§ (Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
§ COMMITTEE. [Progress 2nd August.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Saving Clauses.
§ Clause 60 (Saving of certain rights) agreed to.
§ Definitions.
§ Clause 61 (Interpretation).
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONproposed, in line 40, to omit "Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Act, 1828." That he believed was known as the Alehouse Act, and he suggested the omission of the words "Intoxicating Liquor."
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, there was another question most difficult to define, and that was what constituted "a bonâ fide traveller." He proposed to insert in the clause, at page 29, Line 19, after "county," an Amendment, to be inserted as a separate paragraph, to this effect—
A bonâ fide traveller shall mean a person who being in a neighbourhood other than that in which he resides, and at a distance of not less than three miles from such residence, stands in need of refreshment.Since he had put his Amendment on the Paper official information had been sent him, which showed that three miles would, practically, be hardly a sufficient limit to fix for carrying out the definition of a traveller by a reference to his neighbourhood, and that a larger limit must be assigned. He believed that which was last year adopted by the Home Secretary, when dealing with that very subject, was an unobjectionable one, and he should ask leave of the Committee to alter his Amendment by inserting "five" instead of "three." The Amendment would not do what he should wish to do, by getting rid of the 461 great difficulty which had prevailed on the subject; but he believed it would be a great improvement on the present definition.
MR. BRUCEadmitted that the hon. Baronet had an advantage in being able to quote against him the opinion he expressed last year, but he thought the magistrates would have great difficulty in applying it. How, for example, was it to be interpreted in places of such magnitude as London or Manchester? His own opinion was, upon the whole, that the matter had much better be left to the decision of the magistrates themselves, as the circumstances in different places were so various. Besides, the increased stringency of the Bill and the greater restriction of the open hours, made it desirable that they should not add to the difficulty which must any way occur in enforcing the law. They had reduced the open hours on Sunday afternoons to all except bonâ fide travellers, and he should be sorry to see the law enforced too strictly, which they would do very seriously if they were to adopt the hon. Baronet's definition. For that reason he must oppose the Motion.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, that if his hon. Friend would stop in his Amendment at the word "resides," it would answer very well. As he had now put it, it would never do. Suppose he (Mr. Locke) said he should walk all the way to Edinburgh. Well, he should very likely get tired before he had gone a mile; and then his hon. Friend stepped in and said he must walk five miles before he should be entitled to any refreshment. Why, it might be the death of him. Or say he only resolved to walk to Croydon, and that he walked to the top of Brixton Hill, and then felt weary. Even then, not having completed the specified five miles, he would have to trudge the difference further on, before he could get anything to drink. He did not think the definition was a good one, and must decidedly say that he coincided in the opinion that the settlement of the disputed point should be left with the magistrates.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it was not his intention to press his Amendment, and explained that it only referred to times when public-houses would be closed by law.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
462§ Repeal.
§ Clause 62 (Repeal of Acts mentioned in schedule), amended, and agreed to.
§ Postponed Clause 60 A (License as defined by Act not required for certain retail sales).
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the clause had been postponed at an early hour on Saturday morning, in deference to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, who had given great attention to the subject; but as a domestic loss prevented the right hon. Gentleman from being present, he had to appeal to the indulgence of the Committee to postpone it a little longer, to enable the right hon. Gentleman to be in his place. His appeal more particularly applied to the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex, who had a Notice of Amendment upon the Paper.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONobserved, that he was not surprised at the appearance of the House, and did not doubt that its recent labours had told severely on many of its Members, as they must have done, particularly on the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government himself, whose absence from his place too plainly confirmed the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He attached immense importance to the proper discussion of this clause, and one of the chief reasons why he had objected to the Bill going on at so late a period of the Session, was that he had felt that many hon. Members who had taken a deep interest in this question, and who had very strong feelings respecting it, would be absent when it came under discussion. What he had foreseen had come to pass, for many benches were empty, the length of the Session having told on the endurance of hon. Members. He felt, indeed, that even a discussion that evening on the subject would not be so satisfactory as it would have been some short time back. The appeal which had been made under the circumstances was one which he confessed he had the greatest possible difficulty in resisting; but he had to consider not only his own feelings on the subject, but also those of other hon. Members, and there arose the fear that any further postponement would place hon. Members who might be present when the subject came on for discussion entirely at the mercy of the Go- 463 vernment. Under the circumstances, therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that if he said he must press his Amendment that day, it was not from any want of sympathy at all with the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, or from any desire to take an unfair advantage of his absence. It would he open for the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the matter afterwards. At any rate, he hardly felt that he would he doing justice to those who had entrusted the question to his hands if he did not ask the Committee that evening to give their opinion upon it.
§ MR. AKROYDobserved, that he took a warm interest in the subject, and urged that the discussion should be taken on it that night.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERpointed out that if his hon. Friend yielded to the appeal, he would only have one more opportunity of bringing the matter under the notice of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman could again raise the question on the Report if the Committee dealt with it that evening. He hoped that as the attendance of the House was diminishing, he might almost say every moment, his hon. Friend would not listen to the appeal which had been made to him. Although he regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, yet he thought no time should be lost.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, that although on both sides of the House there was an extreme degree of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government under the circumstances which necessitated his absence that day, yet he felt that no further delay ought to take place in dealing with this matter. There was a widespread feeling of discontent arising from the Bill having been brought on at the fag-end of the Session, when many hon. Members, from causes over which they had no control, were obliged to leave town.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSobserved, that under the peculiar and melancholy circumstances under which the appeal had been made, he thought hon. Members should avoid anything like a controversial tone in discussing the proposal which would come before the Committee. He trusted the Home Secretary would feel, after what had been said on both 464 sides of the House, that nothing short of a sense of public duty had compelled them to press on the discussion.
§
New Clause—
(Licence as defined by Act not required for certain retail sales.)
(A licence as defined by this Act shall not be required for—
—brought up, and read the first and second time.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 27, line 33, after "dealer," to insert—
Whose premises are exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquors under the provisions of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth of Her present Majesty, chapter twenty-one, intituled an Act for granting Her Majesty certain Duties of Excise and Stamps.He had already stated, he said, the disadvantage under which he laboured; but he proposed to deal with the question as briefly as possible. The Amendment he proposed would practically place grocers—who took out a wholesale 10-guinea license, which afterwards entitled them to a three-guinea retail license—on the same footing as other people who dealt in intoxicating liquors. He wished to base the whole of the argument he brought before the Committee upon that ground, and on that ground alone. He wished to restrict no class of men who chose to conform to the law in conducting their trade; but he said that when the Committee were passing laws in order to restrict and regulate a particular trade, it would be a perfect absurdity and a perfect farce if they left an opening or loophole through which anyone might retreat who wished to evade the action of the law. He, at the same time, confessed that the right hon. Gentleman had strong grounds for the argument he would probably use against the Amendment, because there was no doubt that, with very small exceptions, 465 the conduct of those who had taken out a license up to the present moment had been thoroughly satisfactory. He had himself taken a great deal of trouble to ascertain, as far as he could, the opinions of those people who had to carry out the law in different parts of the country; and he acknowledged at the outset, and stated it openly, that their answers had generally been to the effect that the few grocers—and there were but few—who had taken out licenses in their different districts were carrying on, to the best of their ability, a legitimate trade. It was, however, more on the ground of his dread of the future than of what at present existed that led him to bring forward his Amendment, for he was not afraid that those who had taken out this license with the intention of honestly carrying on a legitimate trade would do anything to bring themselves or their licenses into discredit. What he did fear was that when once that Bill was passed into law, and the penalties it would inflict had had time to operate; that when—as he supposed the right hon. Gentleman hoped and expected would be the effect of the Act—it had got rid of a certain number of badly-conducted public-houses and beerhouses throughout the country, the gaps thus created would be filled up by grocers, who would spring up with the intention of going as close to the wind as they possibly could, and evading, whenever they were able, the action of the law. That, he believed, would be done by grocers, wherever they saw an opportunity of doing business. The feeling throughout the country tended in that direction. Almost all the answers he had received, after stating what he had already told the Committee, set forth that the writers did not believe that any material violation of the law existed; but they invariably added that they must say that the evidence on this matter was excessively difficult to obtain, and that there might exist cases which could not come to their knowledge. These constables and magistrates' clerks, one and all, agreed in that, after the passing of that Bill, they looked forward with considerable alarm to the danger that might arise from these licenses being still unsubjected to magisterial authority. He had brought a few of those letters down, and he would, with the permission of the Committee, read one or two of them. He had a letter from 466 the Chief Constable of Liverpool, in which that official stated—It is my strong conviction that all places where intoxicating liquors are sold by retail, whether on or off the premises, should be licensed by the justices, who at the annual Sessions require reports from the police as to how each house has been conducted during the past twelve months, and what breaches of the law or irregularities have taken place, all which operate as a wholesome check on the general body.He had also a communication from the Chief Constable of Halifax, which stated—The result of the Act of Parliament allowing grocers and others to deal in beer and spirits by retail has, so far as my experience and information goes, been injurious. I believe that the Act in question has led thousands of females to habits of tippling that would under Other circumstances have remained sober women to the end of their days. I should amend the Act by repealing it. Open drinking is bad enough, but private drinking is much worse. My opinion is that drinking ought not to be over the grocer's counter.The Chief Constable of Staleybridge wrote—Great evil arises from licensing grocers to sell spirituous liquors in any form. There is no doubt that if the public-houses are either closed in large numbers, or the hours which they are allowed to remain open are curtailed to any great extent, unless the grocers who are licensed for spirituous liquors are compelled to close at the same time, the trade will drift in that direction, especially if neither magistrates nor police have control over them.Then he had reports from chaplains of gaols, magistrates, and clergymen, got together during the last few months, showing that they all shared the same alarm as to the future. He did not give the names of the writers; but he had received a letter from a clergyman of Manchester, who was the original mover in regard to the collection of the reports—the Rev. Mr. Bardsley—who therein stated that he would vouch for the accuracy of every one of the quotations he had sent. The other testimonials were from gentlemen locally interested, who did not wish to have publicity given to their names, and he would therefore submit their opinions to the Committee for what they were worth. One clergyman said—He was quite sure that the sale of beer in grocers' shops was greatly increasing