith in a Grand Committee dealing with a Bill of this description. The two sides we have heard of would muster, and you would have a small number from the public standpoint trying to make an Act of Parliament, and I am afraid the general body of the public not very much concerned. It does seem to me rather a dangerous thing that we should ask Members of the House in a heavy Session such as this, when speeches have been made day after day over an hour in length by all our Front Bench men, causing great mental strain and anxiety on the part of those who have to listen to them; and when all our mental energies are being exhausted in this special degree, that we should have to go upstairs to Grand Committee and deal with an emasculated remnant of a Bill of this kind.

I think the hon. Member from Nottingham took a rather definite point when he said paragraph ( c ) is really the vital part of the Bill. I understand the hon. Member pledged himself at his election to come down and support this Bill, and naturally to-day he found himself in a great deal of difficulty because the arguments were going the other way. He left those who listened to him with the idea that he was in his usual hazy condition which generally attends the hon. Member's mind on political questions. I thought that the hon. Member for Nottingham when he rose was going to support the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City, and in fact hon. Members have come to me in the last few weeks and told me my work was over as the hon. Baronet had got a very brilliant supporter, and that I might go into obscurity on Fridays. To my astonishment, after the hon. Baronet had made a speech full of penetrating criticism of this measure, and had taken the lead in demanding from the proposer a definite understanding that paragraphs ( c ) and ( d } should be deleted; the hon. Member for Nottingham had the coolness to get up and suggest that the concession had been made to some teetotaler. Of all the descriptions that have ever been applied to my Friday afternoon leader that is the strangest. The hon. Member for Nottingham seemed to found his support of this measure on the fact that if these clubs were not suppressed, and if public-houses were not encouraged, that there would be no milk on which to bring up teetotalers. Unless the brewers were able to supply feeding stuffs from the breweries to the farmers we should have no cows, I think that was his argument, and, therefore, no milk on which to bring up stalwart Members of the House like the hon. Member for Spen Valley and the hon. Member for Lincoln. That is rather a curious thing. It shows the topsy-turveydom of modern politics that we are to promote the brewers' interests in order to multiply the number of teetotalers brought up on milk. I rather suspect all teetotalers were not brought up on milk. I hope the House will not ask me to particularise, but I am judging by the heat which occasionally manifests itself in their public utterances. The hon. Member for Nottingham no doubt thought he was on safe ground. I would like to remind the House that the key to the whole position is, Is the club equally important to the rich man and to the poor man?

This legislation as a rule does not touch the rich man so directly as the poor man, for the very simple reason that the rich man can stock his cellar and can remove himself in a motor car from one district to another, and from a region where clubs are suppressed to a region where they are encouraged. He is much more independent, from the very fact of his wealth and possessions, of repressive and meddlesome legislation than the poor man. You might close the rich man's club for a month— that is occasionally done—and the members find refuge in another nominally, but really the month is chosen when the bulk of them are on the Continent or shooting in the Highlands. The poor man goes to his club, and if it is closed to him he suffers an inconvenience that does not apply to the rich man, and the poor man as a rule goes there for society and not for drink. If the hon. Member for Sheffield would bring forward legislation to put down bogus clubs and only hit at those which are a menace to the community, I am sure we can all support him, but in his measure, to which I cannot now refer, and in his speech more particularly, he seemed to take a line which would interfere with properly managed clubs. When hon. Members agree to this Bill, are they prepared to apply it as impartially to the National Liberal Club, the Constitutional, the Carlton, and the Automobile Club? Members of this House would shrink from passing this legislation if it bore on themselves, but when they think that they are managing some miners' club or some trade unionists in the North of England, then they have a little more courage in passing this legislation. At the same time, I want to say that if an effort is made to stamp out bogus clubs I will support legislation of that kind. This Bill does not seek to do that.

