I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100 in respect of the salary of the Minister of Munitions.

I desire to bring to the notice of the Committee, and thereby I hope effectively to the notice of the Government, the case of Ireland in regard to the restrictions in the liquor trade. This seems to be necessary after the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. Millar). The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that the reduction in the Licence Duty would affect traders in Ireland just as it affects traders in Great Britain, and he made the statement, which was extraordinary to me, that the Treasury had given him the information, and he had no doubt that it was correct. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, on reconsideration, will find that the operations of the Liquor Control Board are confined expressly to Great Britain, and that no operations of that Board take place, or ever have taken place, in Ireland, and that consequently any reduction in duty brought about by the operation of the Local Control Board cannot possibly apply to Ireland, because the operations of that Board are confined entirely to Great Britain.

My hon. and learned Friend misunderstood me. What I said, in answer to the first part of the question as to whether any Orders had been made in Ireland by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), was that no Orders had been made by that Board, and that with regard to the reduction of trade by the restriction on certain classes of holders of licensed houses in Ireland were in the same position as English houses when the restriction takes place in the manner specified in the second part of the question.

I now venture to state again, that no reduction of the Licence Duty in the case of off-licence holders has ever taken place in Ireland, or can take place, by reason of the operation of the Central Liquor Control Board. There is no doubt about that, and I do not think that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is any answer to the complaint. It may be that under the Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act, in 1914, and since continued, especially in the City of Dublin, and I believe in Belfast and other large centres of population, the hours are restricted also, as well as independently of the Central Liquor Control Board, but I assert here, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to bear it in mind when he comes to reply, that no reduction of the duties has ever been allowed to the off-licence holders, and, if that be so, it is really extraordinary that the Treasury should have commissioned the right hon. Gentleman to put forward so remarkable a statement as that which he has submitted. I was going to mention these restrictions as constituting the first class of restrictions on the trade in Ireland, but they are not the only restrictions. Although they are working very oppressively, and although they have been submitted to very graciously, so far as possible, and in a very compliant spirit by the licensed trade—at any rate in Dublin—nevertheless, they are, I repeat, oppressive, yet no complaint has been made about them. The grievance is that, although this sacrifice has been put upon the trade in Ireland in this way, and not at all under the operation of the Central Liquor Control Board, yet they have never got any reduction of the duty by way of compensation, that is, the off-licence holders; nor have the on-licence holders ever got any advantage whatever in connection with the restrictions of the hours of sale. I think that is a great injustice, considering that in a precisely analogous case in England and in Scotland, where the operations are carried out under the auspices of the Central Liquor Control Board, an express exception was made in favour, in the matter of the Licence Duty, of the off-licence holders. I think the right hon. Gentleman will probably remember that the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), who is the most active advocate of Scottish trade interests in this House, was responsible for that concession being made to the traders in Great Britain.

This is only the first class of restrictions to which the Irish trade has been subjected, in common with the greater part of the trade in Great Britain. The restrictions are made in more than one form, but I will only deal at present with one form, or at least I shall deal with it in particular. Members of the trade in Ireland, as regards spirits, are allowed to have 50 per cent. of the quantity taken out by them last year. If there were no extraordinary conditions attached to that restriction, I think it would be bad enough in the case of Ireland. But the case in Ireland is far worse than the case in Great Britain. The law regarding licence is different in Ireland from the law in England, and has been so for close on half a century. In Ireland they are allowed to take only 50 per cent. of what they took out last year, and this amount is smaller than might be suspected, because the quantity taken out last year was, I am informed, lower than the average amount taken out for several years previously. That is not the only restriction. There is another condition attached to this permission to take out 50 per cent. of what they had before, and the condition attached is of a peculiarly unjustifiable nature. If they were allowed in Ireland to take out 50 per cent. of the spirits in bond and 50 per cent. of what they took out last year and bought of whom they liked, it would not be so grievously oppressive as it is, but the condition in their case is that they are permitted to take out 50 per cent. of what they took out last year, but that must be 50 per cent. of what they took out belonging to themselves. What they have bought of other people, of brewers, distillers, and large merchants, does not count at all in ascertaining what is the 50 per cent. to which they are entitled. They are obliged by the authorities, under what law or Regu- lation I do not know, to state what they owned this last year, and they are only allowed to take out 50 per cent. of that issue; so that it comes to this, that a trader may have taken out last year three-fourths of the dearer spirits belonging to other people; that is to say, dearer spirits bought from other people, and only a fourth of the dearer spirits belonging to himself, so that it is 50 per cent. of the fourth that he is now allowed to take out. I think that is a gross injustice, and it becomes a greater injustice than ever when, as I believe is the fact, what he bought last year from other people is now dearer than what he had stocked of his own, and which he had bought years before at a lower figure. So he is penalised in two ways. First of all, he will only get 4.0 P.M. 50 per cent. of what he took out last year belonging to himself, and, in addition, he is obliged to pay a higher price than he would otherwise have to pay if he Was allowed to go and buy whisky or beer from anybody from whom he could buy it. All I can say is that I think it would be very hard for any Minister to justify a restriction of that kind. I invite the right hon. Gentleman not to pass this by as a light thing, but to tackle it and to show, if possible, that what I state is not correct or has not the significance that I attach to it. Those restrictions are in my opinion, and I am sure will be in the opinion of the Committee when they know the facts, much more unjust in the case of Ireland than similar restrictions would be in the case of England or Scotland. The fact I am going to mention is well known to everybody who has studied this question at all. That fact is this, that in England the licence holder has no freehold in his licence at all. Sometimes, or rather generally speaking, he is not the real owner, and generally public-houses in England or Scotland are what are called tied-houses, not owned by the people who apparently possess them and who sell the drink and manage them. Those people are only agents acting for the brewers and distillers who supply them with the liquor. In Ireland it is perfectly well known that I suppose 90 per cent. or perhaps 99 per cent., of all the licensed holders in that country are the real owners of the houses which they occupy and manage and in which they carry on business. There- fore, you see in one country you are striking at a big corporation which in the past has paid large dividends, and in Ireland you are striking at a lot of poor, small people who cannot afford to be attacked in the same manner as those big corporatons with their reserve of funds.

That is not the only difference between the two cases. Many years ago there was a case decided in Ireland of which at all events some people in the Committee have heard, namely, the Clitheroe case. That case, which cannot be avoided when a question of this kind comes up, decided that the public-house licence holder in Ireland is entitled by law to a renewal of his licence and also to a transfer of his licence. I need not say that that is not the law in England. There was also a remarkable case in England which determined the nature of the property in this country. The case of Sharp v. Wakefield practically decided this matter, and in that case it was held a licence in England need not be renewed and need not be transferred, and that it was a licence for one year only, and that it was only by grace of the licensing authorities that it could even be continued for more than a year. Therefore you have in the two countries a totally different state of things as regards the nature of the property. In the one country you have practically a freehold and in the other a yearly tenancy, and it is nonsense to say that you are to be at liberty to treat the freeholder and the yearly tenant in the same way, and to treat the interest of those two people as if they were identical instead of being radically and totally different. In Ireland what aggravates the situation is this: There is the Clitheroe case, which the Courts have upheld ever since that judgment was delivered, and which has never been attacked, although individual judges and other people may have expressed the opinion that it was wrongly decided. At all events, it has been the law of the land for forty years or more. It is still the law of the land, and during the last forty years accordingly public-house property in Ireland has been dealt with as if it were the property of the licence holder and not another man's property, and it has been dealt with as if it were a freehold and not a yearly tenancy. Provision has been made for widows and children by means of public-houses which have sometimes in the past been sold for considerable sums. Hundreds of thousands of people at the present moment are actually living on the income derived from the investments made in public-houses or made out of public-houses and invested in other funds. Consequently, the Committee will see that it is absolute rank injustice to treat the property of the Irish licence holder as if it were of the transitory fleeting nature of the tied-house occupant in England.

Unfortunately the Irish licence holder, whether he is a non-licence holder or an off-licence holder, is treated in the same way as if he had no interest in it except that fleeting and transitory one to which I have referred. Now the injustice inflicted upon him is continued and aggravated by the restrictions to which I referred on the opening of my remarks. I want to make it perfectly clear, so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Irish Members who act with me in this matter are concerned, that if the interests of the nation or of the War demand sacrifices of these people, well, then, the sacrifices must be made. But we say also, and I challenge contradiction to this proposition, that if that sacrifice is demanded and exacted, then, in the case of Ireland at least, it ought to be paid for. It ought to be paid for out of the funds of the community in whose interests the sacrifice is supposed to be made. Nothing can be plainer than the justice of that proposition, and I do not think, considering the past of the right hon. Gentleman on this question of the liquor trade—I mean the Chief Secretary—that he will deny that proposition. I hear talk, and we have all read remarks upon the subject and seen speculations as to the mode in which compensation is to be made. I have read in to-day's papers that it will probably take the form of purchase. So far as the Irish traders are concerned, I fancy they would not object provided that the compensation was on a proper basis, but they make that condition, and I think they are perfectly right, not to assent to purchase unless they know the conditions upon which the purchase is to be effected, namely, the terms.

I am aware of the desire of many others to speak on this subject, and I do not like, therefore, to prolong my remarks, but I cannot sufficiently emphasise the fact which I have stated of the difference between the law in Great Britain and the law in Ireland as regards the nature of the property of the licence holders. The law in Great Britain is entirely different from that prevailing in Ireland, and which has prevailed there for the last forty years or more, and it would be a scandalous piece of confiscation for the Government to proceed on any other assumption. There is no use in trying to persuade us that there is not this immense difference between the two cases. What makes the idea of indirectly confiscating the property of these people all the more difficult to understand is that even in the case of the English licence holder, in 1902 I think, it was seen that if you were to carry out a reduction of public-houses you must provide compensation to the people who were deprived of their licences. An Act of Parliament was passed under the auspices of the party to which the Chief Secretary belonged, and to which I suppose he still belongs, providing for compensation. No doubt the publicans are called upon to provide that compensation to a large extent out of their own pockets. But at all events the principle of compensation was recognised on that occasion and applied to a case which has not half the strength of the Irish case which is now before the Committee. If the recognition of the principle of compensation in the year 1902 was right and if that is to be respected, then I maintain it would be a gross injustice and naked compensation and mean and most despicable confiscation if compensation is not now provided of a proper character for the case of the man who has the whole property in his public-house, and property of vastly greater extent and higher character that his fellow trader in England. Compensation may take various forms. I am not going to suggest here what form it should take in the case of Ireland, but I warn the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will not think me disrespectful in doing so, that it is no use to try to put off the Irish people in this matter. The proper thing to do, and the really successful thing from every point of view, would be boldly to face the question and to say, "The State—if the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to say it—demands this sacrifice, and we think it right in the case of Ireland, when that sacrifice is demanded by this Parliament, that this Parliament shall at the same time accompany it with an offer of compensation which will be sufficient in view of the character of the property and tenure of the licence holder."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I wish to emphasise the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend who has preceded me regarding the difference in the condition of the licensed trade in England and the licensed trade in Ireland. In Ireland the licensed trader has a vested interest in his house. He is the owner of his house. As a rule he has either purchased the house or inherited it. As has been said by my hon. Friend, in England the system is different. Public-houses are tied-houses and are owned by breweries and distilleries, consequently the people who run these houses are not in the same position as the Irish licence holder who is the owner of his property. If you take away the supplies from the trader in Ireland you are taking away his means of livelihood, and bringing ruin to him and his family. In England if a distiller or a brewer who owns any of these tied-houses finds that owing to the restrictions he cannot supply sufficient stuff to all his houses he can save himself at a very little loss. He can shut down a good many of his houses, thereby effecting a reduction of his staff, and so effect a saving in that way. In Ireland that cannot be done. The man is the owner of his own house, and he must stick to it. There is also the difference in the licence. In England a licence is a temporary licence. In Ireland it is quite different. Practically it is a permanent licence, subject to automatic renewal yearly, provided the trader conducts his house in a proper manner during the year. If he does that the renewal cannot be refused. In that way the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will see that a great difference exists between the position of the trader in England and in Ireland. In England, also, these restrictions have not hit the licensed trader as they have done in Ireland; for this reason: Owing to the War there is a vast amount of money being spent in the country—War money—and the labouring classes and those who work in connection with the War in many cases have plenty of money. If the price of liquor be raised in England, those men who buy the stuff at public-houses can afford, and will pay, the increased price. In Ireland you cannot increase the price be- cause those concerned have not the same circulation of money as have their fellows here in England.

I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the injury and loss to the trade in Ireland has been gradual over the last couple of years. In my opinion the trade has acted very reasonably and fairly in the attitude that has been taken up towards the restrictions imposed upon it. In the first place, the placing of the duty on beer reduced the output in Ireland from 36,000,000 gallons to 26,000,000 gallons. That was the effect of the duty. By the restriction of output that has been imposed the output has been further reduced to 10,000,000 gallons per year. In the same way, or in much the same way, the whisky trade and spirits generally have been affected. Indeed, the restrictions have reduced the amount that the trader can get to 50 per cent. of the amount of last year. The result of that has been to place a majority of the licensed traders in Ireland in a position that looks like ruin unless the Government in some way comes to the rescue. While the trade recognises the necessity for conserving grain and for the preservation of the food supplies of the country, and they are prepared to accept any reasonable solution of the difficulty, they want to have that solution arrived at at once. They want to know their position before things get any worse. It is the duty of the Government, under all the circumstances, to put their cards on the table, and to say what they are going to do as regards the licensed trade in Ireland. Until the Government are prepared to say what they will do, I would suggest to the Government that, so far as the restrictions on the output of whisky is concerned, it should be left the same as it was last year. As regards the Government compensation, I would say—and I believe I speak for the whole trade in Ireland—that they will be prepared to accept a system of State purchase, or in the alternative, if the Government—and this is the real solution of the question—if the Government find themselves not in a position to carry out a scheme of State purchase, that at least some of the existing licences in Ireland should be bought out. It is universally admitted that there are too many licences in Ireland as compared with Scotland which has a bigger population, and a greater circulation of money. The figure in the case of Ireland is 17,000, as compared with 10,000 for Scotland.

Six thousand!

When we look at these figures it is quite plain that the Government can reasonably claim that there is room in Ireland for a considerable reduction of licences. It may be said that there is a great difficulty now in providing money to pay compensation to licence holders whose licences may be affected. I would suggest to the Government that they should go on the principle that those trades and businesses which have made huge profits through the War should be made to pay for the losses incurred owing to the War by those who belong to other trades and businesses. There is the Excess Profits Tax. That has been, I believe, raised to 80 per cent. If a proportion of that tax were voted towards compensating the trade I think it would be one means of raising the necessary money. There was a point raised by my hon. Friend in regard to whisky in bond. He referred to the restrictions reducing the amount to be taken out of bond to 50 per cent. of what was taken out last year. That is very unfair. I think an example would show how it works out. Take the case of a man who last year on his premises used up 600 gallons of whisky. Say he had in bond 400 gallons of whisky last year and took 50 out of bond in course of trading. Now under the restrictions he is entitled this year to use 300 gallons. He has in bond 350 gallons of his own. He only can take out of bond 50 per cent. of what he took out last year, that is he can only take out 25 gallons and he must buy the rest of the 300 gallons at the increased price from the distiller or from some other source, instead of using his own bonded stock. I think that is quite unfair. As far as he is concerned the Government should at once deal with the matter, and allow the licensed trader to take out of bond as much whisky, if he has it there, as he is entitled to use or sell altogether. I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity for immediate action in regard to these matters, and as to the position of the licensing trade in Ireland. It is not a question of the Irish trade coming here and endeavouring to force this House into granting impossibilities. They are coming here merely to demand a measure of justice and equity, to which, I think, every Member of this House will concede that under the circumstances they are justly entitled.