drinking habits among females of the working classes.Again, a borough magistrate said—That intemperance was greatly on the increase among married women, all through the grocers' licenses.On being asked his opinion of Gladstone's Act, he said— 467The Act was very bad. He was informed that there was only one such house in his district, and it was considered one of the worst.Farther on, he said—That he had hitherto failed to notice any good effects of the Act. The shops were only so many more petty public-houses, and female intemperance was decidedly on the increase, chiefly owing to the facilities of obtaining intoxicants, without the knowledge of their friends, from the licensed grocers and confectioners.Again, he had the testimony of several gaol chaplains and governors of gaols, but he would only quote one. This gentleman said, speaking of the Act—My opinion is, that it is driving our respectable matrons, such as farmers' wives, on to the shoal of intemperance. It is so easy to procure the drink—the grocery being a successful blind in doing the business so respectably. The tap is often in some out of the way corner of the shop.The Chief Constable of Bradford wrote to him as follows:—In reply to your letter, I beg to inform you that, in my opinion, the licensing of grocers' and other shops for the sale of spirits is a source of great mischief. It is next to an impossibility to detect offenders against the law, on account of the cloak afforded by the grocery or other trade carried on upon the premises. If I were permitted, as the Excise are, to send agents to those places to make illicit purchases, I think there would be no difficulty in getting convictions. The system is, I am sure, working great harm, and if such places are to be permitted at all, they should only be allowed on licenses by the magistrates and not by the Excise. The importance of such a measure cannot be over-estimated.Now, another very important point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee was, that if this Amendment were not accepted, they would allow these men to obtain their licenses direct from the Excise; and what, he would ask, had been the general effect of their doing that hitherto? They all knew that the Excise looked more to money than to character. An exciseman never did and never would trouble himself to make inquiries with respect to a man's character who applied for a license, provided he brought the money to pay for it. He had, as bearing on this point, a most important letter from the Chief Constable of Hereford, who said—I may add for your information that when the beerhouse jurisdiction was placed in the hands of the magistrates, I found that great laxity had existed on the part of the Excise authorities in licensing houses that were not qualified, for out of 38 beerhouses not less than 29 were not qualified by rental, although the overseers had certified from year to year to the Excise in the usual form. Of course, these licenses were not renewed.468 He quoted that, as showing one of the difficulties with which they had to contend, if they looked to the purposes of this measure, and he was strengthened in his argument by the effect of what took place in 1830. If they recalled what then took place, they would find that the same feeling prevailed then which prevailed now—that they would by the opening of the beershops diminish he consumption of spirits throughout the country; but after the lapse of a few years, these houses became the source of all the evil which was now complained of, and it arose from the fact that they took their license direct from the Excise free from magisterial control, and free from all police supervision and inspection. He was afraid it would be just the same with the grocers' licenses, when they considered what were the inducements to intemperance which they held out, and seeing that the public had no guarantee that spirits would not be sold in grocers' establishments in contravention of the law. He hoped that from that the Committee would see the importance of placing all those who dealt in intoxicating liquors under the same law, so as to close every gap and make this Bill a reality and not a sham. The recommendations, too, of the Committee of 1854 supported his view of the case. It recommended that no intoxicating drink should be sold without a license, and that all coffee-shops, temperance hotels, shell-fish shops, and similar places of public resort should be required to be licensed for their respective purposes, and should be subject to be visited and reported upon in the same manner as public-houses, and that the annual amount paid for every such license should be £2. In fact, the whole Report went to show that all persons who engaged or who dealt in the trade should be placed on the same footing in regard to the issue of the license. If they looked to the Government Bill and to the Amendments proposed in it, they would find something more that would strengthen his position. He had looked to the Amendments which the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland had put upon the Paper to meet the evils of the case in that country. The law allowing grocers to sell spirits there was only of recent date; but yet they had had evidence before the Committee of 1868 which strongly showed what they might 469 anticipate would be the history of its working in England. On that Committee they had the evidence of Mr. Robert Lindsay, a merchant of Belfast, who, speaking of those licenses, said—They are called, in Belfast, night-houses, as distinguished from the regular public-houses. They have the power by law of selling for consumption off the premises.He would call the right hon. Gentleman's particular attention to this. Mr. Lindsay went on to say—But in fact, what they do sell is mostly for consumption on the premises. These night-houses keep a regular watch on the police, and by means of back doors, opening frequently into open yards, if a policeman comes to the front door whoever is inside is turned out into the common ground, and it is impossible to get proof.Farther on he said—These parties do sell tea and coffee; but it is more as a blind than anything else, for the shops are really public-houses. Persons who cannot get a regular license, owing to their character or the character of the premises, go to the Excise, and there, without any reference to character, they can command a license by paying £10.Turning from that to the evidence of Mr. J. L. O'Ferrall, the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Police, they would find that gentleman saying—The drinking at all hours now so openly carried on in many spirit grocers' shops and in most of the beerhouses, in direct violation of the condition of their licenses, is proof how reckless people seeking drink usually are, and that there will not be wanting persons, in total disregard of the law, always ready to minister to this craving. The public-houses in Dublin are, for the most part, well conducted; the laws regulating them are sufficiently stringent.In answer to another question, he says—The spirit grocers and beer dealers sell contrary to the law and in violation of the law, because though they have the right to sell, they have only a right to sell a certain quantity, and that not to be consumed on the premises, yet they frequently sell in violation of the law, and to be consumed on the premises, while the houses are closed, and the police have no authority to enter and so to convict them. The more you increase the difficulty of getting liquor in proper places the more people you throw into these houses.He was asked—Do you mean that the spirit grocer may sell between 11 o'clock on Saturday night and 2 o'clock on Sunday?" and he answered—"They may sell at all hours of the night.Again, on being asked—Does that take place, in fact, in Dublin now?" he replied—"Very largely. The whole of the illicit drinking in Dublin is in beerhouses and at spirit grocers, as they are called.I believe by the 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 38, s. 3, the grocers are not entitled to sell less than one 470 pint, and not to be consumed on the premises, but there is no limitation with reference to the hour of opening or closing?—But the provisions have been altered; I think, under 8 & 9 Vict., they can sell a less quantity; the quantity has been reduced, any quantity of spirits may be sold, even a glass.Can you, from your connection with the police, state from what houses that arises?—From beer dealers and spirit grocers.Which should you say chiefly?—I should say the spirit grocers; they sell the most spirits.And are not liable to a penalty for selling it, apparently?—No; they are not liable to a penalty for selling it, but only for allowing it to be consumed on the premises.In fact, the police are at this moment powerless to prevent this drinking during those hours?—They are to a great extent, from the difficulty they experience in proving the sale; that is, that they had seen payment of the money for the drink consumed on the premises.Your opinion is that drinking does not take place to such an extent as that?—I think it does in spirit dealers' and beerhouses; I think there is drinking there going on to a very great extent now.The Superintendent of Police in Dublin, Mr. Corr, before the same Committee, gave the following evidence:—Would you tell the Committee what you consider the evils of the present licensing system at Dublin?—As regards spirit grocers and beer dealers, wholesale and retail, the spirit grocers can keep open on Christmas Day and Good Friday, and every Sunday in the year. I have one at present in my division who keeps open all night for the sale of drink, not to be consumed on the premises. I have to keep a constable there, at the door, to prevent parties from congregating about the place, and to preserve order in the locality. These beer dealers are a great source of annoyance in any locality in the City of Dublin that they spring up in; there are some of them in lanes and in courtways, and I am sure it was never contemplated any license should be given to such places at all.They are not subject to any restriction with reference to getting a license; they get it as of right, by paying for it, do they not?—No matter what a man's character may be, he goes down to the Custom House and gets the beer license or the spirit license.Do you know whether there are many persons in the City of Dublin who take out spirit licenses not bonâ fide for selling drinks not to be consumed on the premises, but as a blind to enable them to sell it to be consumed on the premises?—The majority of spirit grocers in Dublin violate the spirit of their license.Would it not be difficult, indeed, to prevent a man having bought a glass of whisky in a bottle from throwing it down his throat when he had got as far as the door?—Yes, perfectly impossible.He had referred to the evidence in order to meet the argument which the right hon. Gentleman would, in all probability, put forward—that this system of grocers' licenses had already been in operation in Ireland; but the class of 471 spirit grocers had increased with alarming rapidity in Ireland, in consequence of the abolition of the smaller class of beerhouses, and all the evils which had been pointed out in the evidence given before the Committee of 1868 arose from a class of spirit grocers which the present Bill proposed to set up in this country. If the present Bill were carried out properly, it was hoped that they would put a stop in a great measure to badly-conducted houses throughout the country, and by so doing, they would have a field ready open for occupation by a new class of traders; and it would be a class who would carry out trade in England in the same way as it had been carried on in Ireland. He believed that the effect of that would be to prevent the Bill from working, and that they would soon have to pass another Bill to place these new traders under the same conditions as all others who dealt in the same class of articles, and when that time should come to pass they would regret having to do what was necessary, because they would then have to deal hardly with what would fairly be called vested interests. He therefore contended that if his Amendment were accepted and embodied in the Bill, its effect would be to put a stop to these illegal modes of dealing, for the licenses necessary would have to be obtained from the licensing magistrates, doors would have to be closed at prescribed times, and the number of houses would be materially diminished; whereas unless they could do that, he believed the maintenance of the existing system would be a blot on the Bill, which would render it ineffectual for the object it was framed for. He placed the question upon this ground—that it was only justice that they should deal evenly with the whole trade; that all who elected to sell this particular description of goods should be placed upon the same footing. He owned that he was unable to see the difficulty which had been suggested by the grocers themselves. They said they considered that it would be an indignity that they should have to go before magistrates to ask for the permission to sell these particular things; but he did not believe that the Committee would entertain any such an absurd idea. Why should it be a greater indignity to the grocer than to the publican to go before a magistrate to obtain their licenses to sell intoxicating drinks? There was 472 another argument used which perhaps might be considered to be of more weight—that they, having to apply for a magistrate's certificate, were practically restricted to one day in the year upon which they could take out their license; but this could be met by making special sessions meeting days upon which such licenses might be taken. They knew very well that these grocers' licenses were the means of holding out immense temptation to the men who held them to violate their licenses, and for this reason—The public-house had to close at a particular time, whilst the grocers could keep open all night, and it would be extremely difficult to prove that they were selling after hours. He regretted that a subject of so much importance had not fallen into the hands of those who would have dealt with it as it should have been dealt with; and also regretted further that it should have been discussed at a time when there were present so few hon. Members who took an interest in the subject. He regretted the absence of many who would have given the Committee their opinions; and, in conclusion, he could only recommend the matter to their consideration, and ask them carefully to consider what he had said. He might add that the Amendment technically only dealt with an incidental point; but it was necessary that he should move it in order to raise the whole question.