I will deal with one or two points lest this Bill may get into Grand Committee. There are Clauses in addition to those to which attention has been drawn which are very objectionable. One is that by which the poor secretary is debarred for the rest of his life from taking such a post again. I know that criticism has been made on this point, but I do not think it went far enough. Suppose a club has been struck off the register because it was found that by inadvertence some member had been placed on the committee who was interested in a brewery. The secretary might be unconscious of that, and yet he would be penalised by being prevented from following his occupation of secretary again. Common justice demands that it should be shown that the secretary was in fault before he is deprived of his livelihood. With regard to premises, you ask in this Bill that for five years it shall not be permissible to form a club in the old buildings of a public-house. I have watched some of these clubs formed. What has happened? The publican lives next door in a cottage which is almost part of the public-house. The licence is taken away; compensation is paid. Then the adjoining cottage is opened as a club immediately. An inspector comes round and asks, "Why is there such bad ventila- tion, and why is the room so full of smoke?" and the answer is, " Because we-have to wait twelve months for the fine rooms next door." And so the club lives its life. The manager moves from the cottage, and lives in the public-house, which is too big for him, and his furniture does not fit. At the end of twelve months the thing is reversed. The manager goes back to the cottage, and the members come into the old public-house. Meantime the brass band has been practising once or twice a week those melodious pieces which delight the heart of a North Country village and have been almost blowing the little building down.

It is all very well to say that you have done some good. I was not here when the legislation was passed, and I take no responsibility for it. I am only repeating what I saw. These are two instances that have taken place near to my own house, and the only effect of the prohibition that they shall not use that public-house for twelve months is that they have used the premises next door, which are less suitable. There are two sides to this question—that of the Secretary and of the premises. Let me also draw the attention of the-House to paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ). We have had no undertaking that these will be withdrawn. It is a very strange thing, but ( f ) is aimed at the poacher. This-man, in a village, is often a man who has plenty of time on his hands, and joins a club. The laws against poaching are severe, and I am not here to advocate their repeal. His ancestors may have been dispossessed by grasping landlords of the very land from, which he is now taking hares. Why should the magistrates or the licensing committee have the additional power to punish the poacher by threatening that they will strike the club off the register? I know what I am talking about. A club that I know, on the site of a public-house that had lost its licence, sheltered a brass band. The members of the club presented a trombone to a player. They asked me to present it, and, as it was not in my Constituency, I accepted the invitation. In the course of the evening one of the members, sitting in a corner, apparently so impressed by the way I had made the presentation, asked if I would like a drink. I replied "No," as I was just going in to dinner. He then said that there was something in his inside pocket; should he bring it round; home to show his appreciation of my effort? Well, I took the will for the deed—[HON. MEMBEES: "Oh, oh!"]—I do not say whether or not later I changed my mind; but I should like to ask: Why a working man's club like that, supporting a brass band, should be liable to be struck off the register because one member on a dark night, sits in the corner with a hare in his inside pocket? I mention that club as an illustration to show that in these country districts there will be liability to the misuse of power.

Many serious things of that kind have occurred; but I think I have produced facts striking enough to make hon. Members think. I do not see why the local committees should have the right to pick and choose among those people. In conclusion, I warn the Grand Committee, which is about to waste its time on this measure, that in many cases men go into these clubs to get away from politics. I am not suggesting that there is any bias about it, but it frequently happens at election time, and I warn the publicans themselves about it, that often they put up the party colours of one or other political party, or portraits, or election cards, or talk about politics and try to persuade men to vote in a certain way, and very often a man is driven from the public-house at that time and seeks the freedom of his club because he knows that it is not a party place, and he wants to get away from political pressure, and that he will mot have to see the party colours when he goes for his glass of beer. It is just as well that those connected with the trade should recognise it. I have been driven repeatedly from licensed premises. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why"; HON. MEMBERS: "Time"; and an HON. MEMBERS: "Time, gentlemen."] I went into a hotel near the Marble Arch and saw a statement there that if a certain Act was passed by a despicable Liberal Government private properties would not be safe, and I said to the landlord, "Am I expected to read that whilst I am having a gin and bitters." I had gone in for an appetiser and I thought the obligation to read this document would neutralise that, and I should have had no value for my expenditure. I have often seen ridiculous things of that kind. If people will use their premises in this way they must expect that some workmen may really seek refuge in their club, because they want to escape political persuasions and escape the attentions of the landlord. I have seen in country villages as well as in the towns agricultural labourers in great perplexity because the publican would insist upon talking about politics, and, if that be so, they will see the danger of legislation of this kind. It may be that when the Government takes up the measure, as probably they might, there would be some reasonable proposal which would aim at these retrograde bogus clubs. That is why I ask the House to take my criticism in good faith. I want to see genuine clubs succeed. I do not want disabilities imposed upon workmen's clubs which are not proposed to be imposed upon the clubs of the wealthy in London.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, as he considered that the House was prepared to come to a decision without that Motion.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

After the assurance given by the hon. Member, I should feel able to support him, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The hon. Member cannot withdraw now. I have put the Question.

