§ On the Motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, it was—
§
Ordered,
That the first fifteen Orders of the Day be postponed till after the Order of the Day for the Consideration of the Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill, as amended in the Committee.
§ Bill as amended, considered.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would move the insertion of a clause, of which he had given notice, the object of which was to place parties applying for wine licences under the same obligation with regard to notice as was at present incumbent upon public-house and beerhouse-keepers.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he rose to move,
That, from and after the passing of this Act, section seven of the statute of the fifth and sixth years of William the Fourth, chapter thirty-nine, shall be and the same is hereby repealed.Great inconvenience had arisen from the operation of the Act in question. Many theatres were carried on more as ginshops than places of public amusement. The magistrates had no power over those places, and the announcement that drinks were to be obtained appeared in the playbills in 1656 characters as large as the names of any of the actors. A theatre, of course, was not established for the purpose of selling liquor, but of ministering to the entertainment and improvement of the people.
§ Clause brought up, and read 1°; Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said clause be now read a second time.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would admit that the law was at present in a very unsatisfactory state. Last year the provision of the Act of Parliament was suspended by a Treasury Minute, which was issued a short time after the passing of the Act. Afterwards the Minute was withdrawn, in his opinion on sufficient grounds, and the provision of the Act put in force. It was certainly desirable that legislation should take place on this subject. Some licence ought to be granted by the magistrates to theatres, or power should ^be given to the Lord Chamberlain to regulate the sale of liquors in such places. It was contrary to the practice in all countries but our own that spirits and wines should be consumed in theatres. He entertained a doubt, however, whether this question was at all germane to the Bill under consideration, and whether the introduction of such miscellaneous subjects might not be apt to create a difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament. He would, therefore, suggest that his hon. and learned Friend should bring in a separate Bill to dispose of this question, and he would undertake, if he did so, to give him the best support he could, provided he concurred in the general provisions of the measure.
§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTre-marked, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed the clause had this excuse, that it had as much connection with the present measure as the provision it was intended to amend had with the Act in which it was inserted. As the right hon. Baronet, however, had promised that a separate measure, on the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman, would receive the support of the Government, he would recommend the withdrawal of the clause.
§ MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not withdraw the clause. If the somewhat prophetic speech of the right hon. Gentleman should be realized, the clauses introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were much more likely to induce a dif- 1657 ference of opinion between the two Houses. This Bill, under the pretence of being a wine-licensing Bill, repealed the law, and laid down a totally different system of magisterial interference, and was, in fact, a species of compendium of the licensing system.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, what his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary laid down was, that the clause was worthy of favourable consideration; and, in order that it might have such consideration, he proposed to give the hon. and learned Member an opportunity of obtaining it. That was the position in which they stood, but if the clause were pressed they should deem it their duty to meet it with a negative.
§ MR. SPOONERsaid, under the law, as it now stood, there was no limit to the consumption of spirits in theatres, or to the days and hours on which they were sold. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, instead of leaving the matter in the hands of a private Member, would bring in a Bill himself.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsuggested that as they were all agreed that something ought to be done, and as it would be very difficult for a private Member to pass such a Bill through in the present Session, it would be very desirable that the Home Secretary should himself introduce a Bill on the subject.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was, with the consent of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, quite willing to introduce a Bill to effect the desired object.
§ MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, on that understanding, he would consent to withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause withdrawn.
§ Another Clause (Fee to be paid on application for a Licence to sell Wine to be consumed in a Refreshment House), brought up, and read 1°; 2°, and committed; considered in Committee.
§ [No Report.]
§ Another Clause (As to costs of proceedings), brought up, and read 1°
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause withdrawn.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to move the insertion of a clause prohibiting persons who took out licences under the Bill from selling wine to children under sixteen 1658 years of age. It was not the first time that the question had been brought before the House. The Commissioners of Police were so convinced of the evils which arose from inducements to intoxication being held out to children that a clause in its wording, similar to that which he now proposed, had been introduced into the Metropolitan Police Act. At that time, however, the sale of spirits was the only thing which was contemplated, whereas the wine containing 40 per cent of spirits which was now spoken of would be fully as intoxicating in its effects as the diluted gin sold in public-houses. The desire of filling the coffers of the Government should not be suffered to operate as a motive for inducing young persons to drink wine, and he believed that the cause of morality and sobriety would be promoted by the course which he had suggested. The hon. Member concluded by moving the insertion of the following clause:—
Every person licensed to deal in Wines who shall knowingly supply wine to any boy or girl apparently under the age of sixteen years, to be drunk upon the premises, shall be liable to a penalty of not more than 20s.; and upon conviction of a second offence shall be liable to a penalty of not more than 40s.; and upon conviction of a third offence shall be liable to a penalty of not more than £5.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the only objection he felt with regard to the clause was as to the difficulty of carrying it into effective operation. But as a similar clause was contained in the Metropolitan Police Act he should not object to its introduction into the Bill.
§ Clause brought up and read 1° and 2°.