§
Amendment proposed,
In line 6, after the word "dealer" to insert the words "whose premises are exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquors under the provisions of the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth of Her present Majesty, chapter twenty-one, intituled an Act for granting to tier Majesty certain Duties of Excise and Stamps."—(Sir Henry Selwin Ibbetson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. M'LARENsaid, he had had some experience of a similar clause in Scotland to that now proposed by the hon. Baronet opposite, and he should not be doing his duty if he did not express his opinion of its operation in that country to the Committee. Under the Act in Scotland grocers' spirit licenses were obtained in the same way as public-house licenses; and the grocers were not only not allowed to keep open longer than the publicans, but they were restricted to shorter hours. Notwithstanding that, however, enormous evils had arisen from 473 grocers having these licenses, for the party who wanted to drink spirits in Scotland unobserved slipped into the grocer's shop, and thus escaped the notice of his neighbours. That was not all. Poor people, who frequented those spirit-grocers' shops for other articles got spirits also, and told the grocer to put the article down in the pass-book. Then, again, servant girls who went to these shops were often offered a glass of spirits, and in that way led to the commencement of a great evil. The trade was carried on in that way, and numerous bad results followed. As the magistrates had the licensing of public-houses from time to time, there was always the greatest objection on their parts to giving licenses to the grocers. One great evil that existed there was that there were no limits—no minimum quantity, than which the grocer was not permitted to sell less; and if the grocer should be permitted to sell at all, he should be confined, in his (Mr. M'Laren's) opinion, to the sale of reputed quart bottles, and the spirit should be sold sealed up. The system had been most demoralizing. He spoke with some experience in the matter. Although he was not in Parliament at the time, he had a good deal to do with the framing of the last Public House Act; and as an active magistrate, and taking a great interest in the question, he had for years devoted himself to watching its operation. He had thus acquired a considerable knowledge of the subject; and knowing the evils that had arisen from the system under his own eyes and the complaints that were made, he felt that he would not do his duty if he did not rise up and protest against the system being extended to England. He did not believe that much harm would arise from the sale of wine, but thought that the words about the sale of spirits should be altogether obliterated.
§ MR. F. S. POWELLwished to corroborate the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex. Having some acquaintance with the northern district, he knew that after the passing of the Act great anxiety was felt by those who were familiar with the condition of the working classes; and he grieved to say that their fears had been confirmed. There was great reason to fear that the grocers' licenses had been much demoralizing. He had heard the same story 474 which had been told by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), about women who would shrink from entering a public-house, entering into these grocer's shops and thereby contracting a habit of drinking, and becoming more and more its victims. He had heard also the same story about disputes between husband and wife, and that which was represented as a dealing in some article of grocery, was really a transaction in wine and spirits. As the representative of a considerable constituency, and having heard much of the evils of the grocer's licenses, he would support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that appeared to him an important Amendment, and he should like to say one word upon it. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex with considerable interest, and was rather amused at the way in which those different classes of traders spoke of one another. The hon. Baronet had dealt rather hard measure to the grocers. He described them as demoralizing the people; but he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) must remind him that there was something to say on the other side, and that they had several letters in the newspapers in which Mr. Gilbey stated that he found a great deal of demoralization in the proceedings of the publicans; in fact, most of them were in the habit of getting a little cheap popularity by abusing the lower class of public-houses. The hon. Baronet opposite came down upon the grocers, and then the defendants of the grocers came down upon the publicans; so that they were reminded of the old fable of the pot and the kettle. The hon. Baronet, however, was right in what he said about the experience they had had of the Beer Act of 1830. He said that the Act was passed to benefit the public by promoting free trade in beer; but he must remember what was the state of things before the passing of that Act. It was said that when it passed the Duke of Wellington, under whose Government it became law, observed that in breaking down the publicans' monopoly he had gained a greater victory than Waterloo. If the hon. Baronet would read the debates that took place on that occasion, he would find that the reason why it was passed was that the state of things was 475 intolerable, and that the House rushed into free trade in beer. That system went on for several years, but things still got worse; and his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would remember that in 1860, at the time of the French Treaty, the Prime Minister brought in his Wine Act to extend the power of selling wines to other houses. They had now heard that these extensions had resulted in leading to the drunkenness of women; and they now stood in the position that they were asked to go back to the old magisterial system, pure and simple, of 1830; for if this Bill were passed they would come again to where they were in 1830, with the exception of the heavier penalty which it imposed and the shortening of the hours, which, no doubt, would do some good. The hon. Baronet said that if his Amendment were not carried, he was afraid the Bill would be little better than a sham. There were many people out-of-doors who looked at the Bill in that light already; and although they in that House, who had gone more into the question, believed it would do some good, yet a large number of people, viewing the Bill as a remedy for drunkenness, thought they were trifling with the question. It seemed to him that the proposition of the hon. Baronet was quite fair, and that the grocers should be put upon the same footing as the publicans; and believing that its effect would be to do that equal justice to all, and that it would a little diminish the facilities for obtaining drink, he would support it.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that nothing could be more consistent than the speech which had just been made by the hon. Baronet. He objected to all facilities for the sale of spirituous liquors; and therefore he wished to put every obstacle in the way of their sale. But the great majority of that House were of an entirely different opinion. They were promoting a Bill to repress disorders; they were dealing with known and admitted evils; they were dealing with actual facts. Now, what were the actual facts which would justify the proposed interference with the issue of grocers' licenses? His hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who had moved this Amendment, with the fairness which had been characteristic of his conduct throughout the whole of this Bill, and to which he (Mr. Bruce) 476 wished to bear the strongest testimony, admitted that there was no case against the existing grocers. He said that their conduct had been thoroughly satisfactory; that he had communicated with all classes of persons, and that he had not been able to prove any evils under the existing system. He had admitted that he could not call evidence; but he affirmed, with a number of other persons, that evils existed. He (Mr. Bruce) had applied to the Board of Inland Revenue, and they said that there was no proof of the alleged evils—no proof either of the surreptitious sale of wine and spirits under the name of other goods, or of the sale of liquor to be drunk on the premises when they had only got a license to sell it for consumption off the premises. The only breaches of the law which had occurred had been in some cases where, mostly through ignorance, a smaller quantity was sold than they had a right to sell by law. His hon. Friend further justified his Amendment by taking a prophetical view of the evils which were to arrive hereafter. He referred to the action of the House in regard to the beerhouse system; but he (Mr. Bruce) would remind the House that in that case they had admitted evils. They knew that a class of persons received the licenses who were notoriously improper persons to hold them, and that no sufficient vigilance was exercised with regard to them. Was that said with regard to the class of men who applied for the grocers' licenses? The license duty which they paid for the right of selling these things was about £25, and that was a considerable security for the respectability of the person who entered into that sort of trade. There was, therefore, the strongest evidence with regard to the beerhouses, but none with regard to the grocers. His hon. Friend was obliged to take refuge in the example of Ireland, and his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) in the example of Scotland. The circumstances, however, were entirely different. In Ireland, they had admitted evils. Evidence had been taken, and there had been no difficulty in proving the existence of these evils; but no evidence had been procured in this case. He had communicated with the Chief Commissioner of Police in London, and he and his officers were unanimous in saying that 477 there was no proof whatever of any of the alleged abuses with respect to the grocers' licenses. What was the difference between the case of Scotland and Ireland and the ease of England? In England, the law was that a grocer could only sell in closed vessels, and they could not sell less than a quart of spirits; but in Ireland there was no such limitation. In Ireland they could sell in open vessels, and there was no limit as to quantity. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh had rightly fastened upon the circumstance that they were able to sell in small quantities as being the cause of mischief; and that power was more liable to be abused in a country where, on account of the colder, bleaker, and moister climate, there was a greater demand for spirits than for the weaker beverages. In both these countries, therefore, they had the existence of admitted evils; and his noble Friend the Chief Secretary would only be too glad, so far as the cause of temperance was concerned, to substitute for the law in Ireland the existing law of England. But they were now asked by the hon. Baronet to interfere with the sale of liquors by a certain class of dealers—not on account of any existing evils, not because any proof had been given of injurious results, but because such consequences might hereafter follow. To that proposal he would reply, why should they interfere to prevent persons from purchasing wine or spirits in such quantities as they required from persons duly qualified to sell them, and to take them home to be used at their discretion? Public-houses stood upon a wholly different footing. The difference between the grocers' shops and the public-houses was this—that at the public-houses drink was sold for consumption on the premises, and at the grocers' shops it was not, and the sale for consumption on the premises was accompanied by intemperance; men gathered in considerable numbers, and intemperance led to disorder, which it was the interest and duty of society to prevent. But, apart from these evils, which were connected only with the sale for consumption on the premises, if it could be shown that great moral mischief ensued, the right of interference would still arise; but none had yet been proved. No such mischief or disorder as had been adverted to in the course of the discussion had been 478 shown to arise from the grocers' licenses. But there was another thing which he would put to the hon. Baronet and the Committee. If they agreed to the clause which was now proposed, they would in fact be creating a new monopoly. If the grocers were in future to receive their licenses from the licensing magistrates, and to be brought under all the provisions of this Bill, a new vested interest would be created—a great and very formidable interest—with which they might find it hereafter very difficult to deal. It had been objected to the Bill that it would make closer the existing monopoly of the right of sale for consumption on the premises. But what grounds had they strong enough to justify a further extension of the principle of monopoly, and the creation of a new class of houses arbitrarily selected for carrying on a certain trade? The hon. Baronet opposite had not only failed to prove that any evils had been produced by the present system of granting grocers' licenses, but he (Mr. Bruce) would add, that all the information which he had asked for and received from police superintendents and other officers conversant with the facts, had failed to show that there were any grounds even for the suspicion that these licenses were abused for the purpose of promoting or encouraging drinking on the premises. He would, therefore, put it to the Committee, whether it would be right, and consistent with the principles of modern legislation, where no evil was proved, and when it was only suggested by surmises of the vaguest description, to throw impediments in the way of this trade? The greater the restriction on public-houses the greater would be the tendency to evasion, and for that reason they must grant facilities for the purchase of liquors by the public, provided that by so doing they did not endanger public order. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was consistent with his own position; but Government never interfered with the habits and enjoyments of the people, except for the purpose of preserving public order, which was not threatened by the description of trade which it was now sought to restrict. He had been told by deputations of publicans over and over again that the drunkenness of the country arose, not from drinking in the public-houses, but from the drinking of spirits sold by the grocers, If that were so, he should be 479 happy to co-operate with those who impeached the trade of the grocers; hut, as he had the means of knowing what the truth was, he had not the slightest faith in the statements made about the trade of the grocers. The publicans were exerting themselves to the utmost to reduce the competition of the grocers; the supporters of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle wished to impede every branch of the trade without discrimination; he sympathized with neither party in this indiscriminate attack, and therefore, on the part of the Government, it was his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. Baronet opposite. He said there was no reason why grocers should not apply to magistrates for licenses, but he had not shown any reason why they should; and he absolutely proposed to vest magistrates with complete discretion to grant or refuse, in which case, if they were prohibitionists, they might occasion great inconvenience to the public. On these grounds he (Mr. Bruce) hoped the Committee would not entertain the proposal.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that in his own Bill he had acted on the same principle as he now proposed, and brought two and three-guinea licenses within the cognizance and control of the licensing authorities.