The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 39.

Division No. 84.]	AYES.	[5.0 p.m.
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.	Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)	Brunner, J. F. L.
Agnew, Sir George William	Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)	Bryce, J. Annan
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Barnes, George N.	Buckmaster, Stanley O
Alden, Percy	Beauchamp, Sir Edward	Bull, Sir William James
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonsnire)	Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Alien, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)	Bennett-Goldney, Francis	Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)
Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J.	Black, Arthur W.	Byles, Sir William Pollard
Baird, J. L.	Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-	Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)	Bowerman, C. W.	Cator, John
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)	Brady, P. J.	Chancellor, H. G.
Clough, William	Holmes, Daniel Turner	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Holt, Richard Durning	Pringle, William M. R.
Cooper, Richard Ashmole	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Radford, G. H.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus	Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Crawshay, Williams Eliot	Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)	Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Crooks, William	Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Crumley, Patrick	Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cullinan, John	Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Jones, William S. (Glyn- (Stepney)	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)	Joyce, Michael	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Dawes, J. A.	Kelly, Edward	Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Delany, William	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Rolleston, Sir John
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Kerry, Earl of	Ronaldshay, Earl of
Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)	King, J. (Somerset, N.)	Rothschild, Lionel de
Donelan, Captain A.	Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)	Rowlands, James
Deris, William	Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockermth)	Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Doughty, Sir George	Leach, Charles	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Duffy. William J.	Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Low, Sir F. (Norwich)	Sanders, Robert Arthur
Elverston, Sir Harold	Lundon, T.	Scanlan, Thomas
Farrell, James Patrick	Lyell, Charles Henry	Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir E.
Fell, Arthur	McCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson	Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)	Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Ffrench, Peter	McGhee, Richard	Sheehy, David
Fitzgibbon, John	Macpherson, James Ian	Sherwell, Arthur James
France, Gerald Ashburner	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Shortt, E.
Gill, A. H.	M'Callum, John M.	Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Gladstone, W. G. C.	M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding)	Smith, H. D. L. (Northampton)
Glanville, H. J.	Meagher, Michael	Spicer, Sir Albert
Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.	Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Goldstone, Frank	Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)	Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)	Molloy, Michael	Swift, Rigby
Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)	Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz	Thynne, Lord A.
Greene, W. R.	Money, L. G. Chiozza	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Griffith, Ellis Jones	Morgan, George Hay	Walker, Col. William Hall
Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)	Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Gulland, John William	Munro, R.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Hall, Fred (Dulwich)	Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.	Wardle, George J.
Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)	Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Needham, Christopher T.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Newman, John R. P.	Watt, Henry Anderson
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Webb, H.
Haveiock-Allan, Sir Henry	Norton, Capt. Cecil W.	Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Hayden, John Patrick	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Hayward Evan	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Wilkie, Alexander
Healy, Maurice (Cork)	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Yate, Colonel C. E.
Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Henry, Sir Charles	Parker, James (Halifax)	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)	Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Higham, John Sharp	Pirie, Duncan V.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—pSir-
Hill, Sir Clement L.	Pointer, Joseph	W. Gelder and Lord H. Cavendish.
Hinds, John	Pollard, Sir George H.	Bentinck.
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.	Power, Patrick Joseph

NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)	Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton).
Ashley, W. W.	Forster, Henry William	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Baker, Sir. R. L. (Dorset, N.)	Gardner, Ernest	Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Balcarres, Lord	Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	O'Grady, James
Booth, Frederick Handel	Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Paget, Almeric Hugh
Bottomley, Horatio	Harris, Henry Percy	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cautley, H. S.	Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.	Harwood, George	Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Clive, captain Percy Archer	Hill-Wood, Samuel	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Craik, sir Henry	Hodge John	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-	Hohler, G. F.	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)	Hume-Williams, W. E.
Flannery, sir J. Fortescue	Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Flsvin, Michael Joseph	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Hunt and Sir F. Banbury.

Main Question, " That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to-Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Thirteen minutes after Five o'clock, till Monday next, 6th May.

Hansard

Volume 37: debated on Friday 3 May 1912

House of Commons

Private Business

Clubs Bill

Petitions Presented During the Week