I have often in the past listened to eloquent speeches from the Irish Benches in support of what I believed to be well-founded grievances. I have on many occasions had the honour of supporting those views in the Division Lobby. I confess, however, listening to the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon I have felt that not only were the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Amendment pleading a singularly weak case, but that they themselves were conscious of the fact. After all we are here this afternoon to consider, as I understand, a special case which can be made for Ireland in respect of certain special burdens which have been thrown upon her in connection tion with the liquor trade. So far as I can judge the situation, it seems to be summed up practically in these words: that Ireland, while having to bear exactly the same burdens as the rest of the United Kingdom is concerned with respect to the actual Licence Duties which are payable, and getting the same advantages which are to be extended during this present year in respect of the rebate of the Licence Duty, is in the singularly advantageous position in not having been under the Liquor Control Board Regulations at all so far as restriction and consumption is concerned.

Are there not restrictions in the hours of drinking?

I am referring to the restrictions of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), and the right hon. Gentleman, who answered a question to-day, has stated to the House what also is stated in the Report of the Central Control Board, that no Regulations applicable to Ireland have been passed by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic).

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am quite sure he does not desire to proceed on that line of argument with the facts not known to him. The military authorities have restricted the hours of drinking in Ireland.

I am perfectly well aware of that fact, and if the hon. and learned Member had allowed me to proceed, I should have pointed out the restrictions which do apply to Ireland, but my point is this, and I repeat it, because reference is made to it in the Report, that no Regulations have been applied by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) in the case of Ireland. I think it is put in a complimentary way to Ireland, because on page 5 of the Report it is stated:

"No requests to consider the scheduling of any areas in Ireland have been made to the Board by the naval, military or munition authorities."

The hon. and learned Member points out that the military authorities did it themselves. That is exactly the point I am coming to, but I hope the hon. and learned Member who interrupts me will at least accept what is stated in the Control Board's Report, and what has been stated to the House by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. So far as the naval and military authorities are concerned, there have been Orders of course in Ireland, as in the case of Scotland, England, and Wales, and there have been also Orders made under the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act applying to Ireland. But the point which I make is that, in regard to all those Orders which are made outside the Liquor Control Board's operations, there has been already an allowance made, as was stated to the House this afternoon by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, of one-fourth of the Licence Duty under the provisions of Section 17 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1916, and during the present year there is to be an additional allowance, making a total of three-fourths of the annual Licence Duty.

Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that this reduction in Licence Duty has actually operated in Ireland? I am informed it has not.

I understand the question is directed to the right hon. Gentleman opposite who will reply in due course, but I am stating, upon the authority of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as given in an answer to my question in the House, what the situation in Ireland is, and I repeat that to-day the situation in Ireland, so far as this allowance is concerned, is exactly the same situation as applies throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. While the attempt is being made to get a special case for Ireland, so far as the Mover and Seconder of this reduction are concerned, they have not succeeded in differentiating the case in any degree. Reference has been made to England and the law which prevails there with regard to licences, but no reference was made to Scotland, and in the case of Scotland, as my hon. and learned Friend, who is well acquainted with the laws in Scotland, knows, there is no such thing as a vested interest in a licence under the law. One point with which I was struck in listening to these hon. Members is that they seem to have forgotten altogether that we are dealing here with a war emergency situation. This country is engaged in a great conflict, and the Government, as part of a war emergency measure, has seen fit to introduce certain legislation dealing with liquor. That legislation applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. I was glad that the hon. Seconder of the reduction did point to the fact that in Ireland there was one very exceptional fact which ought to be considered in this connection, and that is the overwhelming number of licensed houses as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I was appalled when I actually saw the figures, of which I had not been aware before, and I should like the Committee to know exactly how the matter stands in Ireland as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. In England and Wales 60,406 excise public-house licences were issued in the year 1915–16—that is, one to each 597 of the population. In Scotland, which has a larger population than Ireland, there are 6,560 public-house licences issued, being one to every 736 of the population; and in Ireland there are 16,621, being one to every 264 of the population, or, if you work it out according to families given in the last Census figures, there is a public-house licence in Ireland for every fifty-four families in that country. I am glad to think the hon. Gentleman who mentioned the proportion did not intend to justify that situation, but it may well be asked whether at a time like this, in the middle of a great war, it is a desirable thing that all those licensed premises should continue in Ireland. I have no doubt in some cases they are served by men of military age, or by men who could at the present moment do immense service to the country in other capacities, and some of whom I desire to say here, would be perfectly prepared to give their services in other capacities.

I want the Committee to consider whether the hon. Member's plea for compensation or State purchase is one which ought to receive consideration. A plea has been made that the heavy sacrifices made at the present time ought to be paid for out of the funds of the country in the form of compensation. Does the hon. Member suggest that every other industry in this country which has suffered by the War should be compensated upon the same lines? Does he suggest that a special fund should be set apart to meet the case of the fishermen and the large number of merchants whose businesses have been ruined, in some cases through the import restrictions, and to meet the case of many other industries, luxury trades particularly, which have suffered seriously during the War? Surely the hon. Member who moved this reduction must keep in view that he cannot expect the House to consider any proposal which is going to put this particular trade in any better position than any other trade during the continuance of the War. And, so far as State purchase is concerned, I have yet to learn that that proposal is likely to meet with any substantial support throughout this country. I speak as a Scottish Member, and I can inform the House that, in so far as Scotland is concerned, there is a very strong and a growing objection to any such proposal, and that if applied to Scotland it will meet with very severe resistance. I might mention that there are thirty Scottish Members who have signed a strongly worded resolution of protest, which has been sent to the Prime Minister, and there are other Scottish Members who hold more or less official positions who have not associated themselves directly with this Resolution, but who are prepared to support it. There will be a very severe criticism of any proposal of that nature which might be applied universally, or which might be applied to Scotland, where the people are determined to stand upon the provisions of the Temperance (Scotland) Act. I confess I do not quite follow one or two matters which were mentioned by the Mover in connection with the allocation of the 50 per cent. of the spirits which are now to be issued from bond, but I would point out that that allocation applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. Fifty per cent. is the reduced figure which, I understand, the Government think fit to impose upon all spirit merchants and all licence holders throughout the country, and is to operate at the same time as the reduction of beer to 10,000,000 barrels.

I desire in a few words to refer to another matter on this Vote, which I think is of importance, and which can be raised now. Many questions have been addressed to the House during the past few weeks as to the attitude of the Ministry of Munitions towards the output of the distilleries. I should like, in the first place, to say that I am perfectly satisfied we have at the Ministry of Munitions Ministers who are most anxious to advance the highest interests of their country by every possible means in their power; but I should like to take this opportunity of referring to the situation which has arisen since the beginning of this year in connection with the output of spirits from the distilleries. I understand that the matter has been under the consideration of the Minister of Munitions for some time past, and that late in the autumn of last year some arrangements were made with the distilleries which cover the period of this year. The fact remains that there has been manufactured during the present season a vast quantity of spirits for potable purposes which cannot be used for at least a period of three years, as they have all to go into bond under the Immature Spirits (Restriction) Act, 1915, and that in the production of these spirits we are using up large quantities of grain which are really required for feeding our country.

On a point of Order. When a Motion has been made to reduce the Vote for a specific purpose, is it correct to attempt to discuss a much larger and different question, namely, a question connected with the food supply?

The Vote which is before the Committee is obviously a Token Vote for £900, and covers quite clearly the whole subject of the Ministry of Munitions. As I understand it, the Board of Control is answered for in this House, at any rate, by the Ministry of Munitions, and as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned in the production of alcohol, it seems to me quite relevant to discuss the method by which that alcohol is produced, and its relation to the food supply of the country; but, of course, the discussion must not broaden out into a discussion which would more properly come under the Board of Agriculture. It is difficult to draw the line, but, so far as I have been able to observe, the hon. Member has not gone beyond it.

On the point of Order. It is very obviously in doubt as to how far this Debate may proceed. The hon. Member who opened the discussion stated that the Control Board had taken no action and had done nothing in Ireland, and he complained of various things that have happened in Ireland outside the purview of and without any action by the Control Board. May I ask whether it is relevant to pursue this and to carry the Debate any further than it has already proceeded, or whether we must confine it to-day entirely to the Ministry of Munitions and the Control Board as under the direction of the Ministry of Munitions?

May I ask whether it is not in order on this Vote for the Ministry of Munitions to discuss not only the Control Board, but any other sphere of activity of the Ministry of Munitions which the Committee is inclined to discuss? Is it not the case that any matter affecting the Ministry of Munitions and its administration will be in order in to-day's discussion?

Before you decide the point of Order, Mr. Maclean, may I suggest that while the discussion to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred might be in order on the question of the Vote as a whole, the case is entirely different, having regard to a specific reduction moved for the purpose of raising a specific point?

Of course, I had to take the reduction as it was moved. It was moved on the whole Vote, and, therefore, obviously it is not any particular item which is affected. It leaves the whole question of the administration of the Ministry of Munitions open, but it was the general understanding when this day was given that it would be discussed in relation to the matter of what is known as the liquor traffic in so far as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned therein. I call, so far as I can, Members who catch my eye who I think will be prepared to deal with the discussion on those lines. It is rather difficult, but I must do my best, and I certainly hope and believe that all members of the Committee will do their best also.

Would it not be a more desirable and convenient method of discussion if Members of the House interested in the purely Irish aspect of this question were to be allowed to complete their arguments and to deal with their case, and that when subsequent questions arise of dealing with other branches of the subject other Members should be called?

There is certainly something to be said for that, but I called the hon. and learned Member who is now in possession of the Committee with the knowledge that he was going to deal with the Irish question, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland rises at the conclusion of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech I have no doubt he will catch my eye. I have no doubt that other Irish Members may have something to say afterwards. Beyond that, of course, I cannot go at present.

The first speaker in this Debate dealt with the Board of Control, but has not the last speaker been dealing with points not touched by the Ministry of Munitions at all?

I think we had better see how things go. We do not want to be too meticulous about it.

I should be very sorry to stand between hon. Members who want to discuss further the points raised in the first two speeches, but I understood that the only opportunity afforded to Members who wish to raise the subject would be on the Vote for the Ministry of Munitions, to which responsibility immediately attaches. I shall not delay hon. Members too long, but I do desire to say a few words more with regard to the point I was discussing when the point of Order was raised. There are two points which arise in connection with the responsibility of the Minister of Munitions for the production of spirits. He has taken over the distilleries, and he has been producing through the distilleries at the present time spirits both for munitions purposes and for potable purposes. My first point is that at the present time there can be no justification whatever for any potable spirits being produced, requiring as they do for their production large quantities of grain now required for the food of the people. The figures are somewhat alarming. Those for pot-still distilleries show that Irish and Scottish distilleries—hon. Members will see that I am still dealing with the case of Ireland—have been allowed to produce during the present season eight and a half million gallons of spirits, every gallon of which has to go into bond and cannot be consumed for at least three years. I submit that that is not a proposition which Members of this House could justify at a time like this. For that production, 425,000 quarters of grain have been required. A considerable proportion, if not all, of that has been malted. We are now informed by the Food Controller that malted barley, even in the first degree of malting, is improved so far as its food value is concerned, and it might go far to feed the nation at this particular time. With regard to patent-still distilleries, there were 250,000 gallons of spirits per month being manufactured for gin for export purposes. I am very glad that my hon. Friend has stopped the further production of gin. I can hardly imagine anything more indefensible than that during the first months of this year this country should have been manufacturing gin for export abroad. With regard to alcohol for munition purposes, I understand there is still a very large quantity of grain being used for that purpose. I have asked the Minister of Munitions again and again to explain how it is that he has not availed himself of the spirits in bond for that purpose instead of requiring still a monthly consumption of 120,000 quarters of grain and other food materials for the manufacture of spirits for munition purposes. I understand that he has a Committee of experts considering this matter, but I should like to inform him that although the report may not be made public—I am told it has been printed now, but that it may not be published and available to Members of Parliament—I have also consulted a number of very eminent experts, and they inform me that there is no reason in the world why spirits now in bond, amounting to one hundred and fifty-six and a half million gallons, enough to carry on for four years, should not be utilised, at least up to a certain point so far as they can be, for the manufacture of alcohol for explosives, instead of air continuing to waste a large quantity of food for this purpose.

May I ask the hon. Member who is going to reply for the Ministry of Munitions if he can tell us whether there are something like 3,000,000 gallons of spirits being made monthly for the manufacture of explosives, and whether his Department is still importing spirits from Barbadoes and other places for the purpose of manufacturing alcohol for munitions of war? Surely the time has come when in order to save food and tonnage a stop should at once be put to this practice, and a real attempt made to use the bonded spirits in stock for that purpose. I do not propose to go into that matter further except to say that the one excuse that has been given so far is that you must have yeast produced by these particular distilleries, and by the molasses distilleries. That is the answer which has been given to me on several occasions, but has the Minister of Munitions yet exhausted the possibilities of the production of yeast in other ways? We are informed by experts that it could be very readily produced; in fact, that once you begin to grow it it is difficult to stop it growing. A little leaven will leaven the whole lump, as we know on scriptural authority. It is a very simple matter indeed for the bakers to provide for their own yeast, as they do in many districts in Scotland, and as they do also for home-baking in England in many districts. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider, although the question may be one of some little difficulty, whether he has not now had long enough time to solve it. I could introduce him to a number of experts who I make bold to say could assist him very much in this matter and who have no hesitation in saying that yeast can be produced without manufacturing this enormous quantity of spirits at the same time. There is always the alternative of baking powder. We are told that there is difficulty in getting the sulphuric acid with the arsenic extracted, but that is a process which is being carried out throughout the country with regard to medicinal and other forms of sulphuric acid. Quantities required are not very large, nor is the plant very difficult to set up, and if it does not exist already I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider as to setting it up. After all, the situation is serious and requires immediate consideration.