MR. GREGORYsaid, the avowed object of the Bill was to extinguish a certain number of public-houses; but he would venture to caution the Committee lest in endeavouring to get rid of one evil, they found themselves creating another. The object of the Motion of the hon. Baronet was to prevent the continuance or extension of a new class of public-houses, placed under more favourable and less stringent regulations, and thus able to supply greater facilities and temptations for the consumption of intoxicating liquors. It was a fair and reasonable proposition that all such houses should derive their authority from the same source, and all be subject to the same regulations and the same penalties for the infringement of these regulations. That, however, was not the case here. The licensed victuallers were obliged to close at certain hours—the grocers might if they chose keep open all night. [Mr. BRUCE: That is dealt with under the Bill.] He was speaking of the present system, and contended that it offered a temptation to 480 grocers to exceed or abuse their power, by supplying that which the public-houses had been prohibited from doing. Again, licensed victuallers were to be subjected to severe penalties if they sold intoxicating drinks to young persons under a specified age; but spirit and wine grocers were subject to no such penalties, and might sell to whom they chose, and a child refused at a public-house might obtain ale or spirits at a grocer's shop, which the Bill contemplated he should not have. Licensed victuallers, too, were to be subject to heavy penalties, not only for selling adulterated liquors, but for having materials on their premises, whether knowingly or not, which might be used for purposes of adulteration, and in the case of two convictions they were to be compelled to placard the fact of these convictions on their own premises. Spirit grocers were exempt from these stringent penalties. He contended that that was unequal and unfair legislation, and he should certainly vote for the Motion of the hon. Baronet below him.
§ MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, that looking at the quarters whence came the attacks upon the clause, he was tempted to make the inquiry—"Is Saul, too, among the prophets?" Legislation dictated by dread of the future and designed to meet conjured-up phantoms of the imagination must always fail; indeed, he thought it the chief duty of those who asked Parliament to legislate to make out a present case, a pressing necessity for the remedy advocated. He was astounded that any hon. Member who professed Free Trade principles should think of voting for this Motion. Free Trade seemed a lesson to be, with some, as easily learned as readily forgotten; but he trusted that no Free Trader would vote for the creation of a new monopoly. The attack made on the clause was only one other mode in which the interests of the public were apt to drop out when the interests of individuals stood in the way. If the publicans felt aggrieved with the grocers being allowed to sell spirits, let them form a large society for selling tea; but, as regarded the great body of the nation, he hoped the Committee would not throw difficulties in the way of obtaining the best article at the cheapest price.
MR. SCOURFIELDthought the remarks that had been made with reference 481 to his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex were most unjust. His Bill was rather unpopular, and it was accepted as a fair compromise. He also objected to the mode in which the other side put the question. In his opinion, the onus probandi lay not with his hon. Friend, but with those who held that grocers should be allowed to sell spirits. Why should not stationers or any other shopkeepers be also allowed to sell spirits? [Mr. BRUCE: So they are.] Prideaux was asked by his publisher to put some jokes into his Sacred and Profane History, in order to make the book sell; and in like manner the grocers now sold wines and spirits in addition to their other commodities. He had always thought that tea and coffee were the great antidotes to intoxication; but now it appeared that the bane and its antidotes were to be sold in the same shop.
§ MR. T. HUGHESsaid, he was somewhat surprised at the statement he understood the Home Secretary to have made—namely, that persons taking out those licenses paid as much as £25 a-year. Was his interpretation correct? He had always been under the impression that the spirit-grocer's licenses were £13 a-year—£10 for one and £3 for the other; whereas that of the publican amounted to £20 or £30.
§ SIR HENRT SELWIN-IBBETSONobserved that his clause did not relate to wine licenses.
§ VISCOUNT SANDONconsidered that in connection with these spirit-grocers' licenses the great danger to be apprehended and to be guarded against was that of clandestine drinking. If any tradesman could obtain a license, then they would have the shops of the stationer, draper, tobacconist, and the like turned into lurking dens for the sale of intoxicating liquors. When the Home Secretary said that no evils had been proved to exist from the operation of the spirit-grocer system, he forgot evidently the testimony which had been quoted by the hon. Baronet of governors of gaols respecting the evils clearly traceable to the sale of spirits in shops of this description.
§ COLONEL AKROYDbelieved that, as a rule, licensed spirit-grocers' shops were not badly conducted, but the great danger 482 arose from tradesman's wives going there to purchase articles of necessity for family use, but being tempted into buying spirits for their own consumption. There was a natural modesty about women, and, in many instances, their sense of delicacy kept them away from the public-house; but this feeling did not prevent them entering the grocers, and bringing away a bottle of spirits. It transpired in the Inquiry respecting Habitual Drunkards that the practice of drinking was spreading more than ever among womankind. Some protection, therefore, such as the hon. Baronet proposed, was necessary, otherwise all that had already been accomplished with regard to beerhouses would prove comparatively useless. The object of the Amendment was merely to extend to grocers those restrictions which they had already determined should apply to publicans.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, that throughout the discussion there had been considerable confusion because hon. Members did not sufficiently distinguish between sale and consumption on and sale and consumption off the premises. For instance, his hon. Friend and Colleague opposite (Mr. Gregory), in alluding to the 7th clause, which forbade the sale of spirits to persons apparently under the age of 16 years, failed to notice that it applied solely to a sale for consumption on the premises. It had been argued that the system of grocers' licenses encouraged secret drinking by women and young servant girls, and that, therefore, the licenses ought to be subject to a magistrate's certificate; but as a matter of fact, there would, under such a system, be just the same facilities as at present for women and servant girls to obtain spirits. The House ought to keep steadily in view the distinction between regulating houses in which people drank and took refreshments and shops which were only open for the supply of commodities which the purchasers took away to their own homes. Before altering the law in respect of grocers' licenses, a further trial ought to be given to the existing system.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 65: Majority 30.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
483§ On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, a new clause, to follow Clause 27 (Local authority may grant occasional licenses exempting from provisions relating to closing during certain hours), agreed to, and added to the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONmoved that certain of the provisions of this Act with respect to—1. Illicit sales; 2. Offences against public order; 3. Adulteration; 4. Repeated convictions; 5. Entry on premises; 6. Six day licenses; 7. Legal proceedings (except so much thereof as relate to the continuance of license during pendency of an appeal); 8. Miscellaneous, and 9. Saving clauses, shall extend to Ireland, with certain modifications.
§ Motion agreed to.
§
New Clause—
(Closing of premises.)
(Notwithstanding the provisions of section forty-three of the Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter one hundred and seven, it shall not be lawful for any person to sell, or expose for sale, or to open, or to keep open, any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, or any day appointed for a public fast or thanksgiving after nine o'clock at night within any city or town the population of which according to the last Parliamentary Census shall exceed five thousand, nor elsewhere after seven o'clock at night on such days, and on other days after ten o'clock at night.
The provisions of all Acts relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail, authorising or forbidding the doing of any Act, matter, or thing at any times during which the sale of intoxicating liquors is by the said Acts prohibited, shall be construed as if the times during which the sale of intoxicating liquors is prohibited by this section were substituted respectively in the said Acts for the times therein mentioned.
Any person who sells or exposes for sale, or opens or keeps open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors at any other times than those limited for such purpose by section forty-three of the Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter one hundred and seven, as the same is amended by this section, or during such times as aforesaid allows any intoxicating liquors to be consumed on such premises, shall, for the first offence, be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and for any subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds.
Any conviction for an offence against this section shall be recorded on the licence of the person convicted.
None of the provisions contained in this section shall preclude a person licensed to sell any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the premises from selling such liquor to bonâ fide travellers or to persons lodging in his house.
484
Nothing in this section contained shall preclude the sale at any time, at a railway station, of intoxicating liquors to persons arriving at or departing from such station by railroad,)—(The Marquess of Hartington,)
—brought up, and read the first and second time.
§ SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANin moving as an Amendment, in line 7 of the proposed new clause to leave out from the word "after," to the words "ten o'clock at night," in line 10, said: Sir, the effect of leaving out these words would he to close up all shops where spirituous liquors are sold during the whole of Sunday. The effect would he the same as that of the Sunday Closing Bill, and it is with that object I now propose this Amendment. There is a misapprehension on the part of some who oppose the measure I am now proposing which I desire to remove. The proposal to close public-houses in Ireland during the whole of Sunday has been viewed by some as an attempt to interfere with a supposed almost immemorial right of the trade, and hence is looked upon as an unjustifiable innovation. Now, the fact is, that it is no innovation of an immemorial right. The sale of spirituous liquors on Sunday was in Ireland forbidden by law under penalty up to the year 1833. In that year an Act, commonly called "Perrin's Act," was passed, and it is only since that year public-houses have been permitted to be open in Ireland on Sunday. All that we seek now is to have that bad Act repealed, for experience has convinced us that its effects have been most injurious to the morals, the comforts, and the health of our people and of their families. We ask you to do with this Act as the House has dealt with other Acts when they have been found not to work well. Some years ago this House passed the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. It has been repealed, for its provisions were useless or injurious. Some years since the Party Processions Act (Ireland) was passed. Instead of its achieving the end for which it was passed, it was found to make matters worse. You repealed it. I ask you now to do the same with the Act of 1833. That Act has produced great evil. Do with it as you have done with the Ecclesiastical Titles Act and the Processions Act—repeal the Act of 1833, which permits the sale of liquors on Sunday. We only ask this—place us in the position 485 in which we were before 1833—place us in the same position as the people of Scotland have been in for 18 years. The Prohibitory Law has worked well in Scotland, in all the large towns and through the country. It will work equally well in our cities and through the country. On what grounds do I ask for the repeal of the Act of 1833? I think I shall be able to show the House there are indeed sufficient grounds for the total closing of public-houses on Sundays in Ireland. In 1834, only one year after the passing of Perrin's Act, a Petition from the Corporation of Dublin alluded to the increase of drunkenness consequent on its passing, and from that year up to the present a constantly increasing demand for the closing of public-houses on Sunday has been spreading through Ireland; within the last few days I have had a communication from a society of licensed retailers themselves, informing me they were favourable to Sunday closing. It may not be out of place here to notice that from the nature of the drink taken in Ireland, the effect of Sunday drinking is peculiarly to be dreaded. Beer is the general drink in England; beer taken to excess stupefies: whisky is the general drink in Ireland; whisky maddens. The habits of drinking, too, are different. In England, each man drinks his beer in such quantity as he likes; in Ireland, in country parts especially, they drink in rounds in parties of five or six; each stands his round in his turn, treating the party in glasses of whisky. Swearing into illegal societies too often follows, for the designing entrap the unwary. Faction fights on the way home or agrarian murders are sometimes among the consequences. Such are among the evils of Sunday drinking. I can say, without hesitation, that never on any subject in Ireland has there ever been so widespread, so universal a conviction as on the evil effects of Sunday drinking, and never on any subject in Ireland has there been such an unanimous appeal to the Government and to this House, as for total closing of public-houses in Ireland on Sundays. Within the last few days I presented at the same time to this House two remarkable Petitions on total Sunday closing of public-houses. One was from His Eminence Cardinal Cullen, and 13 Archbishops and Bishops of the Catholic Church, The other was from 3 Bishops, 486 16 Deans, and 21 Archdeacons of the Protestant Church. The Heads of the Presbyterian Bodies and of the Wesleyan Methodists have also petitioned for it. However we may differ in Ireland in politics, in religion, in party, in class, all are united on this point. On the 28th March last an aggregate meeting was held at the Mansion House, Dublin, the Lord Mayor, locum tenens, in the chair, attended by all classes and all religions. There was an unanimous vote in support of Sunday closing. Complaints were made that the trades and workmen of Dublin were not there. To meet this really unfounded objection, a meeting was called of the working men of Dublin, open to all, for the discussion of the question, in the Mechanics' Institute. The great hall was filled; some hundreds were there; only four hands were held up against total Sunday closing. No meeting was ever called against it. The following extract from the form of petition very generally adopted throughout Ireland puts concisely the grounds on which total Sunday closing is asked for:—
