HC Deb 29 July 1881 vol 264 cc226-35

Order for Committee read.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Power to hawk petroleum) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Regulations for hawking petroleum).

MR. DILLWYN

said, the words "proper care shall be taken to prevent any petroleum escaping," which he proposed to omit, were too vague, and he did not think any convictions would ever be effected under them. Where any person allowed petroleum to escape into a sewer, the fact itself was sufficient evidence of a want of care which ought to be subject to penalty, otherwise people would allow escapes, and then declare that they had taken all proper care, and the magistrate would have to decide the point. The escape ought to carry the penalty with it; and he urged that the clause ought to be made stringent, for the presence of explosive substances in sewers was a very serious thing, and they could not tell what mischief they might cause. He proposed, therefore, to get rid of the vagueness of the clause, and to make it definite by making the accident itself proof of carelessness.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 1, leave out "proper care shall be taken to prevent any petroleum escaping,'' and insert" in the case of any person having the care or charge of petroleum allowing it to escape."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. COURTNEY

said, he could not assent to the Amendment, and observed that there was a much more serious objection to the Amendment than the vagueness to which the hon. Member objected. It was not safe, it was unreasonable, and it was not just. What the Bill proposed to strike at was the absence of proper care on the part of any person licensed to hawk petroleum. The hon. Member was not content with that provision, but wished to add actual escape as subject to penalty. It was not safe to make escape a subject of penalty before the act of carelessness was made penal; neither was it just, because, although the person might have taken the most absolute care possible, yet, through some defect which he could not have foreseen, there might be an escape. As to the clause being vague, it was simply a matter for the magistrates to decide upon the evidence adduced; and he thought the magistrates were perfectly competent to deal with the matter.

MR. HOPWOOD

thought the clause vague as it stood; but he recognized the difficulty of inserting the Amendment in the clause, drawn, as the Bill was, in a peculiar form. He agreed that there should be something in the Bill to more carefully provide against carelessness; but he did not think the hon. Member had thoroughly solved that difficulty, and, therefore, he thought it would be better to abide by the language of the clause.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he had another Amendment, in line 3, after the word "sewer," to add "shall on conviction thereof be liable to the penalty hereinafter imposed;" but it amounted to very much the same thing as the Amendment just disposed of, and he would not, therefore, move it. It appeared to him, however, that the clause, as it stood, was very vague and indefinite, and that the third Amendment which appeared in his name upon the Paper would remove some of that indefinite-ness. The words in the clause were "due precaution," and he certainly did not know what they meant; and he would propose the substitution of words that were much more definite. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 8, leave out from "all," to "hawking," inclusive, and insert "any person having the care or charge of petroleum, who shall do any act which may tend to cause any accident by fire or explosion, and which is not reasonably necessary for the purpose of such hawking, or who shall allow any unauthorized person to have access to the vessels containing the petroleum, shall on conviction thereof be liable to the penalty hereinafter imposed.—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. COURTNEY

said, he was afraid the same objection really applied to this Amendment as to the former one. In the first place, the proposal of his hon. Friend amounted to the transformation of a most important clause of the Bill. There were three things provided for by the clause, the third of which was that due precaution should be exercised; and, although it might be a somewhat vague expression, it appeared to him that the necessities of the case required that some latitude should be given to the magis- trates in dealing with the cases likely to be brought before them. He could not see how there would be any miscarriage of justice under the clause; and, on the other hand, these words were wanted in order to cover cases where it was made clear to the magistrates that due precaution had not been taken. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he would not press it if his hon. Friend declined to accept it; but he could not help feeling that the words, as they stood in the clause, were vague and indefinite.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. THOMASSON

moved, in line 15, to leave out "no article or substance of an explosive or." He proposed afterwards to add the word "highly" before "inflammable," which would make the clause more stringent.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 15, leave out "no article or substance of an explosive or."—(Mr. Thomasson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. COURTNEY

said, he objected to the Amendment, because its adoption would make the clause absolutely unreadable. It would not run together at all, nor would it be possible to make sense of it. It would read in this fashion—"inflammable character other than petroleum nor any of them."

MR. THOMASSON

said, he intended, if the Amendment were adopted, to put in the word "highly" before "inflammable."

MR. COURTNEY

said, that on comparing the clause and the proposal as it stood on the Paper, he was utterly at a loss to comprehend what it was his hon. Friend desired to do.

THE CHAIRMAN

Of course, the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomas-son) does not propose to insert words in the clause that are incapable of being considered with it. The Amendment, as it at present stands on the Paper, will render the clause unreadable, and, therefore, cannot be put.