I do not desire to touch for more than a few moments upon the Liquor Control Board Regulations, because other hon. Members will speak about that. I have here the Report issued the other clay and I should just like to say with regard to it that while every person must acknowledge the efforts made by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) to improve the situation throughout the United Kingdom, there are many grounds of criticism of their work. It is a fact that they have not succeeded really in solving some of the problems they set out to solve for the simple reason that they have not applied the methods they have been asked in many many quarters to apply, but they have consistently refused to apply them even where most needed. I notice that there is in this Report a paragraph of only eight or nine lines on page 6, dealing with the prohibition of the sale of spirits. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, when he replies for the Board, why it is that in the matter of these experiments in the prohibition of the sale of spirits which have taken place in, I think, five districts of Scotland, over a large area, where success has been so undoubted, and where the Naval authorities have reported so favourably upon them, more reference is not made to them in the Report itself, and in the conclusions, and why the results which have been attained in those districts could not be attained in an equal degree in other districts if the same remedy were adopted? In reading the Report what has struck me most is that the prohibition of the sale of spirits in these areas, the dry canteens and the closing down of the spirit houses in Longtown, have shown the best results of the Board's work. I cannot understand why the Board have not extended that policy.

5.0 P.M.

We have Scotland represented on that Board, and I should have imagined that the Scottish representative on the Board of Control would have desired to see the prohibition on spirits applied to other areas in Scotland. I believe that the naval authorities who asked for the prohibition of spirits in these particular areas have asked for them in other areas in which the Board have not applied them. I should like the hon. Gentleman to deal with that. Take the Port of Glasgow, is it not the case that efforts have been made again and again by the naval authorities to get further prohibition carried through, and, if so, why has not the Board carried that into effect? There are other experiments in State control, some of which are regarded as successful from the Board's point of view, but there are many Members of this House who could tell a different story. I do not desire to go into that just now, but there is good ground for criticism of what is taking place in these areas. I conclude with a reference to the conclusion of the Report in which it is apparent that the Board have committed themselves to a policy of general State purchase. I regret that very much. I do not think they were appointed for the purpose of deciding a policy for the whole country; in fact, they have already repudiated any intention to do so. But the conclusions which are embodied in this Report can lead to no other result. That, in their view, is the policy that ought to be adopted, but I warn them that there is a strong feeling in the country. The right hon. Gentleman representing the Government ought to understand that, in the middle of this great conflict, to introduce a question of this character into the House of Commons, a measure which cannot be regarded as a war measure, is likely to give rise to great controversy and will be resisted in many quarters. There are many Members in this House who will decline to allow any such measure to get to the Statute Book without letting the Government know the objections to it which they feel so strongly. Speaking for Scotland, I can only say in conclusion, that the feeling there is strongly opposed to State purchase, and in favour of war-time prohibition.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is one of the most fair-minded men, but it seems to me that on this subject he suffers from some disability. Listening to his speech, it struck me that there must be something strange connected with this question which has led him into making the speech just heard. Is it to be supposed that all Members of the House of Commons are not so anxious for temperance, morality and fair play as are the teetotalers? Is it to be supposed that other Members are not so anxious for the food of the people as are the teetotalers, and that we should pull through this War with full stomachs? Then why is it that at the very moment when we ought to be settling down to warlike questions, a group of teetotalers, anxious to drive their own fads forward, avail themselves of the momentum of the War and the feeling of the country, in order to carry through successfully their own pet theories? For myself, I wish to say that I have not taken up the cause of the temperance party or the publican party, neither one nor the other. I have always supported and endeavoured to support temperance. I brought in the first Bill to restrict public-houses in Ireland. It was brought in under a Home Rule Government, which rejected it the first time. I say I brought it in, but so far from the Bill to restrict public-houses being supported by teetotalers, it was opposed by them. They declared it would "create a monopoly in drink." I have never known any attempt to remedy anything connected with public-houses who did not meet with the objection of teetotalers because it did not go far enough.

What is the present position with regard to this question? What are the Licensing Duties? They belong to Royalty, they are part of the Royal revenue. They were, so to speak, a flower of the Crown, and it was not until this House compounded with Royalty that Royalty consented to give them up. And am I to be told that we have got so republican in our sentiments that if we had not made that bargain with the Crown, and His Gracious Majesty had nothing to live upon except the public-house licences would the teetotalers of the country be in favour of starving the Royal Family? If they would not be in favour of starving Buckingham Palace, why should the publicans in the street starve?

Buckingham Palace is teetotal now.

That is a small point, but I hope it is not starving. The point I make is that you are dealing with a matter of Royal revenue, and that if this business of licences was one on which Royalty was dependent. you dare not take the attitude suggested by my hon. Friend. How is it when you are dealing with the Irish question—and that is one of the things that make me exasperated under the Act of Union—you have to begin to teach the English the A B C of the question every time an Irish matter is brought up. If there be, as the hon. Member said, one public-house in Ireland for every 150 families, why is that so? Who put them there? You put them there. We did not put them there. They are there because at one time there were 8,000,000 of Irish people in the country. They represent that wave of population which you drove out, and to which you are now cowtowing in Washington, and whose support I am delighted to know that you got the other day, seeing how the police in New York behaved when the manifestation took place. I am glad to say that every policeman in New York is an Irishman. Accordingly you have undoubtedly that vast and large number of public-houses, just as you have a vast and large number of workhouses. Why have you a large number of workhouses in the country? Because they were created at a time when we had 8,000,000 population. Now a number of them have got useless, and has anybody objected to the officers of those unions being compensated? Not one. We had a large number of gaols in the country, far too large; I think we had from fifty to sixty. They have been brought down to three or four because the population diminished. Has anyone objected to the gaolers of these gaols being compensated? Not a bit. What is it that Shylock said about the Jews, "Hath not a publican eyes and organs as you have; has he not wives and children as you have"? Is there any reason why, because a man happens to be a publican, you are going to draw the sword upon him or infect him with some disease, and bring him to poverty?

I remember the effect of the policy of the English with regard to the liquor traffic, though the story has never been told. It is the most disgraceful story connected with this House. I remember when there was not a Catholic magistrate in Ireland from one end of the country to the other—when there was not a resident magistrate a Catholic, unless someone who had influence got him the appointment. You deliberately, as part of the system, screwed these public-houses round to the doors of the poor. It was part of the British policy. As a temptation to make him give up his house and bit of land, the landlord would say to him, "You need not go to New York, come into the village, and I will give you a licence." That was the case in my boyhood. To treat this question as you would treat an English or Scottish question, I would point out that Ireland is no more like England or Scotland than she is like Siam. Every time an Irish question is debated in the House some Englishman, on the strength of his own ignorance, gets up and thinks he can settle the Irish problem. If the precedent were applied to England and Scotland it might be a case of "This is the time, when my neighbour's house is on fire, to look after my own." Therefore I claim that when bringing forward a question like this we are entitled to have it considered in the special atmosphere of our own country.

What is the case here? In the first place, it is true that you have been able in England to close for a considerable time a great many licensed houses. I think the English people the most patriotic people in the world because of the way in which they have submitted themselves to the restrictions in this country which no one would have believed would come about three years ago. To my mind it is one of the great glories of their character in relation to this War. On the other hand, I think there has been a good deal of needless restriction. I think those poor unfortunates who have been restricted have in many cases submitted without a grumble when, if there had not been a War, they would have made their British voices heard. I do not know that it is true, but I think sometimes there is a little tinge of hypocrisy connected with it. For instance, I am told, I hope it is not true, that though you cannot have a glass of beer or wine anywhere after half-past nine there is what is called the liberty of the Press, and that if you are in the Reporters' Gallery you can get as drunk as a lord at twelve o'clock at night. We here are supposed to set a good example.

In the first place, it is not the fact that we have not undergone very large restrictions in Ireland. I will give one instance. There were two public-houses closed by the military in the neighbourhood of Cork Harbour at a time when the Defence of the Realm Act did not expect you to close them, and the Irish Members submitted to it. They did not raise a voice against it. I pointed out privately the defect in the Statute, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir John Simon) ran a Statute through the House to enable the Government to do by law what they had done by force. We allowed it to be done because we thought it was necessary in the interests of the State. Very large restrictions have been put upon these publicans without, as I understand, any necessity whatsoever. I understand that they are now getting all-round supplies for two days a week out of the seven. Speaking roughly, I think that is the correct position. My hon. and learned Friend says that the Liquor Control Board does not apply in Ireland, and suggests that we are not undergoing very severe restrictions, but that is entirely wrong, for we are only getting two days' supply, whereas before we got seven days' supply. What is the effect of that upon these business men? It is ruin. I have been asked if it was the case of a fisherman would I be in favour of compensation. Of course I would. What is the difference, if I am a publican, between my house being blown down by a German bomb or a shell from a Zeppelin, or my business being destroyed in this way? The effect is the same. Even if a teetotaler had a bomb thrown at his house I do not think the strongest teetotaler would say it was not right to compensate him. If you effect, by means of your legislation, what the Germans effect by throwing bombs, and if a particular trade be more seriously affected than any other trade, does that not constitute for that particular trade the same right of compensation. That being so, my contention is that the whole of the Licence Duty for these men should be abolished altogether.

When the hon. Gentleman representing the Treasury suggested a remission of three-fourths of the Licence Duty, I said that as regards Ireland that it was totally inadequate. Remember what the case is. These are not palatial gin palaces or wine shops or any other matters of that kind; these are little men with houses at from £10 to £20 valuation. Some of them are very small, and if you destroy five-sevenths of a man's trade is it worth while keeping open for the other two-sevenths? The answer is that in many cases it is not worth keeping open, and if that is so and you have destroyed that business for State reasons which appear to me to be very mysterious, I really cannot see, while you have stocks of alcohol in the country sufficient for three years, even in the case of those holding the most pessimistic view of the War, the necessity for cutting down the trade in that way. When my hon. and learned Friend advocates, as he has done, that the whole of the malt used in brewing and distilling should be turned to food purposes, how would he like me to retort with an attack on the naval policy of the late Government for not having laid in sufficient stocks and for having neglected the advice of men like Admiral Jellicoe and the Report of Lord Milner's Commission on Wheat. I think the teetotal party in this House, when discussing this question, should remember that it leads up to the most active and vital questions of naval and military policy. They say now, "Brew no more beer. We used to brew 40,000,000 barrels; now reduce it to 10,000,000 barrels." In Ireland Guinness's are dismissing men every week by the score and by the hundred, and you will have starvation in Dublin, and undoubtedly great want. What answer is there to be made by an Irishman who never can take part in your Government, and who must always be a critic, when he hears that the teetotalers are ruining Guinness's, and that there is to be no more brewing? He will reply that if you had had a proper Government you would have bad plenty of wheat and barley, and there would have been no necessity for all this hardship in Ireland. How would that argument strike an Englishman? When you take up this narrow attitude on the question of drink and brewing and distilling you are touching upon tine issues, and on some of the very highest and closest points connected with the policy of the late Government and its administration.

The case of Ireland must be considered, like every Irish case, by itself, and in relation to your own policy in the past. You are responsible for all this; you made the laws here, and you gave these men a freehold in their businesses. It was you who encouraged them. I remember in the Fenian days when no drunkards were brought up for a week in one place the resident magistrate came to the Crown solicitor and said, "Oh! this is something serious." instead of rejoicing at the sudden exhibition of virtue on the part of the Irish people; and he said that instead of drinking round public-houses they are now trying to do something for the liberties of their country. That is the spirit of the Government you have boasted of, and under which we have had to go to gaol. I respectfully ask the Chief Secretary to take up in this matter a parochial attitude. Let him remember that his parish is Ireland, and that for the moment his duty is to defend Irish interests and to consider them. He is here for that object, and I say that my judgment on the whole case is that there is a case for compensation, and it is not answered by English or Welsh or Scottish analogies, and it is time that the Government addressed themselves to the considerations of these great questions.

I desire to correct a statement which I made with regard to the operation of the reduction of duty in Ireland. I find that I was wrong in saying that it did not operate in Ireland at all. It does operate in the case of on-licences, but not in the case of off-licence holders.

The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down has introduced into this Debate questions which do not come within the modest proportion of the matters raised by the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy), and the hon. Member who seconded this Motion. The Mover and Seconder treated this as an Irish claim which arose out of the differential treatment of Ireland as compared with England. Now the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork throws aside that proposal, and he says our policy with regard to Ireland for generations has been wrong, and as an instalment of rough justice he bids me to cast aside all precedents and general principles which might affect Great Britain and to give Ireland something on account by granting compensation to the licensed interest, even if it is not granted in the case of licensed victuallers in this country. I propose to deal, first of all, with this Motion on the ground on which it was launched, namely, the ground of differential treatment. I say frankly that if I found that there was differential treatment which affected the Irish trade as the English trade was not affected, that is if there was differential treatment of the Irish trade as apart from the British trade, I think it would be my duty as the Minister entrusted with Irish affairs to ascertain why that distinction was made, and if there was not some ground for it to see that it should be removed. For that reason I propose to deal, first of all, with the alleged differentiation against Ireland.

It was said, in the first place, that there were restrictions in Ireland. I find the position is that no part of Ireland has been put under the restrictions of the Liquor Control Board which affects the rest of the United Kingdom. I should like to tell the Committee something as to the effect of those restrictions. It happens that before I entered upon my present office I was entrusted with some duties at the Defence Losses Commission in connection with the administration of the Liquor Control Board, and we had to consider what was the position of the licensed trader with regard to the restrictions of that Board. The licensed trade came up before us and told us that the Board of Control had said, with regard to individual houses, "We are going to take over your house, or we are going to put a manager in or do something directly with regard to your house." The Board of Control had also made far-reaching Orders by which the hours of trade and the conditions in munitions areas and other places were restricted to an unprecedented extent. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) paid a most generous tribute to the patriotism of the people of this country for the way in which they had tolerated so many restrictions on account of the War, and this feature, after all the pain and anguish which our people have suffered, will in the future brighten the pages of our history. The representatives of the licensed trade in this country came before the Losses Commission, and they said, "The Board of Control has put restrictions on our trade which make it not worth carrying on." What was the result? The Losses Commission, applying the principle which has been applied throughout the present War that the losses, however lamentable they may be, caused by the operation of a general restriction, are not matters of compensation, decided that the members of this trade have no right to compensation under the principle which has been laid down by Parliament. The liquor trade is powerful enough in all conscience and is usually very vocal, but I believe it has sat down under those restrictions now for a full year.

For the present.

I do not know whether it is intended by the licensed trade to raise the matter again, or whether they are waiting the course of events and looking out for a favourable opportunity to raise the question again. That was the decision, and it was a decision founded upon the principles upon which the whole question of compensation has been discussed in this House, decided with the sanction of this House and administered now since the early part of the spring of 1915. There is one differentiation with regard to Ireland, and I think it is rather a matter for congratulation than for reproach that the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) has not enforced restrictions in Ireland.

What other restrictions are there? There are the restrictions by the military authorities. My hon. and learned Friend referred to a restriction in the county of Cork, where, he said, two specific houses had been closed. That is a class of case which has had to be dealt with in this country. If the house were closed by an Order peculiar to the house and if it were not closed for misconduct, then a claim for compensation has been admitted in English cases, and I know of no difference in dealing with Irish cases. My hon. and learned Friend said that the Irish party did not raise the question. Perhaps they were well advised—I do not know—but there was the tribunal open to consider that case for compensation. What other restrictions have there been? The great and serious restriction has been in two branches common to the whole licensed trade of the United Kingdom. Supplies have been cut down. Supplies of beer have been cut down, not from 36,000,000 barrels for Ireland—my hon. Friend was wrong there—but from 36,000,000 barrels for the United Kingdom, first to 26,000,000 barrels and ultimately to 10,000,000 barrels. That is a general provision arising in the most direct and absolute way from the necessities of the War—from necessities of tonnage and from necessities of food. That is the case with regard to all the breweries in Great Britain at the present time and with regard to the great breweries in Ireland. Hon. Members have referred also to the case of the Irish distilleries. That arises under the second branch of the restrictions which it has been necessary to impose for the same reason—tonnace and food. An Order of this year provides for a cessation of distillation for the purposes of consumption and for a reduction in the output of supplies from bonded stores by 50 per cent., and it is common both to this country and to Ireland.