On the day set apart for rest and Divine worship, when usual labour is prohibited, and the wages for the week's support of the family have been recently received, the temptations of the public-houses and beerhouses are permitted, to the grievous injury of good morals, and of the health, wealth, and comfort of the people of Ireland.Deputations with memorials in favour of total Sunday closing waited on the late right hon. the Chief Secretary, now President of the Board of Trade, and on the present Chief Secretary the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington). The memorials presented were signed by 1,026 Justices of the Peace, 60 Corporations and Boards of Town Commissioners, 84 Poor Law Boards, 23 Boards of Gaols and Lunatic Asylums, 67 County and City Coroners, 57 Chaplains (Protestant and Catholic) of Gaols and Asylums, 13 Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and 10 Clerks of the Crown. The trade itself sent in a Petition from Dublin with 235 names attached. Of 60 signatures from a town in Ireland (Moate) presented in April last, 15, or one-fourth of the whole, were of vintners. In the present year, 1872, the most rev. Dr. Conaty, Catholic Bishop of Kilmore, thus writes—Any person with an accurate knowledge of the country knows that many of the deeds of daring and violence which have occasionally disgraced 487 our people were concocted and matured in public-houses notable for Sunday traffic. The Sabbath being a day of rest, the young and unwary assemble in the haunts of the idler, the plotter, and the drunkard. Here it is that wicked and designing men ply their victims with drink, and then engage them in societies alike subversive of order and religion. Close the public-houses, and you deprive all those parties of a legalized rendezvous. Their daily toil or necessary avocations will prevent their meeting on week days.Let us turn for a moment to the case of the young men and—now, unfortunately, in some cases—young girls employed in selling whisky on Sundays in public-houses. Of these, there are in Dublin about 3,000; through the country altogether, about 60,000. They cannot be in bed on Saturday night before 12 or 1 o'clock. On Sundays they must be behind their counters from 2 o'clock to 11 or 12 at night, exposed to the company often of the dissolute and depraved. There is little or no time for recreation, for religious attendance, or moral instruction, for after the fatigues of Saturday night, the morning time on Sunday is scarcely more than is given to rest and meals. These young persons presented to my Colleague and myself a memorial, asking us to use our efforts for Sunday closing. In it they observe—The hours of our body are 16½ hours' work on week days, and 9 hours' work on Sunday. You will search in vain for a parallel for our position.In several parts of Ireland voluntary closing on Sunday has been adopted. We ask you now to make compulsory throughout Ireland what is now voluntary in some parts. It might, perhaps, be said here, why may it not be left to be voluntary everywhere? For this reason—As one black sheep will spoil a whole flock, so one publican opening his house, forces all the trade about him to break up the voluntary closing. In one large parish in Dublin the Catholic clergymen succeeded in carrying out voluntary closing; but one or two broke the rule, and then the others were obliged to follow for their own protection. In other parts the movement has been more successful. The most rev. Dr. Leahy, Archbishop of Cashel, thus writes after 12 years' experience of Sunday closing in his diocese—Our Sunday temperance law has been to the present faithfully observed by the people, and has wrought immense good. A drunken man rarely is to be seen amongst us on Sundays. Rioting 488 and blasphemy, the inevitable consequences of excessive drinking, which, before the introduction of our law, prevailed to a lamentable extent, have ceased to desecrate the Sunday and to disgrace our towns.The most rev. Dr. Furlong, Roman Catholic Bishop of Ferns, writes as follows, this year, after 15 years' experience of Sunday closing:—The closing of public-houses on Sunday in this diocese dates from June, 1857. It has been since that time faithfully observed, and the scenes of drunkenness and disorder which were in former times but too frequent, have altogether disappeared.…. I can say with perfect truth that the calm and abstinence from all disturbance and disorder which pervade this diocese on the Sabbath day is a result of Sunday closing, for which we have reason to be thankful to Providence.Were the women of Ireland—the mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters of the working men of Ireland—polled, there would not be found amongst them even one dissenting voice. It has been feared that if the licensed houses be closed, drinking in illicit houses would increase. To this there is this sufficient reply—that it has not taken place in those districts where voluntary total closing has been established. We have this also in communications from those districts—Should total Sunday closing be established by law, we would have the most efficient watch-guard to discover the illicit houses, for then police and licensed vintners would be combined to detect and punish the keepers of such houses, should any attempt be made to establish them.It is often said in this House and out of it by successive Governments—"Bring any measure before us on which Irish Members agree, and we will not oppose it." I now propose to the Government this Amendment for their adoption. There is not a constituency in Ireland that has not, either in considerable numbers or unanimously, asked for total Sunday closing. Do, then, grant us what we ask. I will conclude by reading a letter of His Eminence Cardinal Cullen to the very rev. Dr. Spratt on total Sunday closing.My dear Dr. Spratt,—I earnestly hope that the exertions which are now being made to obtain an Act of Parliament prohibiting the sale of intoxicating drinks on the Sunday may be crowned with complete and speedy success. The law which forbids the sale of other articles on that day should certainly make no exception in favour of liquors, the abuse of which is so injurious to the public. Almost all the crime we have to deplore in Ireland may be traced to drunkenness; and as long as the doors of the public-house 489 stand open during the leisure of the Sunday, it will be very difficult indeed to root out from among our people that degrading vice. No one knows better than you how much has been already done to meet this evil. The Archbishop of Cashel and the Bishop of Ferns have succeeded in inducing their people to refrain from the sale or purchase of intoxicating drinks on Sunday; and in many parishes of this diocese the parish priests have been similarly successful. The happy results which have followed wherever this has been done, should encourage you and your colleagues to persevere in the work you have undertaken, and should secure for you the hearty co-operation of all those who have at heart the spiritual and temporal welfare of our excellent people.—I am, my dear Dr. Spratt, your devoted servant,+ PAUL CARDINAL CULLEN.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 7, to leave out from the word "after," to the words "ten o'clock at night," in line 10.—(Sir Dominic Corrigan.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was sorry he could not assent to the proposal of the hon. Baronet, believing that the change he proposed to make by his Amendment was one of too great and important a character to be effected by the omission of a few words from a clause, and without due notice being given to the people whom it so much concerned. If such a change as that suggested were desirable, it ought, in his opinion, to be made by means of a Bill framed with the avowed object of shutting up public-houses on Sundays in Ireland. The present measure was not one for that object—it was only a measure for the better regulation of public-houses generally. His hon. Friend had himself brought in a Bill to offect his object—which Bill stood for a second reading on Wednesday. He (the Marquess of Hartington) did not believe that there was one person in 100 in Ireland interested in this subject aware of his hon. Friend's intention to effect his object, if he could, by such an Amendment as he had proposed; and it appeared to him that it would not be fair for the House to decide in this sudden manner upon a point of such grave importance. He (the Marquess of Hartington) proposed by his clause to restrict the hours at which public-houses should be open on Sundays in Ireland. Those houses were now allowed to keep open from 2 o'clock until 11 o'clock on Sunday. Eleven o'clock being thought 490 to be unnecessarily late, he should propose that in towns of over 5,000 inhabitants the closing hour should be 9 o'clock on Sunday, and in other towns 7 o'clock. Now, he believed that such an arrangement as that would be attended with beneficial results, because he was induced to think that the worst kind of drinking took place during the later hours of the Sunday. He could not, however, go so far as to say that the public-houses should be closed throughout the whole of the day. His hon. Friend had alleged that there was great unanimity on this subject in Ireland, and had appealed to him as to the representative character of the deputation which had waited upon him. He had had the honour of receiving deputations comprising persons of all creeds and politics in favour of the view of his hon. Friend, and he was aware that there was a very strong feeling in Ireland in that direction; but he was not prepared to admit that there was anything approaching to unanimity of opinion upon the subject—or that even a majority of the people of Ireland was favourable to this proposal. If it were generally known throughout that country that such a change as that suggested by his hon. Friend was contemplated, he was disposed to think that they would see as strong an agitation on foot in favour of the other side of the question as any that had already manifested itself in support of the closing of those houses on the whole of Sunday. The hon. Baronet had, no doubt, disclaimed any intention to effect class legislation by his Amendment. Nevertheless he (the Marquess of Hartington) thought, from the nature of his proposal, that it was impossible to avoid exposing it to the character of class legislation. He was quite aware of the distinction which existed between public-houses and clubs; but there was this analogy between them—that whereas in the case of the upper classes a club was a place to which a gentleman resorted if he wanted to take something to drink in the middle of the day or night, the public-house was almost universally the only place to which a member of the lower classes could resort. Consequently, if public-houses were closed the whole of Sunday, it might be said that the law left open to the rich man a place where he could obtain refreshment, while it closed the only place available for the 491 poor man. He must say that Her Majesty's Government were by no means prepared to effect so important a change in the law.
§ MR. PIMsaid, he was much indebted to the noble Lord for his efforts to improve the morals of the people in connection with this question. He was nevertheless in favour of the proposal of his hon. Colleague, believing that if the people of Ireland were polled upon this question a large majority would be found in support of it. If the noble Lord would accept an Amendment which he had assisted in drawing up, by which the question of Sunday closing could be left for the decision of the great majority of the locality, then he would counsel the withdrawal of the Amendment; but if the noble Lord would not accept it, then he would urge his hon. Colleague to divide on the present Amendment.
§ MR. MURPHYobserved that the hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin had brought the subject before the Committee as if it had never been heard of before in that House, whereas a special Committee had sat upon the question of Sunday closing, and a Bill to effect that object had been before the House for three successive Sessions. It had, therefore, undergone thorough and repeated discussion. He would not trouble the Committee with any observation of his own; but he would call the attention of the hon. Baronet to the evidence given by one of his own constituents, as to the difficulty of preventing Sunday drinking, which was one of the special purposes which would, it was said, be effected by the passing of this clause. The secretary of the United Trades of Dublin, in giving his evidence before the Committee of 1868, said, that from what he had learned there was a strong feeling in favour of sobriety on Sunday, but that no steps they could take to put down drunkenness would be productive of sobriety, unless they secured the co-operation of the sober men in the attempt to check it; as when the public-houses were closed, those who wished for drink would run all risks to obtain it, and would seek for it wherever they could find it, which was chiefly in the low beerhouses in disreputable localities. It was, too, an extraordinary circumstance that the time when drunkenness was most observable in the streets of Dublin on Sundays was from 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, 492 the very hours during which the public-houses were closed. They had already had the testimony of Mr. John Lewis O'Ferrall, who was most intimately acquainted with all matters of police in the City of Dublin, placed before them in respect to this question of Sunday drinking, which he attributed to the beerhouses and grocers' spirit licenses. The whole gist of the evidence before the Committee went to show how impossible it was to carry out practically the system of Sunday closing.