§ House in Committee.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he wished to point out that the clause of the Metropolitan Police Act was not co-extensive with that proposed by the hon. Member, inasmuch as its operation was confined to the Metropolis. In boroughs throughout the country the sale of spirits was regulated by municipal bye-laws, which could equally be applied to wine and sold under the new system.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not think it fair to the municipal towns that they should be called on to revise their bye-laws because a new Act had been passed by the Legislature, In manufacturing localities there was quite as great a necessity as in the Metropolis to impose restraints on young girls and boys. They began to earn wages at a very early age, and there was reason to fear that the money was dis- 1659 sipated in the worst practices. There was no necessity for increasing the facilities they at present enjoyed, and he therefore could not consent to the proposed limitation.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to know with what operation the Act would be attended in the case of children going with their parents into a refreshment shop; or if the hon. Member for Greenwich, for instance, entered a confectioner's with a young lady of sixteen who wished to have a glass of wine. Was it intended that under no circumstances a person under age should obtain a glass of wine?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there were reasons why spirits ought not to be sold in the Metropolis to a child to be consumed on the premises, but it was quite a different question whether the rule ought to be made general throughout the country and applied likewise in the case of wines. It would certainly seem hard to punish a shopkeeper for selling wine to a child, even though it might be accompanied by its father. The effect of the clause, if carried, would be that, where no bye-laws to the contrary existed it would not be penal to sell spirits to a child under sixteen, although it would be illegal to sell it a glass of wine.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was clear the operation of the clause must be confined to the Metropolis; otherwise, in the country a child going into a public-house to get a glass of wine would be refused by the owner on the ground that by supplying it he would become punishable, but he would add, "I can sell you something that will answer your purpose better," and would then sell a glass of gin.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, his only concern lay with the Metropolis, and if the representatives of the country did not desire the benefits derivable from his clause he would not press that portion of it upon the House.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that adhering to the statements which he had previously made, he believed the clause was superfluous, as there was already a provision to the same effect in the Metropolitan Police Act, and that the Bill would be much better without it.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, as in his opinion it would be entirely inoperative.
§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he was unable to distinguish the difference in prin- 1660 ciple between Liverpool and the Metropolis. Legislation, he thought, would be looked on as ridiculous which would prevent a father who might bring a fine boy of fifteen up to town from giving him a glass of wine with his sandwich.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that on the part of the Metropolis, he must disclaim the advantage which the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) was anxious to secure for it. The clause referred in no way to the presence of parents or guardians, but made it penal under all circumstances to sell wine to a child under sixteen years of age. If his hon. Friend therefore went to a division he should feel compelled to vote against him.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he must deny all intention of preventing parents who might think proper to do so from obtaining suitable refreshment for their children. The cases which had been supposed would not arise upon the construction of the clause.
§ SIR ROBERT BOOTH moved that the Chairman leave the Chair.
§ Motion agreed to. House resumed.
§ [No Report.]
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he would then move the insertion of the following clause: —
That it shall be lawful for the owners and ratepayers of any place which, by the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1858, is entitled to adopt that Act, and for the owners and ratepayers of each parish within the Metropolis, as defined by that Act, to determine, in the manner prescribed by the said Act, that the provisions of this Act shall not be adopted within the limits of such place or parish; and thereupon no Licence shall be granted under this Act for or in respect of any house, shop, or premises within the limits of such place or parish.The object of the clause was to enable the owners of property and the inhabitants of any district to prevent the opening of wine-shops in certain cases. If the Bill were so good as was described the inhabitants of no district would take steps to repress it, but, on the other hand, he thought that they should not he compelled to take any action for its acceptance.
§ Clause brought up, and read 1°.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Local Government Act of 1858 was quite different in its object from that which the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. The object of the Act was to introduce certain local regulations of a municipal character, and was not intended to interfere with the general laws of the country. It could not, therefore, be applied in such a case as the present.
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that however nicely it might be concealed, the Amendment was neither more nor loss than an attempt to impose the Maine Liquor Law without the authority of Parliament. Such a course would be against all public policy, and he could not suppose that his hon. Friend was serious in proposing the clause.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEconfessed that he sympathised with the views of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets as set forth in the clause. Without some such provision the inhabitants of a district who were opposed to the introduction of those houses would be left wholly without a remedy against what they considered to be a great evil. If the hon. Member pressed his clause he should certainly support him.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would not press the clause. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was certainly not prepared to assent to the introduction of the Maine Liquor Law into this country, particularly in regard to wine-houses, when the houses of licensed victuallers were allowed to go free.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he would then propose a further clause:—
That no Licence to be granted under this Act shall be deemed or taken to confer any right or beneficial interest whatever in any person, so as to interfere with any restrictions being hereafter imposed by Parliament on the sale of Wine.
§ Clause brought up, and read 1°.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
§ Clause 36.
§ MR. HOWES moved the addition of words empowering justices and magistrates to order the payment of fees, allowances, and expenses; to be recovered according to the provisions of 11 & 12 Vict., c. 43.
§ Amendment, after short discussion, agreed to.
§ Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.