The case of the workmen of Messrs. Guinness under one branch of the restrictions and the case of employés in distilleries in Dublin and elsewhere under the other branch of the restrictions were both instanced, but anyone who knows anything of the matter cannot fail to see, if there is a case for compensation here because of the introduction of some new principle, that it is not a case for the compensation of a great trade or for its poorer members, but for the compensation of the man who has lost his employment and cannot get work. That is a class of compensation for which a claim might be set up which might appeal to the compassion or generosity of Parliament. My hon. and learned Friend, however, was right when he drew off from the suggestion that there was a case here for differentia- tion and for the treatment of Ireland on some new principle. Parliament has to consider two things with regard to that restriction. First: Has anything happened down to the present time with regard to a trade which in some respects in the past has been a privileged trade which to-day warrants the Government introducing as to that trade a different measure of compensation from that which is applied to other trades? I will mention some trades where you have not given compensation. You have cut off a man's sources of supply for imported goods and made it an inevitable certainty that he cannot carry on his business. Nobody has dreamed of compensating him. He has been left with his business—the State did not come in and take his business—but has lost his livelihood, and what principle has been applied? You have cases of individuals whose trades have practically ceased to be carried on, but you have not taken the workmen in those trades and said, "Your business has been stopped because of a war restriction, and a sum of money must be provided for you."

Why not?

The hon. Member who asks me that question suggests the proposition that it would be a proper thing to enlarge the Consolidated Fund, so that if the unhappy events of this War press more heavily on one citizen than on another he should receive a solatium to make the burden equal upon everyone. [An HON. MEMBER "Why not? You give them work in England in the munition factories!"] If my hon. Friend had watched the course of events in Dublin, he would have seen that great and systematic efforts have been made to provide for all men who are out of work and who are willing to take it. In spite of opposition, a Department has been set up in Dublin which has been able to take hold of this matter, and both at the Employment Exchanges and the Department of National Service in Dublin there is work waiting for able-bodied men who are ready to undertake it. The restrictions down to the present time are common to the two Islands. What as to the character of the Irish trade? My hon. Friends say, "Yes; but even supposing the restrictions are needed, the trade in Ireland is a totally different trade." It has been my business to familiarise myself with the circumstances of the Irish trade, and let me say what are the differentiæ there. It is quite true that in nineteen cases out of twenty—I think that understates it—the owner of the Irish house carries on his own business in premises of which he is either the owner or the tenant. I think that is so in nineteen cases out of twenty, and certainly in four cases out of five. My hon. and learned Friend assents to that. The off-licensed trade in Ireland is comparatively a small matter and the tied trade hardly exists. There is another circumstance. Under the decision of the Clitheroe case, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) referred, a licensee in Ireland has an absolute right to the renewal of his licence if he is not guilty of misconduct. He is in the position of the old beer-house holders in this country. Those are not circumstances which aggravate the effect of these restrictions if you consider them either in principle or in detail.

There is a further consideration. It has been said that there is no war trade in Ireland. It is true there is not the manufacture of munitions on the same scale as there is in this country, not from any want of readiness on the part of the Government to take advantage of every offer that there was to manufacture munitions, and to encourage the manufacture of munitions. Both North and South factories have been set up. I know from matters within my own cognisance officially during my term of office how ready the Minister of Munitions has been to do anything he could to countervail the disability arising from the difficulty of obtaining supplies and from the want of established factories. If it is true there is less munition work in Ireland, yet, on the other hand, there has been in the rural districts of Ireland a class of war trade that there has not been in this country—a war trade in agricultural produce which down to the early part of this year has no doubt been a source of considerable increased income in many households. There is one other fact with regard to the Irish licensee. Generally, he does not carry on his licensed trade as his sole business. He carries it on in combination with the business of a tea dealer, a grocer, or a general dealer, or some business which keeps him going among his neighbours. That is a matter which ought to be taken into account. Dealing with these two matters of differentiation with regard to the restrictions and to the trade, I confess that it seems to me that upon the facts the Mover and Seconder of this Motion have not made out the case which they set out to make.

On the other hand, there has undoubtedly been an interference by legislation and by Regulation not only with the licensed trade in Ireland but also with the licensed trade in this country, which, whether it has reduced profits to the vanishing point in the past or not, is going to affect profits in the future in a totally different way. I dare say many hon. Members do not know—I am sure there are multitudes of people in the country who have not any idea—how soon must arise the question of the extent to which grain and tonnage can be applied to brewing. I am not suggesting to the Committee that the soldier in France, the soldier in his camp, the munition worker, the foundryman, and all those to whom beer is an essential item of food, are ready to forego that branch of what they regard as food. I am not suggesting that at all, but the Committee and the House are in view of aspects of this problem which have not yet developed. You may find that the condition is such that for the purpose of procuring supplies of food you have to deal with this problem. I do not mean only supplies of bread. I do not know whether hon. Members know it, but one of the supplies which are consumed by our troops—one of the provisions of aliment—is a provision of beer. Another provision which is necessary in this country in furnaces, forges, and munition works is the provision of a beverage which men must drink. It need not be an intoxicating beverage, perhaps, but it must be a beverage they are ready to consume and which they wish to consume. After all, we have only parted with liberty to the extent to which we were bound to part with it for higher reasons.

The teetotalers want us to part with all of it.

I hope that reason, fairplay, and necessity will operate together to make us all people who are ready to make concessions to one another to deal with a great problem in a reasonable way. The question of purchase was mentioned by both the Mover and the Seconder. The occasion has not arisen when the Government has had to decide upon any such thing. I do not say that the occasion will not arise. Let me remind the Committee of the sort of things which have happened in this country. You needed munitions, and you had to take possession, lock, stock, and barrel, of foundries, factories, and all sorts of works, and say to the owners of them, "Make munitions!" Then, of course, they became controlled firms. We have all sorts of rights with regard to them. The time has come when you have had to take the control of the flour mills of the country, because the situation as to cereal food has become so grave that you could not expect to have a reasonable distribution of the supplies unless you took that measure of control. Therefore, the thing was dealt with. No such case has arisen with regard to the licensed trade up to the present time. In certain areas you have gone in, and I think with pretty general consent it has been seen that the true and least expensive way, and, on the whole, the fairest way of dealing with a trade in a district where you take the whole thing over is to pay for it. The Government at the present time has not had to take over the liquor trade.

There is the situation. Here we are, with certain principles which have been acted upon as to trades where there has been interference by general regulation only. That interference by general regulation has not given the right to compensation. The events in which rights to compensation have arisen in the past have been events where the whole control of the business and the assets of the business passed to a Department of the State for the public use. I draw a distinction between a time when there is a condition of things in which there are regulations, such as we have had in the past, however irksome and vexatious they have been, and any condition of things which conceivably might arise—one would rather it did not, and hopes that it may not, but it might conceivably arise — where a measure of State interference, which has not become necessary up till now, might be taken by something like common consent as a necessity of the State. I say that you must deal with this matter upon grounds of principle. You must deal with it with due regard to the rules which arise upon the procedure that has been adopted with respect to the various interests with which from time to time the Government has had to deal. I do not exclude the idea of compensation to licensed victuallers in Ireland, because I appreciate that some of them have had a hard time. I exclude it under the circumstances which have arisen in the state of facts which now exists, because they have had a hard time in common with the members of their trade in the whole of the United Kingdom, and for this reason, that Parliament has not been ready in respect of any trade affected by the incidence of war, where there has not been any appropriation or expropriation, to depart from the principle that the effects of the War were not matters of compensation to the trade interested. I am always glad when I can say with my hon. Friends from Ireland, "Yes, the Government recognises the claim, and here is money from the Exchequer with which it can be met."

You never say that. When do you say that?

That is an agreeable thing when it can be done. One of my hon. Friends says "Never," but if I may quote the words of an old light opera I would say,

I regret the error, but the statement I quoted was from the Press itself at the time.

I am told that the hours for the sale of drink in the bar of the Press Gallery are the same as they are everywhere else.

I do not know whether opportunities are given to the Press Gallery for the consumption of intoxicating liquor or not, but I would venture to say that if such privileges have been conferred upon the Press Gallery they are perfectly justified, because I think that any body of men who have to listen to the Debates in this House, or, what is still worse, have to record the speeches delivered by Members of this House, or, what is still worse, to hear the speeches of Ministers from time to time, require some inspiration for carrying out their professional obligations. The right hon. Gentleman has made a most interesting speech. He is still a member of the Conservative party, but when I listened to him standing at that box, I marvelled at the wonderful transformation of the Conservative politician to the member of the Coalition Government. I do not know what was the programme upon which the right hon. Gentleman was elected by four votes for Exeter. [HON. MEMBERS: "One vote!"] I confess the speech which he has delivered is not precisely of the character of the speech he would have delivered when he endeavoured to extract votes from the Tories in that Constituency, because during my experience in the House the Conservative party have been the defenders of the liquor trade, defenders of justice for the liquor trade. They have lived and thrived upon the support they have received from the liquor trade. While that, from the political standpoint, may be a desirable attitude to take up, it is rather a large order for a right hon. Gentleman belonging to that party to give us the speech he has just delivered to the Committee. He has told us that the English trade has made no complaint about these restrictions.

I said that they grumbled a good deal.

6.0 P.M.

My opinion of Englishmen is that they always grumble, and then swallow things. If the English people choose to be sheep in these matters the Irish do not. When we have a wrong to be righted or justice to be done we come here and perform our functions as Members of Parliament. We have nothing whatever to do with the feelings of English people in what concerns themselves, any more than we recognise the right of English people to decide for us what we think is right and best for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has said he does not see why we should confine our operations to grumbling when they only grumble. Let me say the cases are absolutely different in England and Ireland. You are dealing on this question in Eng- land with large combines, with great corporations, with tremendous financial resources in times of difficulty, therefore the task is a simple and easy one for you, but in Ireland there is quite a different condition of things. There the public house is all the property that the man possesses. The right hon. Gentleman admits four out of every five—I would say ninety-eight out of every hundred—of the public-houses in Ireland belong to the publican. Who is this publican? He is, in nearly every case, a younger son of a small farmer. He serves four or five years' apprenticeship in a neighbouring town, he obtains employment in Dublin or Belfast, he probably saves his salary for ten years, he has probably one-third of the amount that enables him to buy a public-house, and he borrows the remainder from relatives or from a bank. He then works and labours, and practically lives a Spartan life for ten or fifteen years, when he pays off the price of the public-house. Now you come along and, after this man has sacrificed personal pleasures, after he has been engaged in a business the most onerous and the most arduous of any occupation in any town or city or community in these Islands, you ask him, after he has done all this, to practically close his door, because that is what these restrictions mean. He is then probably a man of from forty to sixty years of age, with a large family. You ask him to close his door, and you stand pompously at your Ministerial box and tell him that this is done in the interests of the State. I confess I could not wave the Union Jack in circumstances of that kind. I profoundly agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and with what other speakers have said, that the momentous crisis through which we are passing demands sacrifices, universal sacrifices, sacrifices from all and every class. Everyone admits that. Those sacrifices have been as readily made in Ireland as anywhere else. It is one thing to talk about sacrifice and to accept it, and it is another thing to feel ruin and to enjoy it. That is what these restrictions practically mean to 99 per cent. of those who are engaged in this trade. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that this is a privileged trade. I do not know what he means by that. I do not know any man engaged in any occupation or any commercial pursuit who has a harder time in earning his living than a publican. Until the hours were reduced the great bulk of them had to rise at seven o'clock in the morning and remain in their houses until eleven at night. They had to pay special toll to the State in the form of Licence Duties, to collect taxes for the State, and to suffer from the supervision of the State. They were the victims in many cases of police espionage, and no trade had to suffer from so many irritations as the liquor trade. There is not a grocer or a baker or a man in any other occupation in Ireland—and I am now only speaking for Ireland—who earns £400, £500 or £300 a year, who has not a vastly easier time of it, a cleaner trade, a better and easier time, and perhaps a more recognised position in the social life of the community. All or any of these people are better placed than the publican, and I cannot for the life of me see how the right hon. Gentleman can stand at that box and declare that this is a privileged trade.

He seemed to be shocked, he almost looked aghast, when I made the interruption that trades which had been harmed by the War ought to be compensated. It may be an economic heterodoxy, but I do not care. To the ordinary mind it seems to be a perfectly simple proposition that if you extract excess profits from those who have made money by the War you ought correspondingly to do something to meet the losses of those who have lost by the War. It is not my function to go into that matter now because I am dealing purely with the broad thing. There are some sacrifices which must be made. There are some sacrifices which cannot be compensated. There is the sacrifice of human life, the greatest of all sacrifices that has been offered in this War. The lives which are gone cannot be given back and the blood of our soldier citizens which has been lost cannot vivify again the persons of those who lost their blood, but it is the duty of statesmanship to make the loss the least that it is possible to make it, and for a rich State like this to tell us that it cannot afford to pay what is an infinitesimal sum for the purpose of relieving the burden and of compensating for the gross wrongs which your own precautions and restrictions have brought about is, in my judgment, only another example of the barrenness of the statesmanship that cannot understand this or any other thing in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has not yet taken over the trade. I have watched the performances of Ministers in regard to this matter. I have talked to some of them myself on this question of State purchase, and what I see is that the aim and purpose they had in view is to starve out the publicans and reduce their trade to such an extent that they are either in beggary or on the border of ruin, if they are not ruined altogether, and then to expect them to come like starving beggars to appeal at the gate of the Ministry and ask them for God's sake to dole them out some little thing to enable them to keep body and soul together. In my judgment, a more immoral or dishonest course of procedure could not be conceived, and we will continue to demand that this matter shall be adjusted upon the lines of simple honesty.

The hon. Member (Mr. Pringle), who, of course, represents the extreme temperance party in this House, pointed out the tremendous disproportion between the number of licenses in Ireland, in England, and in Scotland. We all recognise it. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) has stated that he neither represents the publican nor the temperance party in this matter, and I am in precisely the same position. There is nothing, in my judgment, so impressively needful in Ireland as to decrease the consumption of drink. We are anxious to do so, but if you bring forward a proposition by which the consumption of drink can be decreased up rise the teetotal party, the prohibitionists, the Gentlemen who have, in my judgment, been the greatest enemies of real temperance progress during the last thirty years. I myself have found it the greatest joy of my life to be always in a hostile camp against cranks and faddists, and, having watched their performances since I came into the House fifteen or sixteen years ago, I can conceive no greater barrier to a genuine solution of this all-important social problem, apart altogether from the considerations we are discussing to-day, than for these Gentlemen to take up the impossible attitude that you are to treat publicans as if they were pariahs instead of, as they have been to a large extent, functionaries of the State, doing their work as tax-collectors and carrying on their trade under the conditions I have described. They will never get prohibition. They may make up their minds about that. Even responsible temperance people in this country and in Ireland, who are as strong in their temperance convictions as these Gentlemen, have declared in favour of State purchase. Even in Scotland the other day a great Labour organisation declared in favour of State purchase.