§ DR. BALLsaid, he was quite certain that if the public-houses which were under the control and supervision of the police were closed throughout Sunday, those who were desirous of obtaining spirits and other intoxicating liquors would seek for them in houses which were not under any such control, and, so far, the cause of public morality would be a loser. The stream blocked up would force its way through other channels; and the police, instead of being able to cheek and control drunkenness, would be powerless in the matter.
§ MR. P. J. SMYTHsuggested that where a majority of one-third of the publicans in a district agreed to keep their houses closed on Sundays, it should be made compulsory on all others in the same district to do so likewise.
§ SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANcomplained that on his introducing his own Bill last June the Home Secretary objected to it as piecemeal legislation, and advised him to raise the question in connection with this measure; whereas the noble Lord now told him he should have brought in a separate Bill. The Irish people had had six months' notice of his proposal, and meetings held in every part of the country had shown remarkable unanimity in its favour.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 28: Majority 33.
§ SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANsaid, he wished to draw attention to the hours at which he thought it desirable that public-houses should be open on Sundays in Ireland—namely, from 1 to 3 in the afternoon, and then to close till 6; in other words, that they should adopt the English practice in Ireland, and for this reason—if whisky-houses were kept open the whole of Sunday the labouring classes would congregate in the towns; but if 493 they were closed as in England, the labourers would go to their homes.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONdid not think that the suggested alteration would be an acceptable one in Ireland. In England the hours were regulated in reference to Divine Service, whereas in Ireland Divine Service was celebrated at different hours. As far as he was informed, those hours would be most inconvenient.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he was in accord with the hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin, and he had an Amendment to move—namely, that additional power should be given to magistrates in granting licenses at Quarter Sessions in Ireland. The magistrates there hold their sessions four times a-year; and, while he desired to give them increased power, he was not favourable to give the power to a majority of the magistrates. His opinion was that two-thirds of them might be entrusted with power and control. He would therefore move an Amendment to the proposed new clause as follows:—After the word "night," in line 10, to insert the words—
Provided always, That it shall be lawful for the justices assembled in quarter sessions for any district of any county or riding, to make an order or orders directing that all houses and premises within such district, or within any portion thereof specially designated in such order, which are licensed for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors shall be closed on Sunday, Christmas Bay, Good Friday, and every day appointed for a public fast or thanksgiving, at an earlier hour, or during the whole of such days; and they may also by such order direct all such houses and premises to be closed one hour earlier on the other days of the week.The great advantage of such a law was that it would spread throughout the country; and he desired that a discretionary power should be given to the magistrates, on an application of the majority of the inhabitants of any parish that all public-houses should be closed throughout the whole of Sunday; that two-thirds of them shall so direct, if they think proper, after hearing every person for and against such application.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYhoped the Government would accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend. There could not be a doubt that a large number of people in Ireland wished for such a law, and he believed if the country were 494 polled that the result would be in favour of the Amendment. He could speak for his district. No more carefully-guarded clause than this could be drawn, and he trusted that no one would vote against it for fear of introducing the permissive principle. Let them legislate for this part of the United Kingdom as it desired; and who could doubt that, if this matter were to be decided across the Channel, the permissive principle in this respect would be adopted. The demand made by his hon. Friend was very moderate. He simply proposed that the licensing authorities, after due notice had been given, and every opportunity had been afforded to the people of the district to express their views, might, if they found it was in accordance with the wish of the inhabitants, close public-houses on Sunday. It was not fair to say that this could be done now if the publicans desired it. They had no right to submit the virtue of those who desired to do it to the vicious wishes of an individual. In one district four out of five publicans might desire to close on Sunday; but it was not fair to put them in the position of losing half their trade if the fifth did not join. The proposal of his hon. Friend was guarded by requiring that two-thirds of the magistrates should be of one mode of thinking before this restriction could come into operation. He earnestly hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
§ SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANsaid, he would accept the Amendment, in lieu of his own, with great gratification.
§ MR. MURPHYsaid, it appeared to him that this proposition was only the permissive question in another shape. The object which the hon. Member had in view would be much better accomplished by the voluntary action of those who kept public-houses than by the Amendment which he proposed. What would be the effect of the proposition? It would cause canvassing and strife in every parish. Twenty-one days' notice must be given before any action could be taken. But on whose behalf and for what object was that notice to be given? Was it not that the ratepayers and consumers should have notice of the proposition? and it would not be difficult to foresee that in that district they would have all 495 the excitement of a contested election. [An hon. MEMBER: The magistrates are not elected.] The object of the notice was that the magistrates should be informed by the inhabitants of the district what was their will and pleasure upon this subject. [Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNING said, that this was not the case.] What, then, was the object of the notice? Would not everyone who was against Sunday closing he up in arms against those who were in its favour, and would not that give rise to canvassing and internecine strife in the whole of the district? He contended, also, that the Amendment would be unfair to the occupiers of the public-houses, because it would render their tenure insecure. There would be continual agitation for and against Sunday closing; there would be no finality in any rule that was adopted, and the question would give rise to vexatious strife.
§ DR. BALLsaid, there was a good deal to be said in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for the county of Cork; but he doubted if it should be adopted when there were so few of the Irish Representatives present. He was the only Irish Member left on his side of the House. He would suggest that the proposition should be considered by the Government between that and the Report; but he did not think that there was a sufficient number of Irish Members present to decide a question which involved principles of such importance.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Murphy) had fallen into entire delusion and misapprehension. He did not know what he meant by saying that there would be canvassing. Would the magistrates at Quarter Sessions be canvassed? [Mr. MURPHY: The public opinion of the district will be canvassed.] Public opinion would, no doubt, be brought to bear on the magistrates, and it would be for the magistrates to consider how far they would be guided by that opinion. He had thought that he would not take a division on this question; but he found the opinion of hon. Members around him so strong that he should set aside that resolution, and take the sense of the House upon the question.
MR. O'REILLY-DEASEsaid, hon. Members were much mistaken in supposing that the people of Ireland were 496 in favour of penal legislation of this kind. He was convinced that the majority of the people of Ireland, like the majority of the people of England, were against curtailing the luxuries of the poor.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the proposal of his hon. Friend consisted of two parts—one to give magistrates the absolute power of closing public-houses on Sunday, and the other a power of curtailing the hours on other days. With regard to the absolute closing of public-houses on Sunday, that was not a principle or mode of legislation which he admired, for he thought that as far as possible Parliament ought to decide on these matters, and that they ought not to be left to the local authorities. There was, of course, a great difference between town and country; but the House was aware of that difference, and it could make one set of regulations for the town, and another set for the country. There was great force in the objection which had been raised by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and if the proposal were adopted there would no doubt be an active canvass, with the view of eliciting the feelings of the inhabitants on the one side or the other; and that agitation might be renewed every three months. That was a prospect upon which he looked with no satisfaction at all. It would be an abandonment of the public functions if they placed such extensive powers as these in the hands of magistrates. It further appeared to him that this was something like the permissive principle without some of its advantages, for there was this advantage in favour of the permissive principle—that they did obtain, in some sense, the opinion of the majority of the ratepayers, whereas, by the proposal of the hon. Member, they would not have that advantage. Then, again, the magistrates to whom the power was to be granted might be all of one opinion, and that was that public-houses should be closed entirely; and if they were so minded they would be able to carry it out, irrespective of the opinion of the ratepayers, whether in a minority or a majority outside. He hoped that he should not be supposed to say anything derogatory of the character of the magistrates of Ireland, who, as a body, he believed, would not shrink in any case in doing their duty as between man and man; but that was a different question, 497 and in dealing with such points as would be brought before them, if the Motion of his hon. Friend were agreed to, they would have to deal with opinions, not with facts. If they had strong opinions one way and decided accordingly, the thing would be done past the probability of recall, and great discontent might be thereby created among the population at large. He must say, therefore, that he could not vote for the proposal to give the magistrates the power, under the proposed conditions, of closing public-houses entirely on Sundays. He preferred to leave the regulation as it stood in the Bill. With respect to the optional and elastic power of varying the hours of opening and closing on week-days, he must say that he could not find that there had been any general expression of public feeling in favour of such a course being adopted in Ireland. He thought that what had induced his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to adopt the elastic principle for England was, that the people in the different towns and districts lived under such widely diverse circumstances; their habits and local wants were so different that it was necessary to make, as it were, a self-acting machine adapted to meet these different local wants. But as regarded Ireland, which was a more purely agricultural country, and where there was not the same diversity of local and social habits and wants, there was no need for ensuring the same elasticity. What he should propose was that on Sundays, in towns having 5,000 inhabitants and over, the public-houses should be open from 2 o'clock till 9, and on week-days from 7 to 11 o'clock; under that population, from 7 until 10. If he saw, before the Report was brought up, any strong reasons to alter those views, he should be happy to give them his best consideration. Meantime, he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to thank the Government for what they had done in the Bill, which he thought would greatly promote the cause of temperance in Ireland, and produce a great improvement on Sundays. As to closing the houses entirely on that day, he was sure that public opinion would be entirely against it in his part of the country, and he for one did not believe that there was any such desire on the part of the great majority of the people. Certainly he 498 should not vote for such a measure unless such an opinion existed in its favour. He would suggest, however, to the noble Lord whether it would not be an improvement if the public-houses could be closed in towns earlier than 11 o'clock on Saturday nights. The younger portion of the working classes, with their week's wages in their pockets, were tempted into excesses by the houses being kept open late. He would not propose to close so early as 9, but he would suggest that 10 o'clock would be a fair hour for closing on Saturday, and believed that if that were done it would be of great benefit to the working classes and to the cause of morality.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, the practical objection to the clause of the hon. Member was that it would be absolutely unworkable. Its phraseology would require no end of interpretations and definitions. It would cause a grand field-day every three months at Quarter Sessions, preceded by a general agitation throughout the division of each county, and he believed even the hon. Member for Carlisle would hardly like to place himself at the mercy of some 50 irate publicans dragged in that manner from their business and their homes. Besides that, who was to pay the clerks of the peace their fees for all this additional work? Who was to pay for the advertisements in the county papers? Who was to find the means for setting in motion a complicated and unworkable machinery? He strongly advised the withdrawal of the Amendment.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the only objections urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman were legal objections, not based upon principle. If he chose to do so, he might amend the clause in such a way as to obviate his own objections on the bringing up of the Report. The Attorney General for Ireland had stated that the proposed clause would prove unworkable. Now, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would undertake to produce on the report some clause similar in principle which would work, he should recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. Downing) to withdraw his Amendment.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he was entirely opposed to the principle of the clause. So was his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington).
§ MR. MURPHY, on the ground that no opportunity had been afforded the trade in Ireland of expressing their views on the subject, said, he must oppose the clause.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmaintained, in opposition to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that his clause was perfectly workable.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 50: Majority 25.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ New Clause (Interpretation—"spirit grocer," "Excise license," &c.) amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ New Clause (No renewal of a license to be granted to spirit grocers without certificate of justices).
