HL Deb 20 May 1890 vol 344 cc1385-91
*VISCOUNT BARRLYGTON

My Lords, in rising to ask the question of which I have given notice, first let me crave the greatest measure of forbearance and indulgence which your Lordships always grant to Members of your House who address you for the first time. I trust that you will think there is sufficient importance in the question to justify me in trespassing upon your time and attention for a few minutes. There is no question but that at the present time people's minds are very much exercised with regard to the licensing question. It is generally assumed and asserted that there are far too many public houses in the country. The deduction drawn from that is that there is greater encouragement to drinking habits, and a larger amount of drink consumed than would otherwise be the case. Now, to both proposition and deduction I very much demur. I can give the result of my experience as a Magistrate of Buckinghamshire. For many years before I had the honour of sitting in your Lordships' House I found it necessary from circumstances to live almost entirely in the country; since that time, from other circumstances, that it is almost essential I should live in London For 30 years, or thereabouts, I lived in Buckinghamshire, and during the whole of that time, I think I may say, I was a tolerably active Magistrate in the county. I acted for many years as Chairman of our Petty Sessions, and I served on most of the County Committees, especially on the Licensing Committee. I recollect, and it will also be fresh in your Lordships' recollection, for it was not many years ago, Sir William Harcourt, when Secretary of State for the Home Department, fulminated certain thunders against the County Magistrates, saying that it was in consequence of their granting new licences annually to the various public houses established that drunkenness went on to the extent it did in the country. Well, my Lords, at the first meeting of our Licensing Committee we discussed that question very carefully. I may say there were present men whom you all recollect: the Duke of Buckingham, then and formerly your Chairman of Committees, and Lord Cottesloe, a man of the highest judicial character, and I may say that at that time he was nearly a total abstainer. I know it was very much against his family's wishes that he should be so, and I think he was advised eventually by his doctor to drink a little, for very much the same reason that Paul said to Timothy, "Drink a little wine for thy stomach's sake." We considered the number of houses and the class of houses, and we were of one opinion, that there were a good many houses in the county doing very little business indeed, and that if they were only let alone they would die a natural death from inanition; but with regard to houses which might be said to be doing a profitable business, we came to an almost unanimous conclusion that if we suppressed some of the houses we should only be adding to the value of those remaining, and that the quantity of drink consumed would not be lessened. Now. I think that opinion was a fair and just one. We were also of opinion that the custom which had prevailed for so many years, of renewing the licences where there was no complaint against the houses, could not be broken without doing gross injustice to the proprietors. Then I asked our police superintendent what he thought of the matter, and his reply was, "Well, you see, sir, there are men who drink, and who will have drink, and if you shut up the 'White Lion' they will go to the 'Red Lion;'" and he said that in the view of the police it was certainly much better for the benefit of the public that the drinkers should be distributed in small numbers about the towns rather than that they should be collected together in a few places. I also consulted upon the matter a clergyman, whom I congratulated upon having no public house in his parish, and he said, "Well, I don't know about that; I know I have a good many drinking people in my parish who will go out and get drink somewhere and who get very-drunk indeed." A good deal of argument has been based upon the temptation offered to the working-man. Some people are always thinking about working-men and making proposals for their regulation and guidance; but I think they might be allowed to think and act a little for themselves. It is said of the working-man, who is always paraded on these occasions, that he is so weak in character that he cannot resist so much temptation, that he may perhaps struggle to pass one or two public houses, but when he comes to the third he can resist no longer, but must go in and quench his thirst with potent libations of intoxicating liquors. On the other hand, it is said that the public house is the working-man's club, and, in that regard, I have sometimes tried mentally to put myself in the place of the working-man. Probably many of your Lordships belong to not one club alone, but to several. I do not know that your Lordships are affected by that circumstance; but I can say for myself that I do not feel any inclination to go in and drink whenever I pass one of the clubs in London; nor do I suppose that the spiritual Lords, when they ascend the classic steps of the Athenaeum, feel any necessity to consume spirituous liquors. But, my Lords. I think it is impossible for us to put ourselves in the place of the working-man in this matter, for the temptation, however it may appear to us, is limited with them by the necessities of their employment and means. Though not a total abstainer myself, I yield to no man in the desire to promote habits of temperance and sobriety among my fellow-countrymen. I am asking this question of Her Majesty's Government both for my own guidance and for that of the County Council of which I have the honour of being a member, and which will probably before long have to deal with these matters. My Lords, I heartily endorse the principle of compensation as followed in the Compensation Clauses of the Bill before the other House of Parliament; for I consider that, if it is necessary to close a house which has hitherto been well conducted, it is only fair that the owner of the licence should receive proper compensation. I cannot help thinking that the craving for drink which seems to be ingrained in the habits of sections of the people cannot be combatted by Act of Parliament, but that it can only be combatted by the force of example, persuasion, and public opinion. I will state, before asking the Government for an answer to the question which I have placed on the Notice Paper, that I have received a communication, and have also read to-day in the Times a most interesting letter, from the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), to the effect that County Councils are by no means compelled, if these powers of compensation are given to the County Councils, to put them into force, or to use the money which they would receive from the State for the purpose of buying up licences if they do not feel so inclined. That, I think, is extremely satisfactory; but it does not, of course, afford an answer to the question which I am asking. I have just received another litter which is illustrative of the kind of argument used by some very well-meaning people. It is from a lady, and she says, that having read that I intended asking a question in Parliament upon the subject of whether drinking is greater where the number of public houses is largest, she wishes to mention what one of the greatest drinkers in her neighbourhood had said to her, namely, that he wished most of the public houses were closed, as he and others were too weak to resist so much temptation, as in that district there was a public house at almost every corner of the streets; and she adds— It is the working classes who see and feel the evil of drunkenness, and who would hail any action which would reduce that evil. That is a class of argument which is very much us d, and which I confess I do not altogether hold with. But, my Lords, I will refer to another letter which I have received from the Chief Constable of Chester. It is very interesting indeed. He sands me printed statistics of what was the state of drunkenness in England in 1875. These statistics are very remarkable. It a pars that the cases of drunkenness in Durham were 16,700, or equal to 1 in 41 of the population. In Essex they were only 464, or equal to 1 in 961. Those are the two extremes throughout England. Now as regards the number of public houses, Durham by no means stands at the head of the list. It stands 7th or 10th only. There is there one public house to every 210 of the population. In Essex there is one public house to every 160 of the population. That seems a very high average, and the numbers range from Cornwall where there is one public house to every 360 of the population down to Huntingdon where there is one in 104. At the end is appended this note— In comparing the two lists it will be found that it by no means follows, as is popularly supposed, that drunkenness increases with the number of public houses in a district. My Lords, I adopt that statement, and venture to say that it does not appear to me to at all follow that that is the case: and I have only now to put the question to Her Majesty's Government, whether they are in possession of reliable statistics tending to prove that the amount of intemperance in districts under reasonably similar conditions varies in an approximate ratio according to the number of licensed houses in those districts?