The Co-operative Congress declared in favour of prohibition and not of purchase.

I am talking about trade bodies. I do not know anything about the Co-operative Congress any more than about the Presbyterian General Assembly. After all, the trade bodies count. The rich can very well get drink for themselves, and the working classes have a right to decide this matter for themselves, and the working classes have decided in favour of State purchase, because a working man, as a rule, is a fair-minded man. These men are not so much in favour of temperance, but they hate the publican; and for that reason they have been an almost indestructible barrier against temperance progress, because progress could have been made during the last twenty years when they were taking up the position which they have occupied in this House. As a rule, a teetotaler is a very good man. I understand that he has a number of other virtues as well as taking no drink. The highest form of goodness is to do to your neighbour what you would like your neighbour to do unto you. I should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman opposite would like a functionary of the Government to go in and steal all his syphons of soda.

It is quite true that the increase of licences in Ireland during the last fifty years has been simply appalling. When Ireland had a population of eight and a quarter millions there were 15,000 licensed houses. In 1915, when Ireland had a population of only 4,500,000, there were 17,000 public-houses, and it is no wonder that Lord Peel's Commission stated that at 5d., so that the Irish publican cannot compensate himself in the way that the English publican can. It is a curious paradox, but it is true, that England is in a condition of boundless industrial prosperity at present. Out of that enormous prosperity the English consumers of drink, or of luxuries of any sort, have every opportunity of satisfying themselves, but it is quite different in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman talks about agricultural prosperity. It is not as great as he imagines, but in cities like Dublin and Cork and many other towns in Ireland there is practically no increased prosperity at all. In Dublin we have even heard—I do not know how far the information is authentic—that the people in many parts of the city are bordering on starvation, and you want to add to this evil by forcing these men to close their houses altogether or to open them only for two or three days a week, because they can get rid of all the supplies they receive in one, two, or three days. You want to add to all this misery by dragging these people out, by confiscating their property, not by a clear, honest, and unmistakable actual confiscation, naked and unashamed, but by this subtle process, this precautionary measure, this restrictive power which has been put in operation, not by Parliament, but behind the back of Parliament, by an edict of the War Council. The right hon. Gentleman states that he cannot see his way to introduce a scheme of State purchase for Ireland. simply because the problem is rendered difficult, because he cannot get certain influences in England and in Scotland to agree to that policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) stated that Scotland would not have State purchase. That is a matter for Scotland.

It was signed by thirty Scottish Members.

Thirty Scottish Members do not represent the whole of Scotland. But I do not want to interfere. If Scotland wants to be better, then I shall rejoice at the improvement. My point is: let Scotland have what she wants, but let Scotland not have what we want. Let Ireland have what she wants—the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland. Only the other day the Protestant Primate, in a speech at Armagh, declared absolutely in favour of State purchase. A temperance organisation in Ireland declared in favour of State purchase. The licensed trade is quite willing to consider a scheme of State purchase, and to accept it upon a broad and just basis. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to try the experiment first in a small country like Ireland, where the need for a reduction of licences is so great, and which would satisfy the public spirit and the demand of all sections of the people. If he is not prepared to introduce a scheme of State purchase, I can offer him an alternative. It is quite easy for the right hon. Gentleman to buy nearly half the public-houses in Ireland for a little over £2,000,000—to reduce the licences in that country by at least 40 per cent. for £2,000,000, to satisfy the publicans engaged in the trade and at the same time concede to the national sentiment upon this question. What is £2,000,000? It is the cost of the War for one-third of a day. If you can successfully wage war against the conditions that are resultant from the redundancy of this licensing system in Ireland, surely you will do some great service not only in trying an experiment in order that you may judge as to its possible success here, but it will be an experiment that will make for higher human conditions and for the removal of one of the greatest evils that exists in Ireland! The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Duncan Millar) made a great deal out of the fact—in fact, he protested against it—that you are going to reduce the Licence Duties in Ireland by three-fourths. He thought that was a tremendous thing to do.

I said that Ireland was being put in the same position as the rest of the United Kingdom.

What is your complaint? Is it your complaint that Ireland is being put in the same position as the United Kingdom in this matter? Does the hon. Member complain about that?

I said that Ireland had no special grievance; that they were being put in exactly the same position as the rest of the United Kingdom.

Let us see how this marvellous example of financial magnanimity on the part of the Government is going to act. There are 7,000 public-houses in Ireland where the publican will get £3 15s. taken off his Licence Duty, and there are 9,000 houses where he will get £15 reduction on his Licence Duty. Three pounds fifteen shillings and £15 are the highest sums that an Irish publican can receive as compensation for the ruin of his business, and yet the hon. Gentleman seemed to regard that as a wonderful concession and as part compensation. There is another consideration. These people did not lift their public-houses; they bought them. What right has any Government to take away and destroy the property of people who have invested their money in the property? The landlords of Ireland received twenty years' purchase for their land. Most of them stole the land, or their ancestors stole it. Most of them were no more entitled to a great part of the land they possessed than I am, and yet, with tearful faces, Ministers stood at that bench and made appeals to us and told us that the landlords were making splendid concessions by accepting twenty years' purchase, and when we proved that they had no real moral right to the compensation, the answer was, "You cannot take away people's property." It is an unjust thing to take away the property of a landlord, but is a highly moral transaction to rob a poor, struggling publican. Through causes over which he has no control, and for which he is not responsible, you are going to drive his children out on the roadside, and you are going to take the food out of his own mouth and cut of the mouths of his family. That is practically what this whole thing means. Then it must be remembered that if we have, as was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Cork, so many licences in Ireland, it is only part of the evil results which have accrued from the government of Ireland by this country. It is something more; it is due to the poison that has got into the whole life of Ireland through a combination of forces that have oppressed the Irish people through the last half-century.

I have stated the class of which the licence interested is constituted in three provinces. Let me tell of another. Will the House believe it that in Ulster—you will hear in a few moments eloquent speeches from some of the Unionist Members for Ulster in favour of the confiscation of all this property, and I hope they will answer this point—men were driven into the licensed trade who could not get into any other trade? It is a well-known fact that when boys leaving school in the city of Belfast made tremendous efforts to secure employment in the shipyards, and in the linen factories of Belfast in the higher branches of those manufactories, they were asked what their religion was. They were asked what school they attended, and a deduction was made when the information was given, and numerous men were driven into that trade who would have infinitely preferred to have gone into another trade, and they have had to remain in that trade very often till now. That is another consideration, and that is one of the reasons why I, for my part, defend them, because they were not their own masters in the selection of their own vocation. The right hon. Gentleman knows that this unnecessary infliction upon this class in Ireland has constituted a large part of the causes why so much unrest exists in the country. If you are going to continue to put these restrictions into operation, and if you are going to give no compensation, and if you are not going to hold out hope to these men that they will be saved from destruction, you will add a very large and important element to the unrest that exists in the country at the present moment. That is a consideration which I would commend to the right hon. Gentleman, and one which he would do well to consider as a strong believer in the policy of the preservation of law and order in that country. Finally, I come to the point as to how the whole case presents itself to me. You can get rid of thousands of these houses for £2,000,000 if you like, if you do not want to introduce a scheme of State purchase now as a whole. You can get rid of all of them if you like by introducing a scheme of State purchase as an experiment in Ireland. Let the teetotal party listen to this. When you have bought the public-houses, when you have given just compensation to the people whose business you have taken away, and when you have taken over the houses as a national asset, you can close every one of them so far as I am concerned.

Do I understand that this is an offer from the Irish party that they will allow the teetotalers of England to decide what shall be done with the public-houses of Ireland if they are bought by the State.

Do not understand anything like that. I do not think the teetotalers would give anything to anybody for nothing. I will again state what my offer is. Ireland is cursed with redundant licences. There are twice too many public-houses. Does that appeal to the temperance party? Yes, it does, though they say nothing. If it does not appeal to the temperance party, at all events it appeals to the temperance spirit, which is quite a different thing. I claim that as an offer. You can reduce 7,000 public-houses in Ireland for £2,000,000, or a little over. The State can advance the money, and a great proportion of that can be received back by additions to the Licence Duties in Ireland, and you can clear away a great evil if you want to do it. It would be an act of justice to the traders, and it would be a concession and a great social reform. Will the temperance party agree to that?

Yes.

The hon. Member is a sensible man. He has gathered his experience in the field of labour and not at temperance meetings at the Albert Hall. Up to the present all these restrictions have been accepted in Ireland very patiently. The publicans have borne them with absolute patience, and when you have told them that these restrictions are vitally essential for the purposes of the War they have said nothing. Here is a means by which you can do justice. You can purchase all the public-houses, and you can purchase them at a cost that would not be very great to this Empire, as an experiment. Perhaps this might appeal to the teetotal party. When you have purchased the public-houses, when they have become public property, when you want to promote private virtue and public virtue and to advance public morals, not at the cost of private individuals, but at the cost of the public which wants its morals preserved, then so far as I am concerned you can close up every public-house in Ireland and never open them again. So far as I am concerned, I take no interest in the liquor business as such. I would like to see Ireland, as it is becoming year after year, the soberest country in Europe, and I would like, concurrent with this sobriety, the spirit of high responsibility which would spring from a sober race and enable us to create that staple Government which we trust will be an example to Europe in the time that is to come under well-ordered conditions. Therefore, with me, this is not a question of publicans or temperance fanatics, but a question of simple justice to people. We have always fought for justice on these benches. We conceded justice to the landlords when we gave them twenty years' purchase for the land, and we want justice now for these men who, after all, are in a business that is recognised by the State, a trade legal and constitutional, and to some extent controlled by the State. It would be a stigma upon this country and upon this Empire that for the purpose of this War, as you state, you are going to ruin these people, whom you can save from ruin by a simple concession—for it would be a simple concession for you. I trust that the result of our Debate will be that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the suggestion I have made, and that he will render a service to the Irish nation by doing justice to those who are engaged in a legitimate trade.

We have listened with great interest to what has been said by the hon. Member and others who have preceded him. There are some aspects of the liquor trade in Ireland which I am sorry to say have been connected in our Debates with political or religious issues. I do not think it is fair to introduce these matters into a Debate of this kind. The number of public-houses have increased in Ireland because the popular magistrates who were appointed granted licences where there were no licences before. In this way the trade has been increased, and we have public-houses in such abundance that the men cannot support themselves. It must be remembered that the country has so changed in its outlook upon the drink question that it will not support such a number of public-houses. The hon. Member for West Belfast has thrown out a proposition. He said that the licences in Ireland might be reduced by one-half by the expenditure of £2,000,000. Am I correct in assuming that if the £2,000,000 are found those 8,000 houses will never be resuscitated again? Speaking as a temperance man coming from Ireland, I should be very glad to see the proposition of the hon. Member carried into effect on that condition. What is more, I should be glad if we could get Parliament to give him double the money for the other 8,000, so as to rid Ireland altogether of public-houses, which is the only way in which she will ever be prosperous, contented, and free in the best sense of the word. The hon. Member said that, unfortunately, his co-religionists in Belfast were obliged to take up this trade because they would not be allowed to pursue other trades; but if this be so, why do his co- religionists take up this trade in Cork and Dublin and in the South-West of Ireland, where there are more public-houses for the population than in the North?

He has mentioned that the Protestant Primate of Ireland is in favour of State purchase, but he forgot to tell us the conditions. I think he did say that on certain conditions he would like to see State purchase along lines of sobriety for our people, and there are plenty of Nationalist and my Roman Catholic friends who agree with us in this matter. We are most anxious, if we can, to be rid altogether of the drink question. I am speaking now as a temperance man. If moderate compensation will get rid of this drink trouble to-morrow, I should deny myself much in order to have Ireland free from drink. But when we talk of State purchase we are entering a very thorny field. We do not wish to see this nation being a State purveyor of drink. On certain lines the Irish people are willing to accept State purchase if it brings with it local option and, meantime, if the authorities cease to permit the destruction of food in the manufacture of alcohol and beer. On these lines we are willing to consider State purchase at any moment. These are the lines on which the Primate spoke when he spoke in favour of State purchase. I cannot see where there can be any case made out by our Friends for compensation in Ireland. We have much less restriction in Ireland than in England or Scotland. Our Irish troops coming home from the front come through England, and they are sober until they arrive at Belfast or Dublin, and then there are no restrictions and they can take whatever drink they like.

That is not so.

Yes, and they carry the pints in their pockets. I know cases of men who started out from the front, where they were facing the Germans, to see their wives and little ones, and they never reached their homes but were lost between the seaboard and their homes, entirely owing to drink.

Was it in London that that happened?

There was a case of a man in my neighbourhood in the county Tyrone who came home and took drink. He went into a neighbour's barn, I think to light his pipe. He set the barn on fire and he was burned and never saw his wife. He had faced the Germans and was destroyed, not by them, but by drink at home. We have many cases like that in the country. All right-thinking people Agree that this must be put an end to if this nation is going to lift its head amongst the nations of the world and continue to be the exemplar of all that is great and good, because this tiling is ruining our people. And we come to you here not because we are total abstainers or are engaged in any rabid crusade; we are willing to consider any reasonable proposition. We are not here to rob any man because he is a publican. I would be sorry to drive any man out of trade and rob him and send him on the roadside, but we want a legitimate, honourable agreement come to whereby this thing will be stopped and the wealth and produce of our people will be diverted to the proper channel. In Ireland we have not too much money, and we should conserve what we have, and instead of spending it in public-houses put it into trade and commerce which will give employment to our people. Much has been said about poverty in Dublin. What has made this poverty? Drink. Drink has made slum life. There is plenty of employment in Ireland if the people wish to have it. As has been truly stated by the Chief Secretary, you have in Ireland a Controller of Labour, who is a man after the hearts of our Nationalists friends, and is chairman of the County Council of Dublin. He is there to inaugurate National Service. Why do not these people, if they are hungry, join this National Service campaign? There is plenty of employment in various avenues in Ireland. I appeal to my Irish Friends. I think that if we had a conference on this matter and if we met as men, willing to lift our country up, apart from politics or religion, we could submit some recommendation to this House which would put us at least in the way of having an uplifted and redeemed Ireland and an Ireland in which people would not be in poverty and starvation at such a time as this.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and who spoke about conditions in Tyrone, has done what I regret to say many of those with whom he sits take occasion to do repeatedly in this House—that is to blacken the character of their fellow countrymen. I do not think that my hon. Friend was fair either to the Irish soldier returning on furlough or to the Irish publican when he tried to snake our flesh creep by the incident of the soldier being found in the barn after taking too much drink, while he was on his way from the trenches to his own home. He is also very much in error when he says that the redundant public-houses in Ireland are due to the action of magistrates recently appointed in Ireland, and he knows very little of the history of the country and of the granting of licences in Ireland and of the conditions in which the larger number of licences have been established. There is a great opportunity now open to the Government to deal in a radical way with the temperance question in Ireland, and I think that instead of passing from one side of the House to another remarks of a recriminatory character, we who represent Ireland, should encourage the Government by every means in our power to take the steps suggested to them by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, and come to the adoption of principles by which we can not only secure the smooth working of the order which the military authorities seek to carry out, by the reduction in the supply of drink, but also do something which will materially and permanently lead to temperance in Ireland and promote the object which everyone who has the interests of Ireland at heart desires. On all sides of the House and among all sections of Irishmen it is admitted that in 17,000 licences to the present population in Ireland you have a redundancy of public-houses which, so long as it remains, must be a menace to the true well-being of the country. And it is in the interests of Ireland, of temperance reform, and of the licensed trade in Ireland, that this number of public-houses should be drastically reduced. What is the just and fair method of procedure by which you can proceed to carry out that reform? The only way, having regard to the conditions which prevail in Ireland and the nature of the property which is vested in licensed holders, in which you can cut down in a proper measure and reduce to proper proportions the number of licences in Ireland, is by a system of State purchase. If the Government is not prepared to introduce State purchase for the whole of the public-houses in Ireland, at all events let the Government take the reasonable step of purchasing half the public-houses in Ireland, which they can get at the present moment at a cost of not more than £2,000,000; and in this way the Government will not only have done something which is of great present utility, but something which will have a permanent effect in promoting the well-being and happiness of the people of Ireland.