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved as an Amendment, that no renewal of a license should be granted, unless the spirit grocer produced a certificate from two or more justices who usually preside at the nearest sessions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland knew that in many places only one magistrate presided, and he believed his Amendment would remedy that inconvenience.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ New Clauses (Penalty on spirit grocer if liquor drunk on premises); (Evasion of law as to drinking on premises of spirit grocer); (Internal communication between premises of spirit grocer and house of public resort), agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ New Clause (Justices and constables may enter premises of spirit grocer during prohibited hours).
§ MR. PIMwished to be informed whether that meant all hours? Suppose a spirit grocer closed his shop, would those parties be entitled to demand admittance?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)replied that the Bill gave them such a power, and did more than that. At present spirit grocers in Ireland could keep their houses open all day and night too; but by this measure they were subject to the same rule as publicans.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
500§ New Clause (repeated convictions) agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. MAGUIRE, in reference to the preceding clauses, said that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would find on inquiry of the Irish Members that they were in favour of diminishing the hours of sale on Sundays, and he hoped he would bear that in mind before the Report.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, there was no question before the Committee, and therefore he could not make a speech; but he would promise his hon. Friend that the matter should receive his attention before the Report was considered.
§ MR. RATHBONEmoved a new clause to follow Clause 13—(Evidence may be given as to previous offences). The object of the clause was to remedy the difficulty of obtaining convictions for permitting drunkenness. That difficulty was so great that there were many towns in which there was not a single conviction during a whole year.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he would accept the clause, for he thought it was founded on a just principle. When evidence was given that drunkenness was continually taking place, it was equivalent to proving that it was knowingly permitted. It was, in fact, the same principle as was applied to the passing of bad coin.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he should not move the Amendments of which he had given Notice under the head of "Grant of orders of occasional exemptions;" nor that in Clause 30, which dealt with the question of appeal. The present appeal, as the House was aware, whether as to the removal or the transfer of a license, was to Quarter Sessions. He believed that the idea thrown out by the Government of creating a new licensing committee would have led to the formation of a valuable Court for dealing with appeals of that kind also, and had it been earlier in the Session he should have endeavoured to press the subject on the House; but under present circumstances he should not do so, as he would be very unwilling at so very late a period to entertain any new scheme with reference to appeals. He should, however, move according to Notice, the insertion of a new clause after Clause 40, providing 501 that premises to be licensed must be of the following rateable value—namely, if in a town containing a population of not less than 100,000 inhabitants, £50 per annum, or for a beerhouse or eating-house license only £30 per annum; if in a town containing 10,000 inhabitants, £40 per annum, and for a beerhouse or eating-house license £25 per annum; if not in any town as above-mentioned £20 per annum, or for a beerhouse or eating-house license £12 per annum. He should also supplement the proposed new clause by providing regulations as to the structural fitness of the premises. He had evidence from almost all the large and populous districts of the country as to the rateable value of the houses in them; and the figures in the clause he proposed he thought would be found fairly to represent the value of houses employed in the trade throughout the country. At the same time, he was not prepared to adhere to the figures if the right hon. Gentleman felt that in any instance they were seriously too high. He believed they would work fairly. He attached great importance to the raising of the qualification of houses, for in their value was to be found a guarantee for their regular conduct and the maintenance of order in them. One of his reasons for raising the qualification from £8 to £12 in rural districts was that that was the qualification necessary for a vote in Parliamentary elections. It would be generally found that the value of public-houses was higher than that of beerhouses, and that where the rateable value of the latter was £10 the rateable value of the former was £15 or £20. He moved the insertion of the clause.
§
New Clause—
(Qualification of house.)
(No new premises shall be qualified by law to have a licence attached to them which do not satisfy the following conditions:
(A.) The premises, unless such premises are a railway refreshment room, shall be of not less than the following rateable value:
If situated within the limits of a town containing a population of not less than one hundred thousand inhabitants fifty pounds per annum, or if a beerhouse or eating-house licence only is attached thirty pounds per annum.
If situated within the limits of a town containing a population of not less than ten thousand inhabitants forty pounds per annum, or if a beerhouse or eating-house licence only is attached twenty-five pounds per annum.
502
If not situate in any such town as above mentioned twenty pounds per annum, or if a beerhouse or eating-house licence only is attached twelve pounds per annum.
(B.) The premises shall be, in the opinion of the licensing authority, structurally adapted to the class of licence for which a certificate is sought: Provided that no house, not licence as a public-house or beerhouse at the time of the passing of this Act, shall be qualified to have a public-house or beerhouse licence attached thereto, unless such house shall contain, exclusive of the rooms occupied by the inmates of such house, if a public-house two rooms, and if a beerhouse one room, for the accommodation of the public, each of such rooms to be not less than nine feet in height, to contain not less than one thousand five hundred cubic feet, and to be so constructed as to freely admit light and air; and no new house licensed as a public-house or beerhouse shall be qualified to have a licence for sale off the premises attached thereto, unless such house shall have a separate entrance and separate accommodation for the purchasers of intoxicating liquor to be consumed off the premises: And no house shall be qualified to have a public-house or beerhouse licence attached thereto, if any part thereof or of any premises communicating therewith is used as a common lodging-house,)—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson,)
—brought up, and read the first time.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the principle of the clause had been already adopted in regard to beerhouses, but the figures it comprised were too high. The hon. Baronet proposed that there should be no licensed victualler in any part of the country unless he occupied a house of the rateable value of £20. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: No new one.] That would practically prevent the establishment of public-houses in rural districts. Small populations were springing up here and there, and the Return made in 1867 showed that there were some 30,000 public-houses under the rateable value of £15 a-year. He would undertake to say that they were by no means the worst-conducted houses in the country. They were village public-houses, decent and well-conducted places, against which no complaint could justly be made. Why should such houses be excluded from our rural districts? What he had endeavoured to do by this Bill was to secure good and responsible persons for the management of these houses, who would act under a sense of duty and with a regard to the public interests. The scale of his hon. Friend was really too severe.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsupported the clause, because in his opinion it would do something to prevent the increase of public-houses.
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, believing that if the clause were passed it would prevent many increasing districts from having houses of refreshment. The houses that were built in the villages were not of an expensive character.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKthought the clause ought not to be lost, but that the figures should be reduced.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he would not oppose the second reading of the clause, on the understanding that the rentals mentioned in it should be somewhat reduced.
§ Clause read a second time.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he could not object to any fair and moderate proposition. The facts obtained by the hon. Baronet were valuable, but they ought not entirely to guide the Committee.
§ MR. WETHEREDsuggested that the object which the Committee had in view might be obtained by substituting the annual for the rateable value.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, that at the time he proposed his former Amendment he was not aware that the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex had a similar Motion on the Paper. His Amendment certainly did not provide for so large an advance in the rateable value as that of the hon. Baronet, but still he would be prepared to vote for it; and a great deal of difficulty would be got over, if Government would accept the advance. He was sure such a course would give very great satisfaction. It was really a preposterous arrangement that in small towns they should require as a qualification a rental of £8 per annum, in larger towns one of £11 per annum, and in the metropolis one of £15 per annum. If houses of such insignificance in value were licensed, the occupiers carried on a business which was of no advantage either to the owner or to the public. On the contrary, they led to a large amount of vice and immorality, and injuriously affected the houses of higher value in the same neighbourhood. Unless in this Bill they took some means to put an end to this state of things, it would not, when it became law, give satisfaction to the country.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthen moved as an Amendment, to leave 504 out the word "new" in the first line of the clause, in order to insert after "premises" the words "not licensed as a public-house or beerhouse at the time of the passing of this Act."
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTinquired what the hon. Baronet proposed to do after that?
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained that he proposed in the subsection to leave out the limitation of 10,000 inhabitants, and to make the public-house qualification £25 instead of £40, and that for the beerhouses £15 instead of £12; and for public-houses in rural districts £12 instead of £20, and for beerhouses in similar localities £10 instead of £12.
§ MR. MELLYsupported the clause, though the figures mentioned appeared to him somewhat too high. Their object was to restrict the trade; it was on all hands admitted that there were more licensed houses than were required by the legitimate wants of almost every locality. The clause was a direction to the licensing magistrate to require a higher class of house, a richer, and therefore more responsible tenant, before they granted a new license. It was of the first importance in large towns especially to have comfortable, well-ventilated houses, with sanitary conveniences, and large rooms for social and political intercourse. No new license in such a town should be granted to any house which not being of a rateable value of £50 or £30 would probably not supply these requirements. Gradually, the older houses, untouched by the clause, would, by building new rooms and additions, follow the rule thus laid down. He preferred annual to rateable value, as the system of rating varied in each town. In the country districts, he would advocate a lower figure, say, £15 and £12; a man not held fit to be a county voter should not, he thought, hold a beer license. It must be remembered that this clause was the minimum which the licensing magistrates might require; it left their discretion unfettered as to higher requirements. If the trade was to be as seemed the desire of the Committee, a close monopoly, let every guarantee be taken that those who henceforward engaged in it should be men of substance and capital, likely, according to all the rules which guided human nature, to conduct their houses respectably, and to aid the cause of law and 505 order. He entered on this very restrictive policy with reluctance; but if they were not to enter upon a free trade policy—for which he was not prepared, at all events let them take every precaution that the new houses in large towns should be of proper size and value. As regarded the villages, he supported a lower figure than that proposed by the hon. Baronet.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Stoke would shut up all the old houses.
MR. BRUCEthought the qualification in towns of over 100,000 inhabitants rather too high than too low, and would suggest that the rateable value should be fixed at £30 instead of at £50. In the outskirts of all the large towns there were a great many small houses springing up, as the building ground was cheap; and whereas £50 per annum might not be too high a qualification for houses in the centre of the towns, it would certainly be so in these localities. He must also say that he had no objection to the substitution of the word "annual" for "rateable," as suggested by the hon. Member for Great Marlow.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was entirely in the hands of the Committee. He had personally no objection to lower the public-house qualifications to £40, and that for beerhouses to £25.
§ MR. F. S. POWELLcautioned the Committee not to fix too high a rateable value. He did not see why houses of a lower rateable value might not be as well conducted as those of a higher, especially in new neighbourhoods where the house were let at low rents.
§ Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
§
First, second, and third divisions of sub-section (A) amended and agreed to, as follows:—
No premises not licensed as a public-house or beerhouse at the time of the passing of this Act shall be qualified bylaw to have a license attached to them which do not satisfy the following conditions:—The premises, unless such premises are a railway refreshment room, shall be of not less than the following annual value; if situated within the limits of a town containing a population of not less than 100,000 inhabitants, £50 per annum; or if a beerhouse or eating-house license only is attached, £30 per annum. If situated within the limits of a town containing a population of not less than 10,000 inhabitants, £30 per annum, or if a beerhouse or eating-house license only is attached, £20 per annum.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONproposed as an Amendment in the fourth division of sub-section (A) by substituting £15 for £20, and £10 for £12.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 13, to leave out the word "twenty," and insert the word "fifteen."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he did not think that the figure "20" as the annual value would be too high, as it was desirable to raise the qualification for these houses.
