HC Deb 13 May 1862 vol 166 cc1672-4

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 34 (Sentences and Judgments not subject to Review except as provided by this Act).

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, he thought the parties ought to have the same right of appeal that they had at present. He saw no reason why the right of appeal should be taken from them. He would take the sense of the Committee on the clause unless the appeal was allowed to remain.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

suggested that the hon. Member should bring forward any Amendment upon the subject on the Report.

MR. CRAUFURD

thought the point ought to be settled before they went out of Committee.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 22: Majority 75.

Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 35 and 36.

Clause 37 (Interpretation of certain Terms in this Act).

MR. BLACKBURN

said, cases had arisen in which magistrates in Scotland had been called on to decide what the words "bonâfide traveller" meant; but as he thought that the Bill itself should contain a definition of them, he proposed to add at the end of the clause the following words, which would exclude from the definition mere excursionists:—"The word 'traveller' shall mean any person changing his abode from that in which he passed the previous night, and on his way to another in some other place."

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

opposed the definition, which would have shut him out from shelter and refreshment any day last week. The definition was not wide enough.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and the Schedules agreed to.

MR. FINLAY

moved the addition of a clause—Licence not to be granted if objected to by two-thirds of the assessable proprietors and occupiers of houses, situated within 100 yards of the premises for which such licence is sought to be granted.

Clause (Licence not to be granted, if objected to by two-thirds of Proprietors and Occupiers) brought up, and read 1°.

MAJOR HAMILTON

thought, that the clause should be extended so as to embrace the lower as well as the higher classes.

MR. BLACKBURN

expressed his dissent from the proposal.

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

also opposed the Motion. If the sale of liquors were a nuisance, as the clause would imply, then the proper course to take would be to prohibit it altogether. If this proposal were assented to, he did not see how they could fairly object to the introduction of the Maine Liquor Law. The effect of such a provision would be that there would be a canvass on the part of the owners of existing public-houses to prevent the opening of new ones, and thus secure to themselves-a monopoly.

MAJOR CUMMING BRUCE

said, he did not think the clause ought to be adopted.

MR. DUNLOP

thought it only fair that, the inhabitants of the district should have a voice as to whether a licence should be granted.

MR. MURE

confessed he was favourable to the principle of the clause: but, he thought that the clause went further than the hon. Member who framed it intended.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he-would not give the clause any active op position, but neither would he pledge himself on a future occasion to support its principle.

SIR DAVID DUNDAS

said, that upon a clause of so much importance the Committee had a right to expect that the Law Officer of the Government would have made up his mind upon it. For himself, as he had a decided opinion on the subject, he should oppose the clause. If the justices were competent to the discharge of their duties, they ought not to be over-ruled by persons living within either 100 or 200 yards. If he stood alone, he should divide against the clause.

MR. FINLAY

was willing to limit the clause to new licences, so that it should only apply to houses that had not been licensed before.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 37: Majority 18.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Friday, and to be printed [Bill 117].

House adjourned at half after One o'Clock.