PUBLIC-HOUSES IN SCOTLAND. (Hansard, 5 February 1852)

§ MR. FORBES MACKENZIE
moved that the House resolve itself into Committee of the whole House to consider the laws regulating Public Houses in Scotland, with the view of introducing a Bill on the subject.

§ MR. HUME
thought they should have some reason assigned for this Motion. He had received no instruction from Scotland that any such Bill was necessary, and knew nothing of it; but they should have some ground assigned for proposing to disturb all the vested interests, many of them important, by a new measure that would re-establish a monopoly, and make changes very undesirable.

§ MR. FORBES MACKENZIE
said, this was a mere preliminary step towards the introduction of a Bill. If the hon. Gentleman would wait till he saw the Bill, he (Mr. Mackenzie) thought he would see that there was no intention of establishing a monopoly. A Bill had been passed in the other House last year, which came to that House so late in the Session that it was impossible to pass it into law. He wished only to reintroduce that Bill early into the House, and should propose after the second reading to refer it to a Select Committee competent to deal with this question, from whose deliberations he hoped such a measure would come forth as the House would be satisfied to pass. It was not very agreeable for a Scottish Member to be called upon to state the grounds of this measure in the grievous amount of drunkenness that prevailed in Scotland, and the enormous consumption of whisky by the lower orders of that country. He believed it was acknowledged by everybody who had been there, that it was very desirable some measure checking the facilities for 185 such consumption should be introduced, and he asked to do something towards it by this Bill, the principles of which might be much better discussed on the second reading.

§ MR. HUME
could only say that if Her Majesty's Government allowed a Bill of such importance as this to pass without a word, the House would be better without them.

§ The LORD ADVOCATE
said, that although there was a great diversity of opinion as to the desirableness of any legislation on the subject, he could not see that there was any objection to be made to the hon. Gentleman opposite having leave to introduce his Bill.