MR. BRUCEsaid, on the contrary, he was not inclined to make the value too high in the country districts, and he did not see any necessity for raising the figure.
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid, it would, in his opinion, be impossible to get a house under £20 value.
MR. GREGORYthought it would be a wholesome and wise thing that the annual value should be above £20.
§ Question put, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 80: Majority 51.
§ Clause amended, by inserting the words "fifteen" and "twelve."
§ On Question, that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
§ MR. DODSONexpressed a hope that the House would pause before it agreed to sub-section (B) of the clause. He asked the House whether they were going to enact regulations which were more worthy of a Continental Préfect than to be embodied in a Bill? The clause provided that no house was to be licensed as a public-house, or a beerhouse, unless it should contain, exclusive of the rooms occupied by the inmates, for a public-house two rooms, and for a beerhouse one room. What would be the effect of such regulation? That the inmates would be packed into one room so that it might be said that there were two other rooms in the house for the use of the public. Then the clause provided that no house was to be licensed unless it had rooms nine feet high, and that there should be a separate entrance for those who consumed intoxicating liquor on the premises, and other conditions. He asked where they could make sure of finding this sort of accommodation in the rural villages; and they must remember that they were legislating for the rural districts as well as for the 507 towns. He thought they might leave it to the common sense of magistrates to license such houses as were suitable.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the virtuous indignation which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed was rather misplaced. He seemed to forget that they were dealing with houses which were to be created in the future, and that it was proposed to lay down certain conditions which they should fulfil. He believed that unless they laid down some rules they would be doing little good. The clause had been in force for many years in some of the colonies and had worked well.
MR. BRUCEthought that the justices should have some voice in deciding not only whether the rateable value of the house was sufficient, but whether it was properly adapted for a public-house. The first sentence in the sub-section therefore might be retained; but the remainder could be well dispensed with.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he wished to draw attention to the last words of the clause—
And no house shall be qualified to have a public-house or beerhouse license attached thereto, if any part thereof or if any premises communicating therewith is used as a common lodging-house.He supposed by this was implied a common lodging-house under the Act of Parliament, but as the clause stood, the effect of it would be that nobody could lodge at a public-house.
§ MR. DODSON, in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, moved the omission of certain words in the sub-section, but—
THE CHAIRMANintimated that the question before the Committee was, that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. DODSONmoved the omission of all the words in sub-section (B) from the word "provided."
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTthought the provision with regard to the two and the one rooms should be left.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that one of the reasons for proposing 508 the sub-section was, that in some beerhouses the family room of the inmates was used as a taproom. With regard to the objection of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, the clause had been carefully drawn under legal advice, and the words of it would not prevent a traveller from lodging at a public-house.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsupported the subsection as an indication to the magistrates of what should be required in public-houses.
§ MR. WHITWELLthought that a room of 1,500 cubic feet—which was a room of 8 feet by 13—was a miserably little place for a number of healthy fellows to assemble in and drink their beer.
§ MR. CAWLEYopposed the limitation of 1,500 cubic feet, not because it was too large, but because in many cases it would be too small.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Motion of Mr. DODSON, sub-section amended by striking out all the words after "public," in line 8.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ New Clause (Transfer or renewal in case of forfeiture)—(Mr. Gregory) negatived.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved after Clause 43 to insert as separate clauses 43 (A) (Application to remove license); and 43 (B) (Mode of removal). The one had reference to applications to remove licenses—the other to the mode of removal, and both were framed on the principle and sought to carry out the object of the Bill of last year, which had only been acted upon to a limited extent. The clauses he moved would extend the operation of the Bill of last year, and enable the holders of licenses to move from overcrowded or decaying districts into new and growing ones, to their own great advantage and to the advantage of the populations in the new districts whose wants they would supply.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the circumstances under which they stood now were very different from those when the Bill of last year was passed, and he did not see how the Amendment of the hon. Baronet would fit in with the provisions of a Bill framed upon a totally different principle. The manner in which new licenses were 509 to be granted would, he believed, render such applications for removal or transfer to other districts very few; but he would have no objection if the clauses were amended so as to make the applicants pass the same ordeal as the applicants for new licenses.
§ MR. A. JOHNSTONsupported the clauses, as being calculated to benefit the tradesmen in the over-crowded districts from which the transfers were made. The tradesman who removed to a new and growing district, and the public, which would be supplied by an experienced and respectable tradesman, would equally benefit by those clauses.
§ Clauses amended accordingly, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. RATHBONEmoved after Clause 49, to insert the following new clause:—
(Protection of licensed persons.)Where a licensed person is convicted of more offences than one committed on the same day, the convictions for which are by this Act directed to be recorded on his license, the court by whom he is convicted may in their discretion order that one or some only of such convictions shall be so recorded. Where a licensed person is convicted of an offence, the conviction for which is by this Act directed to be recorded on his license, or on conviction for which his license is by this Act declared to be forfeited, the court by whom he is convicted may, if they are satisfied that the act or default in respect of which he is convicted was committed by his servant or by any other person maliciously or for the purpose of procuring his disqualification or the forfeiture of his license, order that the conviction shall not be recorded, or that his license shall not be ferfeited, as the case may be.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he had no objection to the first portion of the clause down to the words "so recorded." He must oppose the remainder.
§ Clause amended accordingly, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ On the Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, the following new clauses were substituted for Clauses 54 and 57:—Clause 54 (Evidence); Clause 57 (Regulations as to closing of houses, &c.); Amended Clause 57 (A) (Police superannuation fund entitled to moiety of penalties; Clause 57 (B) (Limit of mitigation of penalties; and Clause 57 (C) (Regulations as to retail licenses of wholesale dealers).
§ New Clause (Mr. Locke), by leave, withdrawn.
SIR TOLLEMACHE SINCLAIRproposed a new clause, having for its object 510 to empower local authorities to purchase all public-houses within their jurisdiction, and to work them for the benefit of the local taxpayers. In support of this proposition he would instance the success which had attended the experiment tried at Gottenburg in Sweden, where the public-houses worked upon this principle had been made to yield a net revenue of several thousands towards the reduction of municipal taxation; and drunkenness, in the first year of the experiment, had decreased to the extent of 33 per cent. Assuming the average price of the goodwill of a public-house in this country to be five years' purchase, he calculated that local authorities buying up the whole of the public-houses within their jurisdiction would be able to effect a reduction equal to 20 per cent in the amount of the rates.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that if it had been earlier in the Session he might enter into and discuss the subject proposed by his hon. Friend. If he should think it desirable to renew and elaborate the scheme next year he (Mr. Bruce) would give it his best attention; but at this time of the year he would recommend him to withdraw it.
§ Clause negatived.
§ Schedule 1,
§ MR. PLIMSOLLmoved in page 32, line 4, before "coculus indicus," to insert "salt," in addition to the deleterious articles used in the brewing of beer.
§ COLONEL AKROYDpointed out that the Schedule dealt with deleterious ingredients, and that salt did not, properly speaking, come under that head.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that salt in the operation of brewing was no doubt very generally used, and there was, he believed, no doubt that it was used for the purposes of adulteration after the beer left the brewery. He believed there was an ale well-known as Yarmouth ale, in the brewing of which salt water was much used. It would be better, he thought, to leave such matters to be provided for by an elastic regulation than to lay down any such precise rule as that proposed.
§ MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKthought 30 grains of salt to every gallon was too great a proportion, and moved that the quantity should be 15 grains.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the danger was to define these matters too closely rather than too loosely. He thought the Committee would act more wisely in leaving the question to stand over for the present.
§ MR. RATHBONEhoped the Amendment would he accepted, as salt was used to a very great extent in the manufacture of beer. Its use was not, he believed, necessary in the brewing of good ale, and it was employed principally to disguise unsound beer and to create thirst. He would propose in line 6, after "ingredients" to insert—
And chloride of soda, commonly called salt, or any similar substance, if present in a proportion exceeding 30 grains in a gallon of liquor.
§ MR. DODSONreminded hon. Gentlemen that this was not an assembly of chemists, to decide upon such a question. It was, in his opinion, better not to touch the subject at all, and he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Plimsoll) would withdraw his Motion.
§ MR. PLIMSOLLreplied that although they were not an assembly of chemists, they could at least stop the use of what was injurious to public health.
MR. BRUCEhoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment. He would undertake to have the matter properly considered by competent authorities, and at present it was better not to discuss it.
ALDERMAN SIR JAMES LAWRENCEdid not think the question a very immaterial one, for he had known cases where men were fined as much as £200 for putting bad ingredients into the manufacture of articles of consumption.
§ MR. WHITBREADagreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Sussex that this was not an assembly of chemists. He believed salt was used for purposes of fermentation, but did no harm to anybody. Salt being contained in the various kinds of malts, and also in the water used in brewing, a number of grains of salt from those two sources would be introduced into the beer, amounting in general to 14 or 15. It would be impossible, therefore, to limit the quantity to 15 grains, or even to 30. He admitted the desirability of diminishing as much as possible all pro-vocatives of thirst, but he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better for him to consult competent authorities, and see what it would 512 be possible to do in the direction indicated.
§ MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, he was ready to withdraw his Motion. He was willing that there should be an investigation. What he disapproved of was that salt should be actually added, and his Amendment was to prevent that.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEasked whether the Home Secretary proposed to bring up words on the Report to limit the quantity of salt in the beer?
MR. BRUCEsaid, that the Privy Council having the power of adding from time to time to the Schedule of deleterious substances, what he proposed to do was to consult competent authorities as to the manner in which salt should be excluded from beer, and according to their recommendations salt would be added to the Schedule by the Privy Council or not.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEobserved that in that case the shortest way would be to put salt in the Schedule of deleterious substances in the first instance, and to remove it if it should be found on inquiry that it ought to be omitted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Schedule 2.
§ On Motion of Mr. A. JOHNSTON, Amendment made in page 32, line 9, before "section ten," by inserting "section six."
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked whether it might not happen that the 14th section of the Act of Will. IV., c. 64, not being repealed, might not be set up on the part of beerhouse keepers throughout the country, as defining the hours during which they might keep open?
MR. BRUCEsaid, that he assumed this Bill, when passed, would overrule the Act of William IV. But he would consider the matter before the Report.
§ Schedule further amended, and agreed to.
§ Preamble amended, and agreed to.
§ Title agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEYhoped the Report of the Bill would not be taken to-morrow. The Bill could not be 513 printed in time, and it would be a mere farce to bring it on before hon. Members had the opportunity of reading it and correcting any errors.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the Bill was already in type, and the Amendments in it could be printed in time to admit of the Bill, as amended, being in hon. Members' hands to-morrow at 12 o'clock. This would afford ample time for them to give Notice of any Amendments they desired to bring on at 9 o'clock, and to have these printed meanwhile. In point of fact, there were very few Amendments to be printed.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 288.]