*LORD DE RAMSEY

My Lords, the information which is at our disposal I most willingly give to the noble Viscount. I only wish it had been carried up to a more recent date than it is. I entirely agree with those concluding words, that as far as any information on the subject goes there is nothing to prove that where there is a large number of licensed public houses there is a proportionately greater amount of intemperance. Unfortunately our Returns do not quite tally in regard to date. The first part of the noble Lord's question is in regard to the extent of intemperance. Upon that head the Return, which is called the Drunkenness Convictions, is only up to 1889, and includes the years from 1885 inclusive. It extends down to the 29th July, 1889, but the figures for the remainder of the year are not yet collected. The second part of the noble Viscount's question has reference to the Intoxicating Liquors (Licences) Return. That is made up to March, 1890, and, therefore, it is rather difficult to compare the two Returns. I think, however, if the noble Viscount will place one beside the other ho will be able to obtain approximately the information he requires in regard to any particular district he may be interested in. The number of convictions for drunkenness appears to be really the only available test that we have of the amount of intemperance in any specified districts. Taking those two Returns together, the ratio of the amount of drunkenness to the number of licensed houses in counties and boroughs can be calculated in the way I have suggested, allowing for the difference in the dates. There is, however, a second difficulty which I must mention to the noble Viscount. One of the Returns is compiled from the areas of the Petty Sessional Divisions, and the other from the Police Districts. I have no doubt, though I have no reason for saying so, that the noble Viscount had in his mind in asking the question that the information might, perhaps, assist the Committees of the County Councils if they should have to deal with proposals which the Government hope to pass into law. If that is so, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Viscount for putting the question; and I may say that being myself a County Councillor I have for my own information drawn out a few test cases from these two Returns which, if the noble Viscount desires, I shall be glad to show him and confer with him upon.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I think we are indebted to the noble Viscount for moving for these Returns, which will, no doubt, be found very interesting. But I think it will be found very difficult to draw any conclusion from them. The Committee upon the Temperance Question, on which I sat some years ago, had the: whole subject before it; and if there was one thing more than another of which we were fully convinced it was that there was nothing to show a ratio of proportion between the number of public houses in a district and the amount of drunkenness existing there. In the first place, the convictions are not a certain guide, because their number depends upon the practice of the Magistrates and the vigilance of the police in the particular districts. It also appeared to us that there was something to be taken into consideration in regard to climate and latitude, or the health and habits of the people. It appeared clear that as you go North the amount of drunkenness increases—that a line could be drawn across England North of which the drunkenness was far greater than to the South, notwithstanding that other conditions appeared to be the same. I will take the case of the large ports in the North. As a rule, there is a much greater amount of drunkenness in those places than in the large ports in the South. But there, again, you must know the habits of the population before you can draw any conclusion. Certainly there have been some remarkable statistics, showing that although the number of public houses may be large the number of convictions for drunkenness may be small. In my own district in the town of Norwich there was shown to be a larger number of places for drinking in proportion to the population than in most other towns in England, and the convictions were fewer than in most other towns. But I am afraid we must not conclude from that that there was a great absence of drunkenness in Norwich. I only mention that to show how singular these statistics are. I think that might be a useful subject of consideration upon this interesting question in deciding the weight to be attributed to arguments which may be advanced before coming to any conclusion upon the matter.