MR. THOMASSON

remarked, that if the words proposed to be struck out were omitted, he should then propose to insert the word "highly," which would make the clause correspond with Section 4.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. THOMASSON

moved, in line 15, after "or," to insert "highly." He explained that his reason for proposing the Amendment was that the word "highly" appeared in the other sections of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 15, after "or," insert "highly."—(Mr. Thomasson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'highly' be there inserted."

MR. COURTNEY

said, his hon. Friend was probably not aware that the word "highly" had a technical meaning in connection with petroleum. Petroleum was variously described as "petroleum" and as "highly inflammable petroleum;" and it was proposed in the clause that neither the high nor the low test should be taken.

MR. THOMASSON

said, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. THOMASSON

moved, in line 22, to leave out the words "and the carriage conveying the same." He thought it was an exceedingly harsh provision that the hawker, on conviction, should forfeit the carriage conveying the petroleum, because without retaining the carriage the man might have no means of earning an honest livelihood. He looked upon the provision as far too stringent; and he would, therefore, move the omission of the words.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, leave out "and the carriage conveying the same."—(Mr. Thomasson.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. COURTNEY

said, it was necessary that the words "and the carriage conveying the same" should be retained; and he thought the hon. Member and the Committee would see the force of retaining them. It was only liable to be forfeited, and the question whether it should be forfeited or not was left to the discretion of the magistrate. He was afraid that with regard to some persons the only efficient way of making them observe the law was to enact that the carriage conveying the petroleum should be liable to be forfeited. It was, however, not compulsory, but only a liability to forfeiture.

Amendment negatived.

MR. HOPWOOD

moved, in line 23, to insert the words "by order of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction" after the word "forfeited." He explained that his object was to show by what Court the forfeiture should be made. The words as they stood were, "shall be liable to be forfeited;" and, in addition, the licensee by whose servants the petroleum was hawked were liable on summary conviction to a penalty. Forfeiture did not necessarily follow on all cases of summary conviction, and it required an order on the part of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. It was therefore necessary to insert these words. At present there was nothing to say who was the authority to direct the forfeiture. It might be forfeited in the sense of being recovered in a Civil Court; but he apprehended that that was not what the Government meant. He presumed they meant that the Court before whom the question was brought, and who would have the power of inflicting a penalty of fine or imprisonment, would also have the power of ordering forfeiture. It would, however, be necessary to say "by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 23, after the word "forfeited," insert "by order of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. COURTNEY

wished to point out that the Bill was to be taken in connection with the Petroleum Hawkers Acts of 1871 and 1879; and the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) would find that the provision he proposed to insert now was fully provided for. The present measure was simply an amplification of those Acts and supplemental to them, and the same Court already provided would exercise the jurisdiction.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, that if his hon. Friend who undertook the responsibility of the Bill was satisfied that was the case it would not be necessary to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. THOMASSON

moved, in line 25, to leave out "twenty," and insert "five." The Act of 1871 applied to shopkeepers and storekeepers, many of whom would have wool on their backs, and could, upon conviction for an infringement of the law, afford to pay a heavy penalty; but the present Bill applied to small hawkers, to most of whom a penalty of £20 would be a crushing penalty. He therefore proposed to reduce it to £5.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, leave out "twenty," and insert "five."—(Mr. Thomasson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Clause."

MR. COURTNEY

said, that here again the penalty prescribed was the maximum penalty, and he did not think it would be likely to be inflicted except in cases where gross negligence was proved and it became absolutely necessary that a heavy penalty should be imposed. It must be borne in mind that the business they were about to license by an Act of the Legislature was of an extremely perilous character; and the highest penalty should be inflicted where it could be shown that there had been gross carelessness. The magistrates might, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, decline to impose any penalty at all and might dismiss the case.

Amendment negatived.

MR. THOMASSON

said, he would not move the next Amendment which stood in his name, and which was to omit, in lines 27 and 28, the words "or other person."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. HOPWOOD

wished to know how his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department read the clause—"Where such servant of the licensee or other person?" Did it mean some servant of the licensee, and then some servant of some other person?

MR. COURTNEY

No; certainly not.

MR. HOPWOOD

asked why it should not be read in that way? It might certainly mean the servant of some other person.

MR. COURTNEY

remarked, that if his hon. and learned Friend would read the next line, he would see why it would not be read in that way.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, the words following were, "shall be liable to the same penalty as if he were the licensee." But the words "other person" might still be the antecedent. But if the Government were content with the clause as it stood he would not object.