This Order of the 1st of April which we are considering, in so far as it affects Ireland, will have the effect of closing up a very large number of public-houses. What I say to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is unjust, that it is a policy of naked injustice, to deprive a large number of people of their livelihood when the result that you are seeking can be brought about by giving them moderate and reasonable compensation. The Chief Secretary says that if the State takes over the management of the public-houses in Ireland, and takes over the property of those people, then will have arisen the occasion for compensation. Surely, if by State interference you deprive those people of their property, the occasion has at once arisen for giving compensation! The right to compensation in similar cases is contained in the English Act of 1902. I call the attention of the Committee and of the Chief Secretary to what was said by the Home Secretary, in dealing with the Bill to set up a Ministry of National Service, in his speech on the Second Reading on the 22nd of February last. The Home Secretary was then discussing, not public-houses, not the licensed trade, but the trades which were considered unnecessary, and he disclaimed any intention on the part of the Government of closing down those trades, and he said:

I put forward this proposal for State purchase or compensation to the publican, whose houses are being put down as a temperance measure, a measure of justice, and a measure which we are entitled, in all the circumstances, to ask the Government to adopt. I should like to say a word or two on the nature of the restrictions which this Order imposes on those connected with the trade in taking spirit out of bond. It is a real hardship that publicans, who are ordinary traders, should be forced by the terms of this Order to confine their purchases to certain wholesale dealers. It is surely most unreasonable that a publican, who has himself spirits in bond, should not be allowed to withdraw his own spirits from bond, but should be forced to purchase the diminished supply of liquor to which he is entitled from somebody else, and at a higher price. It is just like the Govern-men saying to a man, "You must not withdraw the money you have in the savings-bank, or in some other bank, but you must go to some moneylender and get money at a higher rate of interest." I have had occasion, on behalf of certain of my Constituents and the secretary of the local associations interested in the matter, to get placed before the Advisory Committee a recommendation to the effect that. they should act on the same principle as the Petrol Committee, to give to every man who deals in spirits a licence for the quantity to which he is entitled, and to allow him to make his purchases wherever he likes, or, if he has himself a stock available for his own needs, to withdraw what he wants out of that stock in the bonded warehouse. I commend that suggestion as a special matter worthy the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and perhaps he will recommend it to the Advisory Committee.

I think this is a matter about which I know something, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give some further explanation.

The Order of the 1st April, and certain supplementary Orders which have been made since then, place the dealer in spirits in Ireland, and I believe also in this country, in this position: He is entitled to 50 per cent. of the spirits in which he dealt in 1916. He is given a permit or licence to buy 50 per cent. of his last year's consumption, but he must take his 50 per cent. from the wholesale houses with whom he dealt last year; and it frequently happens that the ordinary publican, the small trader, has been from time to time purchasing spirits himself, and leaving them in bond. It may be that the publican to whom the permit is given for, say, 250 gallons of spirit, has himself in bond 300 gallons. If in the last year he did not withdraw any of his own spirits from bond, but bought it from wholesale merchants, he is not allowed, this year, to exercise his permit by taking his own whisky out of bond, but he must go to the wholesale dealers from whom he bought last year, and take from them 50 per cent. in each case, even though he has his own spirits in bond, bought, presumably, two or three years ago at a very small price, and it has been maturing ever since. He may have paid 5s. a gallon for it, yet he is now forced to buy from the wholesale merchants with whom he dealt last year, and he may be compelled to pay 10s. or 15s. a gallon. As I said, in a case of that kind, it is like the Government forcing a man with money in the bank to go to a moneylender to get money he wants, and pay perhaps 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., or even a greater percentage that the moneylenders might wish to charge. The remedy suggested for that is that the Advisory Committee should act on the same principle as the Petrol Committee, and give every man entitled to deal in spirits a licence for the quantity of spirits which he is entitled to deal with, and then give him liberty to make his purchase wherever he chooses, or if he desires, first of all to withdraw his own spirits from bond.

It may prevent further Debate if I state that I have had some discussion on this point with my right hon. Friend (Dr. Addison), who understands these matters, and the case which my hon. Friend has put in regard to the taking of spirits out of bond is a question which will receive careful consideration, and care will be taken that it is represented in the proper Department, and, if it is possible to do anything, it will be done.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Duke), in his opening remarks, referred to the generous sacrifice which is being made in this country, observing that it was being cheerfully borne. We all, I think, agree in that. May I, for the sake of illustration, refer to one business—that of building—in which great sacrifices are being uncomplainingly borne? I have never heard from men in the building trade any suggestion as to their being given compensation. In London and elsewhere hardly a brick is being laid just now, and building generally is at a standstill; or, if there be any building, it is in a very small way indeed. Besides that, there is associated with the building industry—indeed, closely allied with it, a distinguished profession—that of the architects. Look at the position of architects to-day. They are men of education and culture, men who have been brought up in the midst of refined associations, men many of whom before the War were earning good incomes, sometimes thousands a year. Where are they to-day? Many of them, I know for a fact, who held great positions as architects in this country, but are now glad to accept a small salary of £150 a year or £200 a year. They do not come to this House complaining, and bemoaning, and saying, "Give us compensation." As the right hon. Gentleman said, they bear their sufferings light nobly and well. The Chief Secretary, in regard to Ireland, said what I believe is quite true, although I am not an Irishman; and if I am wrong, perhaps some of my Irish friends will put me right, for I am sure that they, on the whole, are willing to make the same sacrifices as we on this side of St. George's Channel are called upon to make. If we could only come together a little more, if we could only have opportunities of putting our heads together, it would be a source of great benefit to both countries, for we are all friends, I hope, ready to act as one in this great War, in order to bring it to a successful issue.

7.0 P.M.

But as I understand, in Ireland liquor is sold not only in the public-houses, but, in the majority of cases, in shops or stores; and the hon. Member for West Belfast, with that eloquence with which we are always charmed, told us that the poor publican in his country is going to be ruined if we stop the drink. Is that so? Do not hon. Members for Ireland know that if the working men and women of Ireland did not spend their money in drink, they could spend it on drapery, on groceries, or on butcher's meat. It was well put, not in this House, but outside, by the right hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks), "less beer, more boots." I appeal to my Irish friends and to the hon. Member for West Belfast and the hon. Member for Cork—and I wish those hon. Gentlemen were present now to hear what I say, for I do not want to speak behind their backs, though it is not my fault if I do, but they may see what I say if they scan the Report to-morrow—I appeal to my Irish friends, and to hon. Members both above and below the Gangway, to do what they can to effect a reform in connection with the liquor trade, for I submit that if you stop the sale of drink, even if you shut up a brewery, Irishmen will prosper all the more, and the condition of Ireland and its people will be all the better. Hon. Members know that will be so. In dwelling on this subject I desire to be careful not to speak as a teetotaler, although I am one; I wish to deal with the subject in a common-sense way, and to bring to the notice of the House the facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of drink being a necessity, a supposed necessity for the workers, and for our men in the Army. We have a great body of men, some hundreds of thousands, who have come from Canada to help us to fight our battles. When those Canadians, those great and noble soldiers, left their Western homes, the great majority of them had been brought up without the drink. Drink did not make them the soldiers they are. Unfortunately, and sad to say, as soon as they cross the Channel, and come to this side of the water, many of them have become unmanned through drink. Sobriety and total abstinence made the Canadian soldier what he is—a fact which I believe no one can gainsay. If you go to the United States of America—and I want the Chief Secretary for Ireland to listen to this—you will find it is the fact that America has flung alcohol out of her industrial system to-day. I do not wish my words to be regarded as the words of a rabid teetotaler, for I am speaking, as did the hon. Member for West Belfast, on a question of temperance. For myself, I have many friends who are publicans, and one of my best friends is a brewer. We visit each other, and I am well aware that if he looked upon me as a rabid teetotaler he would have nothing to do with me. yet I am an earnest one. But the employers of America have discovered that even the moderate use of alcohol is detrimental to commercial and industrial efficiency. Railwaymen, to the number of 2,000,000, are enforced total abstainers. They are rigidly compelled not to use alcohol. It is the same in the great metal and engineering firms. All along the line you have great works where alcohol is not allowed. In one great works in Illinois they have posted upon the walls for the men to read these words: "Any employé using intoxi- cating liquors while on duty will be discharged." Suppose that when I was in business I put up a notice like that, would not hon. Gentlemen, and perhaps right hon. Gentlemen, stand up and abuse me for my narrow-mindedness and for robbing the working man of his beer? Yet that is the action of employers in the greatest firms in America. They go on to say: Members, Nationalists and Unionists, join together in this great campaign, and if the hon. Member for West Belfast and the Member for Cork will only go on a missionary tour like Father Mathew, throughout Ireland, they will be able to say, as was said of the campaign of Father Mathew, and the great results he achieved:

Like the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I happen to be a teetotaler all my lifetime practically, and as one desirous of preventing the misuse of drink to a certain extent I agree with him. But if he is so anxious about Ireland and wants to give us a good example, why does he not begin in his own country, and what effect has he and his Friends made on the Legislature?

The barrelage is two-thirds down.

We have got it down more than two-thirds. The hon. Member should recollect this, that you cannot carry out a great measure of moral improvement unless you do it with justice. The hon. Member has said nothing at all about how those who are interested in the trade should be compensated. We live, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, in extraordinary and abnormal times. The War Cabinet apparently considers everything that is to be done, without giving the House an opportunity of discussing the matter, while I take it that the first business of a deliberative assembly is to have the power to make laws. I think the Chief Secretary, as an able and constitutional lawyer, will admit that you cannot have in the one body jurisdiction and administrative functions combined. Our functions in this House now have become so unimportant that it is really only a matter of habit that we come here, since our votes have no effect. I want to enunciate this principle, that if you adopt a measure which is for the public good, the public ought to pay for it, and that involves as a corollary State purchase. If you had State purchase in the liquor interests you could then do what you liked with it, without interfering with individual liberty or the property of any single man. It may be said, "Look at what the Russian Government did with regard to vodka!" That is quite right. But the Russian Government had a monopoly of the liquor traffic. It was their property, and they could do what they liked with it.

I take this opportunity of stating that I have not changed my views in the slightest on the temperance question. There is one thing I am not, and that is, I am not an intemperate teetotaler, and I am not a fanatic. I think justice ought to be done to every man, and sometimes it is hardship which drives a man into the publican's business. Because a man is a publican and has property in his house it is no reason because there are a certain number of men of superior virtue, who are against the trade themselves, why the man should be robbed, because that is practically what it comes to. I think it was Shakespeare who said, "He takes my life away, who takes the means whereby I live." If you take away the publican's means of living, you are bound to give compensation. I would not have taken part in this Debate at all, but that I am commissioned by my own Constituents. The fact that I do so shows that I am not bound by any narrowness of ideas, because I stood as a temperance man twenty-five years ago, and I stand still as that. I have never denied my principles as a temperance man, and yet my Constituents have re-elected me for that twenty-five years, and there is probably more drink made in my Constituency than in any other in the country. In it there is Guinness' large brewery, Powers' distillery, and a portion of Jameson's, and brewing and distilling is the principal industry in that constituency of St. Patricks, Dublin. We have had several meetings there, one of which was held on Sunday night last. I desire to put a few questions to the Chief Secretary, who knows that I am not a firebrand, and I hope I have a certain amount of common-sense, and that being so, that he will give me an answer. I understand that in my Constituency at the present moment at least 1,200 men have been disemployed, owing to the restrictions, and I am informed by men who live in the neighbourhood that at least £1,500 in the shape of wages have been displaced in that constituency.

It is quite true that the retailer of spirits is a man not much less affected by these restrictions. But there is also the small shopkeepers with whom these working men deal, who are more or less affected. The working men themselves have lost their employment. I lay down this principle—because I am prepared to say here what I have said to my Constituents—if any Government deprive men of employment, then it is the duty of the Government to provide labour for the men who are thus dispossessed of their work. The first duty of a Government is the safety of the people. If the people are not able to obtain a fair amount of food, then they have rights. For my part I want peace in the community. I have always been on the side of peace and of law and order, but I say this matter has attained to a condition in the City of Dublin, and particularly in my own Constituency, that the House will forgive me if I put it strongly. I think, however, it is the duty of every Member of Parliament to represent the voice of the people who elect him. I have been sent here for that purpose. Some Members have said that these restrictions have not affected the community. As a matter of fact there is intense distress in many parts of Dublin, and particularly in my Division, and it is mainly owing to these restrictions. That being so, although it is an abnormal state of things—which fortunately does not exist in other places—I take this opportunity again of impressing upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity for taking measures to relieve the extra distress which exists in certain parts of Dublin.

I have made some inquiries in connection with this matter into the National Service scheme. I made inquiries on Sunday night when I was in Dublin—perhaps a curious night, but I was bound to be here to-day, and I hold to the view that "the better the day the better the deed "—and I was told that between 180 and 200 men had left St. Patrick's Division and had come to Waterloo. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would subsequently let me know privately how this matter stands, for I have made application to the National Service Bureau and told them what we want. I do not want our people, my Constituents, to be put on outdoor relief, or anything of twat kind. We want work. We do not want charity. It is good sense to keep the working men of Dublin at home at useful work until the harvest comes round in order to harvest the grain and send it over tile country and to tae people of this country. That is my complaint. I do not want to go into all the various arguments that have been adduced, but I just put down these two propositions: the first is that if you take away a man's employment you should do all possible to assist him. I myself am more interested in the working man than in any other class of the community, and for this reason, that without the working man the community could not exist. The whole wealth of the nation centres in the working man. It is produce, not consumption, not stocks or shares, not gold and silver that is the wealth of the nation. That wealth is to be measured by the amount of produce and the number of the population, and if by any kind of restriction on trade you reduce the working men to poverty so that they cannot earn their own living, then statesmanship should come in and remedy that state of things.