MR. WARTON

said, he did not think they ought to dispute the grammar of any Bill they were going on with at that hour of the night—half past 1. The phraseology of the clause was certainly most extraordinary. [Cries of "Question!"] If an hon. Member was not to be allowed to make a small observation of that kind, he really did not know what they might not be reduced to. He sincerely hoped the Committee would not consent to pass this 2nd clause. He looked upon the whole of the clause as highly dangerous, and he would tell the Committee why. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill told them the measure was brought in to supplement the Acts of 1871 and 1879. It was, therefore, desirable that he (Mr. Warton) should call attention to the very dangerous character of this clause in comparison with the Act of 1871. It would scarcely be believed that in the Act of 1871, by the 7th section, careful provision was made in regard to the nature and capacity of the vessels in which petroleum was to be kept. They were required to be glass, earthenware, or metal. There was no such provision in the present Bill; and the same section—namely, the 7th section of the Act of 1871—contained a provision which was altogether inconsistent with that which appeared in the present clause, and rendered it impossible to read the two measures together. Under the Act of 1871, no person was allowed to keep petroleum without a special licence in larger quantities than a pint in each vessel; and no person was allowed to keep more, in the whole, than three gallons. And yet it was proposed by the present Bill to send out these 5s. hawkers in the street with as much as 10 gallons. One Act required three gallons to be kept quietly under lock and key in a house properly guarded, and the other allowed 10 gallons to be hawked through the streets; and, by the 2nd sub-section of this clause, it was provided that the petroleum might be contained in an inclosed ves- sel, so that there was nothing to show that the whole 10 gallons might not be contained in one vessel. Thus, while by the Act of 1871 an aggregate amount of three gallons was to be kept in seven or eight different vessels containing not more than a pint each, by this Bill a hawker was to be allowed to keep as much as 10 gallons in a single vessel. Indeed, there was nothing in this ridiculous clause to prevent a man from sending out a servant into the streets with a 10-gallon vessel full of petroleum. Surely that was nice legislation—a 10-gallon vessel full of petroleum sent into the streets, liable to all the accidents that might arise from smoking and carelessness. He was anxious to hear what reason the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) could assign for the alteration in the provisions of the two measures. He thought the words "ten gallons," coupled with the fact that the entire quantity might be hawked about in one vessel, was quite enough to induce the Committee to reject the clause. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson) had displayed a great anxiety to mitigate the penalty from £20 to £5; but he could not have read the Act of 1871, which laid it down definitely that the penalty should be £20. Altogether, this clause, which was a very long one, was most carelessly drawn; and if it were passed there would be nothing to prevent a mere hawker of petroleum from going about the streets with a carriage having on the top of it a big vessel containing 10 gallons of this highly dangerous material.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the reference made by the hon. and learned Member to the Act of 1871 surprised him very much; and he felt very much inclined to distrust the accuracy of the hon. and learned Member's information. The Act of 1871 dealt with the quantity of petroleum which a vendor was to keep; but did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to persuade the Committee that the vendor was not allowed to have in his possession a greater quantity than three gallons?

MR. WARTON

remarked, that if the hon. Member would refer to Section 7 of the Act of 1871, he would find that in order to exempt the vendor of petroleum from the penalties of the Act he must not keep a larger quantity than three gallons, and that it must be con- tained in vessels holding not more than a pint each.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that, to his mind, the Act did not bear the reading placed upon it by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. It was perfectly well known that vendors of petroleum could keep a larger quantity than the hon. and learned Member referred to; and although at the moment he was unable to explain the point raised, he was quite satisfied as to the state of the law. If the hon. and learned Member would allow the question to stand over, the matter should be inquired into. It was thought that if a less quantity than 10 gallons was prescribed in the Bill the occupation of hawkers would be unnecessarily interfered with. Since the commencement of his remarks his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had explained that the quantity named in the Act referred to by the hon. and learned Member represented the extent to which petroleum was permitted to be kept without a licence. Where a licence was granted no such restriction applied.

MR. WARTON

said, that was not his point. He had contrasted the quantity allowed by the 7th section of the Act of 1871, in pint vessels, with the 10 gallons which, under the present Bill, might be kept in one vessel, for the purpose of showing that insufficient precautions with regard to safety were now taken as compared with those introduced into the Act of 1871, and which at the time were considered necessary with regard to petroleum for sale or private use.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 4: Majority 26.—(Div. List, No. 345.)

And it appearing in the Division that 40 Members were not present in the Committee,

Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair:—House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.