As a teetotaler I wish to see the number of licensed houses reduced in Ireland, and I sincerely trust it will be done. But it ought to be done in a just manner, so that no friction, no sense of injustice may be engendered in any portion of the community. The result of this appeal, I hope, will be that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter, and that some attempt will be made to solve this thorny question in a manner which will leave behind it no sense of bitterness and at the same time enable those of us who are in favour of progress, sobriety, peace, and labour to go on our way more contented than we are at present. One word in conclusion. The devil, we have been told, is not so black as he is painted. I would suggest that the publicans are not anything like the class of men some people have represented them to be. May I put it to the Chief Secretary that no body of men in the country have acted more loyally than the publicans have done? They have carried out all instructions given them by the military. They have assisted in every way to help to carry out any Regulations that were made. They have made practically no complaints, and it would be bad policy to take up the point of view that they are not wishful to do all they can to help, and for the Government to fall out with a class that has a good deal to do with influencing the opinion of the working men. I trust that the result of this Debate will be that a modus vivendi will be found whereby something can be done to soften the asperities which naturally have sprung from the peculiar position in which we find ourselves, and that the teetotalers, the abolitionists, and even the drink-men will endeavour to come to some mutual arrangement which will be a benefit to the State and the public generally.

The Debate has been exceedingly interesting on account of its many personal references to teetotalers as if they were some class apart from the community. During the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down I really felt in full harmony with his high ideals—and with the publicans of the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin who in their wisdom selected a temperance reformer to be their representative in thus House. Further, I would say that during this Debate there has been an entire absence of any idea that Great Britain and her Allies are at war. Everything has been placed upon this level: that if you are going to do this for the public good, then the public must pay. If I read the situation aright, the restrictions have not been imposed from a moral point of view; the restrictions of the Board of Control which have been made under the Defence of the Realm Act have arisen out of necessity—that is to say, that you have the Government whom you are making responsible for the food of the people, for the administration of the War, and for the maintenance of the various sections of society at equilibrium. In order to do that the Government have had to decide whether it is to be beer or bread, whisky or want! I would really ask hon. Members who have been talking this afternoon as if we were really in the midst of the years of peace and plenty, and that, this, or the other should be paid for, to remember that they never mentioned the fact that Great Britain was at war, except now and again to hint that it would be a good thing to look after the publican, because, after all, he would make their path easier than it would be if he were at all neglected. I never had a low opinion of the publican. I always regarded him as a citizen with equal rights, and in some instances, with these restrictions, being given a great many privileges not granted to the general public. The publican has got a monopoly, and the price he pays for that monopoly carries with it privileges which the average publican supposes is worth the price he paid for it.

There are some penalties, too.

He has penalties if he does not carry out the law which he undertakes to obey. That applies to the ordinary civilian as well as to the publican. This is not a question that I regard as raising at all the question of public order in the sense of gaining public morality by the sacrifice of individual rights. There is a point to which nobody really alluded. How have these restrictions arisen? Some hon. Members have taken for granted that they already existed; they have never given a moment's consideration as to why they have come about. I presume it will be within the memory of the House when I say that in 1914, when this great War commenced, that, arising from it, there was relaxed a large number of restraints and the condition of affairs had became dangerous; in other words, there had been a great increase in drunkenness. You had an increase of drunkenness in this great city, and right throughout the whole country—

Not in Ireland.

I am speaking in the sense of the effect at the present time of the action of the Control Board. We had a large increase in drunkenness. A Bill was brought in with a view to reduce it, and it has reduced it so far as England, Wales, and Scotland are concerned. Its existence is justified by the fact that the convictions for drunkenness have been reduced by 50 per cent. We accept that, not because we want in any sense to be unfair to the publican; we accept that because we want, if we can, to maintain a high morale amongst the people, and we desire to bring about a sense of sobriety which will be in harmony with those spiritual aims for which we are fighting in connection with the War. The hon. Member for West Belfast, together with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, made a great point of us keeping in line with the working men. They suggested "always keep in line with the working men and see that their sentiments are well expressed." Then we had an attack upon the party called the Temperance party, as if they had always been in conflict with the working classes. I challenge any hon. Member to name any temperance measure introduced into this House during the last flay years which the Temperance party have not encouraged and supported! When you are speaking from the publican's point of view you speak as if he were the one man who was always trying to get you to go to the ballot box. I belong to a Temperance party which has been offering to the working classes the settlement of the question by ballot. Who have been the opponents of this? Not the Temperance party, but the party who from time to time lecture us for not being in line with democratic thought. We offer the same thing to-day as we have for the last half-century—an appeal to the electorate, and even on the drink question I should be prepared to go to the electorate on the question whether we shall have drink or sobriety, and to take the vote of the sailors and soldiers in addition to the ordinary civilian population. Personally, I have been a member of the Temperance party because I think it is a working-class question. People speak as if the Temperance party were a party apart from the ordinary run of the people of the world. They take their part and they take their stand.

There is just another matter to which I should like to call attention, and that is the purchase proposals which have been mentioned below the Gangway. As for myself, if it were a question of buying the traffic and closing it absolutely, I would march with you into the Lobby every time; but if it is a question of buying it to run it, then I do not think you would be any more successful in running it than the people at present in possession. You have two illustrations—Carlisle and Gretna. And, mark you, you have spent large sums of money; you have done all the things people tell you ought to be done—cinema, bowling green, large verandas, flowers on the table. They have given the very latest touch of modern management, and yet the reduction of convictions for drunkenness is not greater under their rule than under the rule of the ordinary publicans; and I have sufficient faith in this, that the public-house to-day is managed as well as it possibly can be managed in the business in which they find themselves engaged. It is not the publican; it is not the house in which he is fixed, but it is the liquor which he hands over the counter that will destroy every effort you make towards reform. If I may be allowed, as a Member of the Temperance party in this House, to say, if you bring forward a measure for its prohibition—its absolute prohibition—I will march with you every time; but to run the business, in my opinion, you will make a far bigger blunder than the people who are already carrying on the trade. The situation has changed. All these arguments we have heard to-day would have been readily debatable two years ago, because we had a choice. The submarine has settled this question, not the temperance party. The submarine is now making the Government realise that it must act, and now the nation will have to decide in the course of a few weeks whether it is going to prefer beer to bread. and also whether it is going to have whisky or cereals. My opinion of the working-man is that when he has to decide between his wife and children—the preservation of the lives of those whom he loves—and alcoholic liquor, I have no doubt on what side he will plump. It will be bread, and bread every time.

I admit the serious hardships, and I would do my best to decrease the pressure arising from those hardships, but these people must not talk about publicans as a class apart, because I dare say, like other hon. Members, I receive daily letters from men whose businesses have been ruined, and I never see a word in the paper about any compensation. As a matter of fact, if those men say anything, they call them slackers and shirkers. There ought to be some means whereby we shall stand by those men and all those men, and I am sufficiently broad-minded to wish to make the pressure as light as possible. But I do ask this House, when it has to come to a decision as to whether it is going to back the barrel or the bread-pan, or whether it is going to stand behind the publican and forsake the baker, to determine that the people shall be our first consideration. Every operation of the Control Board in this country has been successful so far as it has had the courage to go, and if it had had the courage to go further greater results would have been secured. I believe that by prohibition we should maintain, not only our sobriety and add to our efficiency, but we should enormously strengthen our economic position, because the money would be so diverted as to help us to bear the great pressure of the rise in prices. I rose for the purpose of standing by the Board and their restrictions, believing they were first done to steady the public. Now the time has come when the submarine will make either them or the Gov- ernment act, and I want to assure the Government that, so far as I am concerned, I will put up with the calumny, and will stand behind the Government in the maintenance of the great struggle in which we are engaged for the increased sobriety of our people, even to the extent of entire prohibition of intoxicating liquors.

I understood when this Motion was introduced by the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin, that it was limited to the idea that the Irish publican, on account of either his legal position, or the character and methods in which his trade is conducted, was entitled to compensation, and was in a different position from the British publican. I do not wish to travel over the great question as to whether there should be State purchase or compensation for the liquor traffic, or absolute prohibition, or anything of that kind. In Ireland we are a great deal too prone to forget that we are at war. As the Chief Secretary said in his speech, which practically travelled over all the ground, so far as I can see, in connection with the Irish aspect of the case, if there was really any substantial difference between the position of the Irish publican and that of the British publican with regard to this question, then undoubtedly, if there were such a differentiation—an unfair differentiation—the Chief Secretary, who is always fair, would have said that the Irish publican ought to be compensated. But is there? Take the legal point, which was dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin, I think he put the position of the Irish publican with regard to the ownership of the licence a very great deal too high. If there is a question of differentiation in favour of the Irishman he ought to get the benefit, but if there is not then he ought not to be in a different position from the Englishman. I am thoroughly an Irishman, and would like him to get everything he fairly can. The only difference between the licencing law of Ireland, and the licencing law of England substantially is in the case of a transfer of a licence in Ireland, where the licence is more or less attached to the premises, and a man cannot sell a licensed house to one person and the licence to another. The Licence must go with the house, and there is really no justification for the position my hon. and learned Friend put forward that there was anything like a freehold existing in the owner of a licence in Ireland. However that may be, we are not dealing with transfers at all to-day, but with restriction as a war measure.

Certain limitations have been imposed on the British and the Irish traders. .As to the necessity of this as a war measure in Ireland there can be no question whatsoever, and I must say that the military authorities in Ireland have acted with great forbearance in enforcing these restrictions. In the judgment of a very large number of people, who know Ireland intimately, and who are not fanatics about drink at all, in the interests of the nation, in the interests of our soldiers, in the interests above all of our wounded soldiers, in the interests of their wives and little children, these prohibitions were essential, and ought to be extended. The name of the Lord Primate of Ireland has been introduced by the hon. and learned Member for West Belfast in regard to the question of compensation. I am not aware of any particular utterance of the Lord Primate with regard to compensation, but I can say this, that at a very great meeting in Belfast, one of the largest meetings of the Protestant community, in which not only the Church of Ireland but the Presbyterian body, the Methodist body and all different denominations of the Protestant Church in Ireland met together, under the presidency of the Lord Primate, a unanimous resolution was passed urging upon the Government the great necessity as a war measure, particularly having regard to the state of affairs in the North of Ireland and Belfast, that there should be no differentiation between Ireland and England with regard to these defensive measures—for they are defensive measures—and that they should be more strictly enforced than they were in Ireland. Now the same thing was done in Dublin at the Diocesan Synod—I was present myself—and I know in almost every Synod of the Church of Ireland, the same resolution has been passed, and if I am not mistaken a few days ago in the General Synod. That is the attitude of those who are not fanatics, but are looking at these things for the protection of the country, and the benefit of the soldiers, their wives and children.

In the Division represented so well by the hon. Member for St. Patrick's (Mr. Field), who pleaded pathetically on behalf of the publicans I have myself seen, when the hours of restriction were ending, a string of women with children in their arms which would stretch half-way across this House, waiting in a throng to go into the public-houses. These women are in receipt of allowances from our magnificent soldiery who are now fighting in this War. It is the same story all over the place. The women and children have suffered extremely. It is a danger to the State, and on that account the restrictions are necessary. If there is a war necessity, as there is, because it could not be done unless there was, and if there is no legal difference as there is not, is there any difference in reality as to their methods of conducting their business and their trade? I do not see it. As was said by the Chief Secretary, who has grasped the position in Ireland with great rapidity, if I may say so, the reality is far more in favour of the Irish publican. These small places with £5 valuations generally belong to general traders. They sell seeds, groceries, tea, and sugar, and do a right good business, and have now a very affluent farming-class clientele around them to assist their business. To suggest that they should be compensated when men in England are not to be compensated is to make a very strong proposition. Take the case of the bakers. Are the bakers being compensated when people are being made to cut down the amount of bread they can take, or when the character of the loaves they can make is altered? Take the case of the confectioners. Because cakes are forbidden, are they to be allowed compensation? As between "cakes and ale," why should ale be compensated and cakes uncompensated? Really there is no difference in these things. We all suffer. Professional men have suffered very severely, as has been pointed out. We all know of members of the professions of engineers and surveyors and others connected with the building trade. War is war, and if everybody who suffers is to be compensated, you will have us to live by taking in each other's linen to wash. Everybody must do their best, and everybody must suffer, and is suffering.

These are all the observations I wished to make to the House in regard to this matter, but I would like to say this with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast. I am not a Member for Belfast, but I am sure the Members (if they were here) for Belfast would protest strongly against the observations made by the hon. Member for West Belfast. He said that the publicans in Belfast, who were largely members of his creed, have been driven to take up that employment through their being denied admission to other industries through the intolerance of the great manufacturers of Belfast. I do not believe a word of it. There are plenty of men in affluent and good positions in Belfast of the same creed as the hon. Gentleman. I hate to introduce this question of creed in regard to these matters, but it should not be allowed to pass without some protest. There is another thing I wish to say. When it is thrown up against the landlords of Ireland that they are guilty of creating these 17,000 public-houses in Ireland, I protest against it as an entire misrepresentation. The way it came about we in Ireland all know. The character of the magistracy had to a large extent become popularised, and when it became popularised there began canvassing of the justices in a most disgraceful way on behalf of anyone who wanted to set up a public-house. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not true!"] All over the place there was a tremendous amount of canvassing by people going round who wanted to start a public-house, and they therefore multiplied beyond any possible requirements. So bad did it become that all parties—the hon. Gentlemen on the Nationalist Benches were among them—everybody who had the interests of the country at heart, including the magistrates themselves, became sick of the whole thing, and on the initiative of a very patriotic young Irishman, Captain Shaw Taylor, they met together. I was present myself at a great meeting of magistrates when we resolved to ask Parliament to grant a self-denying ordinance for the purpose of protecting us against this action by those who wished to multiply these public-houses. It was not due to the tyranny of the landlord or of anybody else, but to the great want of moral courage which prevails in Ireland. This readiness to yield to pressure is a curse to Ireland. The very publicans themselves felt it was hitting their trade. I will not deal further with these aspects of the Debate. What are we here for? We are here to consider whether a case has been made out for the publicans of Ireland to be differentiated and compensated. I submit, with the greatest respect, that no difference exists. If they had really legal grounds for it, I should be the last. to say that they should not be compensated. Ireland must stand in in this matter of the War just as she ought to have stood in in many other ways.

I only wish to say a few words in reference to this matter. In the first place, if I may be allowed to say so, I think the Committee will recognise the great fairness, soundness, and impartiality of spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this claim for compensation that has been put forward in reference to the Irish question. Personally, if I may be allowed to submit my own judgment, I thought he exhausted that subject and that he really left nothing further to be said on that point. On the other hand, I think the Debate has been interesting so far as the Irish question is concerned by reason of the suggestions that have been put forward by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) and by other Irish Members. I am not speaking for what is called the organised Temperance party. I make no claim to speak on behalf of that body, if it exists. I can only represent an individual opinion, and therefore when the hon. Member for West Belfast turned upon the organised Temperance party, as he called it, and rent it, my withers were unwrung. I should like to say, however, that when he tells those hon. Members—or, if he includes me among them, when he tells us—that we do not know our business, that if we had only followed his advice we should have got on so much faster, I do not know what answer he would make if we had told him that lie as a Nationalist does not know his business, that he has been a very long time arriving at his goal, that if he were only reasonable and not unpractical and not fanatical he would have arrived at the goal of Home Rule long ere this. I imagine he would have treated that kind of argument for what it was worth. He would have said undoubtedly that lie knew his business best, but that he was very grateful for the advice and would pay such attention to it as it deserved. We, I think, feel very much the same sort of thing about his advice. He does not require to tell us, and we do not require to learn from him, that blunders have been made on the part of temperance progress. I am acutely conscious of blunders which I and my associates have made in the matter, of missed opportunities, and I could probably give a much longer catalogue of these than most hon. Gentlemen in this House, because I suppose I have paid more attention to the matter. On the other hand, apart from these recriminations, which do not carry us any further, I would say that when he makes his case and assumes that the organised Temperance party will immediately tear it to pieces, I do not know that he is entitled to do that. I recognise that this is largely a matter for Irish opinion, and I do not know that I have any title to express any opinion about it. At the same time, if he really wishes it, I should like greatly daring to express the opinion of an individual on his suggestion.

8.0 P.M.

As I understand it, he proposes that the State should buy out at once and, if it likes, suppress half the Irish licensed houses at the cost of a couple of millions. I suppose no one who has once realised the immense superabundance of licences in Ireland is going to dismiss at a moment's notice any suggestion of such a drastic reduction. Many of my Friends who act with me take a very strong view as to the undesirability of State purchase, but the State purchase to which they object is s State purchase connected with control and ownership. In the case of Ireland I do not think the vested interests that exist can be put as high as freehold, but there is a greater vested interest than exists even under our Act of 1904. If you ask that the 8,000 licences of the least value in Ireland should be bought at £250 apiece, I am bound to think that that is very high, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should investigate it before hastily committing himself. One further point occurs to me. I am not quite sure that I heard what the hon. Member for West Belfast had to say on the subject. If you buy half the licences in Ireland it is a very desirable thing in the public interest, but the remaining half will undoubtedly be of more value, and I do not know that at the cost of a couple of millions it would be quite sound finance to confer an additional monopoly value upon the remaining houses. Even with the reduction of drink which is going on at the present time I imagine that the concentration of the supply upon those remaining houses-would increase their value a little at the present time, and certainly very decidedly when this tyranny has passed and when, perhaps, some of the restrictions are-taken off. Subject to thee considerations, I should not have thought that from a temperance point of view there was any- thing to object to. But I do not know that that is a war measure particularly. It is a measure for dealing with a difficult temperance situation at the moment of the War, but really with the object of providing for a condition of things after the War. I do not think I need go into it any further, but if the right hon. Gentleman was going to be intimidated by any threat of opposition from this side of the House, I do not think he need have any very great fear of our attitude. For myself, I take rather an individual view on the question of State purchase. State purchase, combined with State control and with the carrying on of public-houses afterwards, I do not wish to discuss now. We have been led by the Press to anticipate a declaration by the Government. I do not always believe what I see in apparently inspired paragraphs, and I am not surprised that the Government find great difficulty in proceeding along those lines. What would surprise me would be if they had overcome those difficulties. I know the very strong objections which many of those with whom I work, or have worked hitherto, entertain to this idea in any shape or form. My own mind is not so much influenced by those objections, but perhaps it is not necessary to go into that yet. The Government have, if I may be allowed to say so, disappointed our anticipations. We have been led to expect some immediate declaration, and we are being brought face to face only with the intimation, which is very familiar now, "You had better wait and see until the difficulties are overcome." But for my part, I do not mind saying that State purchase seems to be an expedient just in so far as it brings restriction or prohibition nearer.

I must point out that if this matter arises I should have been obliged to rule the Government out of order, if they had wanted to make a declaration of that kind in Committee of Supply. I do not object to references to alternatives, which are unavoidable, but this is not a discussion of the pros and cons of the system.

On that point of Order, Sir. We are placed in an extraordinary difficulty all through this Debate, because it has been such a topsy-turvy Debate. It could only have occurred with alcohol or Ireland. We came down to discuss an Estimate on the Vote for the Ministry of Munitions, and there was specially ear- marked for discussion that part of the activities of the Ministry of Munitions which concerns the Board of Central Control. The Debate opened with a discussion of the Irish question, which did not arise out of the discussion on the Board of Control. I came down armed with a speech intending to deal with some declaration which was supposed to come from the Government in respect to their policy with regard to the liquor trade. This we were led to expect.

I do not think you were led to expect it from this side.

We expected it from correspondents in the Press, who spoke of the extraordinary importance of this Debate. But this raises a point of Order which my hon. Friend has run up against. Are we to understand that we are not at liberty to discuss the general question of the recommendations of the Board of Control in reference to dealing with the liquor traffic in future, because the Report which has just been issued by the Board of Control bases upon their experience certain conclusions and makes recommendations as to future policy in dealing with the matter. May I take it that we are not at liberty to discuss that policy on this Motion of Supply?

The right hon. Member is referring to a Report which I have not seen; but I have been anxious to take the widest permissible course on this Vote. Generally speaking, what is open is the exercise of any power the Government have at present in the way of restriction on the liquor traffic, whether under the Board of Control or under any other Government Department. I thought it was not wise to cut off the responsibility of the Government in the four sections, but to choose one Vote on which their administrative powers might be criticised.

Arising out of what you have said, Sir, I understand the policy of the Board of Control is liable to criticism in this Debate. They have adopted in certain areas a policy which leads to State purchase. Is it in order to criticise that policy and the results? Would not that necessarily lead up to a criticism of the policy of State purchase?

I think that might be so, and I would not rule with any narrow feeling in my mind.

Would not that allow a discussion on prohibition?

I think under the-Defence of the Realm Act, if I am not mistaken, the Government can close all public-houses, and undoubtedly they are liable to be criticised for what they have. done.

I am anxious not to transgress any rule of Order, but the Board of Control in its Report led up by definite recommendations to a policy, and that point was submitted to your predecessor in the Chair. I understood it was possible to allude to it, but I do not wish to refer any more to that point. The only other points I wish to make are these. We are here discussing the policy of the Board of Control. We have their Report before us, and it is laid down, or explained rather, that a number of restrictions have been enforced in different parts of the country. Well, there was a rather hot debate on the subject a little while ago. Nothing of the kind has appeared to-night. There is no difficulty of order, and I think it is remarkable that these restrictions have been accepted, patriotically no doubt, by the people of the country. I do not suppose that if they had been enforced in peace time they would have been accepted in anything like the same spirit. There may have been criticisms outside, no doubt. There are criticisms in the Press, but here no real attack on these restrictions has been made, and that, I think, is a very remarkable thing. You may object to one restriction or another, but it is a remarkable fact that if you take the right steps you can reduce the amount of drunkenness in this country in a very marked and appreciable manner. That has very often been disputed in the Press. It has been said that there is an irreducible minimum with which the State could not cope. If the Board of Control has established one thing more than another it is that the old deep-seated evil is susceptible to treatment if you have the courage and wisdom to take the right action, and that lesson ought to be noted by the country as a whole, because that is of value not only for the moment but after the War. There may be objections to some restrictions. You may say you ought to make your counter-attractions more directly disconnected from the traffic in drink. I think that is good criticism. I think there should be counter-attractions, but you should not combine them with the sale of intoxicating drink. They ought to be in separate premises. But the broad fact which has not been challenged to-night is that it is in the Parliamentary sense possible to make a real change for the better, and that although we have had all these evils, and they were deep-seated, the remedy lies in our own hands if we choose to apply it.

The second point is this. This Debate has attacked only a small point of the problem with which we are occupied at the present time, but I think I may point to appeals that have been made from different parts of the House over and over again. The Government is making appeals, fervid appeals, strong appeals, to us to economise in all ways in our use of wheat and cereals of every kind. We are threatened directly with great difficulties in maintaining the food supply of the country, and at the same time there is this lamentable weakness—it is nothing else—that we are allowing the waste of food that is going on. I have to tell the Government that there are a large number of people who will not take the appeals to economise seriously while this waste is going on. They think that the Government—whether they are right or not I have no means of knowing—are playing for safety and are anxious to leave a margin, and they will not believe the danger is really as serious as it is, otherwise they cannot believe that the Government would allow this continual waste of foodstuffs to go on. People have talked and advocated the establishment of granaries and the warehousing of grain and cereals, but if you put into warehouses the amount of grain that during the period of the War has been used up for liquor we should have passed through the danger period until our new ships were built, or until any reasonable date. But here, month by month, quarter by quarter, this waste goes on, and I think it is producing a most lamentable effect on the country. Care for our food supply and care in all our expenditure is right enough. Perhaps the appeals are not made sufficiently wide, because it is a demand, not merely about being careful of the food supply but the importation of all raw materials. I think the effect on the country of allowing this waste to go on is not sufficiently recognised. You ask what is the remedy. It is very difficult. It is far greater than the Government appear to recognise. Has the country been sounded on the question of prohibition? Have you consulted the country in any way? Have you taken any steps? I honestly believe there is no step which the country is not prepared to take if the Government definitely states that it is essential to the conduct of the War. There is a fear that there may be difficulties or troubles with the munition workers. Have they consulted the munition worker? I do not think they have done so. They have said, rather feebly, that imaginary difficulties might arise. At all events they are leaving this matter to drift, as I think dangerously, and therefore we must press them, using this opportunity, for a much more drastic policy, and not allow this state of Things to continue which I believe is really producing an extremely bad effect in the country.

I confess that I have been disappointed with the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) is a very prominent member of the temperance party, and we expected to get some light and leading on the general broad proposals which have been put before the Committee, but he was neither clear nor definite on any one of the great questions which were touched upon from these benches. The hon. Member for Lincoln and other hon. Members connected with the temperance movement have referred to what the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) said to-day, but I think they are putting quite a wrong construction on my hon. Friend's speech when they argue that they made any attack on the temperance party as a whole. The hon. Member for Lincoln misquoted my hon. Friend, who never once used the phrase "organised temperance party," and he made it perfectly clear to the sense of the Committee that what he read and jibed at was the position taken up by the people who are commonly called "temperance fanatics and extremists."

The hon. Member for West Belfast used the word "teetotalers" and he used that word again and again.

I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is no use stickling over a word, and we want to get at the meaning. I am perfectly sure that what my hon. Friend meant was teetotal fanatics and people of that kind. I repudiate as absurd and ridiculous the suggestion that my hon. Friend was attacking a great many of his own colleagues who have been life-long workers in the cause of temperance reform, and who are teetotalers as I am. Long before I ever came into Parliament or stood on a political platform I was advocating temperance on public platforms, and the same applies to many other hon. Members on these benches. I would remind those hon. Members who have criticised the hon. Member for West Belfast that a great many of us on these benches in the last eleven years have never failed to support measures of temperance reform which have been brought forward in this House. It is no use endeavouring unfairly to misinterpret the meaning of what has been said from these benches to-day. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin University entered into a somewhat technical legal argument as to the position of licensed property in Ireland. I do not intend to follow him on that point, but I wish strongly to repudiate his assertion that the popular magistrates in Ireland were responsible for the scandal of the excess of so many licensed public-houses in Ireland. As a matter of fact, that scandal was created and was in existence long before the popular magistrates came into power in Ireland. It was not many years after those magistrates came into power in Ireland that they themselves responded readily to the appeal made to them that they should voluntarily take action which would have the result of limiting the number of licensed houses in Ireland as a result of which the Act of 1902 was passed into law. Therefore it is a very unfair charge for an hon. Member to hurl that accusation at the popular magistrates in Ireland who have had a very difficult task to perform under very trying circumstances.

I want to say a word or two about the speech of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing). The Member for West Belfast, in the course of his speech, in making his charges against the temperance fanatics, excepted my hon. Friend, and said he was one of the reasonable members of the temperance party. I think my hon. Friend was scarcely fair in his treatment of the Irish situation, for he accused us on these benches of proceeding in this matter as if there were no war going on. That is a very unfair charge. As a matter of fact, it was made perfectly clear in the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder of this Motion, and in the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast, that the licensed trade had shown its willingness to make sacrifices in Ireland. The people of Ireland have not unreasonably complained of the burdens which have been put upon them, but if you do find it necessary in the interests of the prosecution of the War to drive men out of their businesses, regard in the interests of all concerned ought to be had to their special position if they can show a case. There has been no suggestion from these benches that there ought to be a conflict between beer and grain for the people, because that is a very different attitude from what has been taken up on these benches. I cannot understand the hon. Member's attitude, and the attitude taken up by hon. Members from Scotland and England in what they have said to-day on the question of State purchase, and their position seems to me to be wholly contradictory. Take the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, who says the Irish publicans no more than the English publicans have made out any case whatever for compensation, and in the next sentence he goes on to say that if the Irish Members and the Irish Government will buy out the publicans, in order to close up their public-houses, he will be with them. Surely there is a contradiction there. Does it matter to the publican what is done with the house so long as he receives fair compensation for his business? Does it matter to him whether the State continues to sell drink in that public-house or closes it up and enforces complete prohibition? It matters to the public, but does it matter to the publican? If my hon. Friend is willing to buy up the public-house and to give compensation provided it is closed, I cannot see any difference in principle if you pay the man compensation in the other case as well.

I speak as one who for many years past has always been an ardent advocate and supporter of State purchase of the liquor traffic. I have always believed in it, I have always urged it upon my temperance friends and from temperance platforms in Ireland since I first began making speeches, and I am as convinced a believer in that policy to-day as at any time in the past. When the experiments which have been made at Carlisle and at Gretna are brought up and we are told that State purchase and control of the liquor traffic in those places have not succeeded in showing better results in the cause of temperance, I say that it is ridiculous to found an argument on two cases of that kind which are utterly abnormal, because neither the conditions of the time nor the conditions of the population at Gretna or at Carlisle can be considered to be anything like what they would be in the case of an average ordinary population in peace time. You have got an emergency population. There are new towns there with family ties severed in many cases and utterly absent and with special conditions, and it is ridiculous to say that these cases serve as a fair argument with regard to State purchase generally or a great experiment of that kind.

I want to say a few words with regard to the attitude taken up to-day on this question of State purchase by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman refused to commit himself or to commit the Government with regard to State purchase, but he indicated to the Committee, I am sure intentionally, and made it perfectly clear that at some future time it might be either possible or necessary for the Government to propose a measure of State purchase of the liquor traffic. We all know that inside the ranks of the temperance party there has been going on for many months past a great struggle between those who believe in State purchase and those who are opposed to it. We know that many leading members of the temperance party in the House of Commons have been converted to State purchase as a measure of temperance reform in the emergency.