HC Deb 26 May 1864 vol 175 cc693-5

Order for Committee read.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Excise Officers not to grant a Licence or Renewal Licence without Certificate of Justices.)

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said, he thought the object of the Bill, which was to impose some restrictions on the low class of beer-houses in Ireland, a proper one; but he conceived that the present clause went too far, for it would compel not only ordinary beer-house keepers, but brewers and the vendors of table beer, who could now sell beer not to be drunk on the premises, under an Excise licence, to apply to the magistrates for a licence.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, it was impossible to make any distinction between respectable and disreputable brewers. He understood that there was no such class in Dublin as vendors of table beer at three halfpence a quart. If that clause were not adopted, it was the opinion of tin police that the Bill would be perfectly valueless.

MR. HENNESSY

begged to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the Bill did not include brewers?

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said it did. It was meant to apply to all persons selling beer not to be drunk on the premises. He could not suppose that a respectable brewer would have any objection to send his clerk to the magistrates to obtain such a licence.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN

said, there was no licence of the kind in England, and he hoped Irish Members would resist its introduction into Ireland.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

begged to suggest that the beer-houses should he placed under strict police regulations and surveillance, so that if those regulations were violated the licence could be taken away. That would be found sufficient for every purpose. He objected to placing in the hands of a few justices the power of preventing persons carrying on what might be considered legitimate trade.

MR. HENNESSY

said, the clause would apply to brewers, which, in his opinion, would be very vexatious to such men as Messrs, Guinness and other respectable brewers. He bogged to move a proviso to the effect that nothing contained in the clause should apply to any person holding a brewer's licence. He felt convinced that there could be no intention of applying the vexatious penalties and prohibitions provided by the clause to the trade of brewing.

MR. HASSARD

said, the evil against which the Bill was directed arose only in the case of beer-house keepers, and could not apply to brewers.

COLONEL DICKSON

said, he must object, to proceeding at that late hour of the night with the Bill, and, therefore, he would beg to move that the Chairman do report Progress.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he objected to the measure on the ground that it would establish a different law between the two countries.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

said, he understood that the object of the Bill was to place under police surveillance those houses which, under the plea of selling beer, retailed spirits, and that was a purpose which Irish Members would be most ready to support. That clause, however, went further than that, and he was of opinion that it would improve the Bill to strike out the clause altogether.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, the subject had been well considered by the Government and he must adhere to the clause as it stood. No doubt the clause would apply to such establishments as the Messrs. Guinness's, but it was impossible to draw a distinction between one class of traders and another.

SIR EDWARD GROGAN

said, that the hon. Baronet had, in his opinion, wholly failed to show a sufficient reason for the enactment of that clause.

COLONEL WILLIAM STUART

said, he could not see any reason why a law should be enacted for Ireland differing from that which existed in England. The beer-houses in Ireland could be placed under the supervision of the police without such a clause as that proposed.

MR. NEWDBGATE

considered that some restriction ought to be placed on the granting of beer licences, but was unable to say how far the clause would apply to brewers.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

begged to suggest that the words of the English Act should he adopted. The Bill ought clearly to be confined to common brewers who sold beer by retail.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, he very much questioned whether the Act applied to brewers at all. It only extended, he thought, to licensed beer-houses.

MR. O'HAGAN

said, he had never considered that the penalties under the clause could apply to the great brewers.

LORD NAAS

said, that if a brewer's licence allowed the selling of beer by retail it would apply to him; but that was a point on which the Committee were not informed.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he thought it right to tell the Committee that the Bill did apply to such brewers as Messrs. Guinness. If the Committee were of opinion that it ought not to apply to the great brewers that would be another question.

MR. LYGON

said, there appeared to be a startling discrepancy of opinion between the right hon. Baronet and the Attorney General for Ireland, and that was a good reason for reporting Progress, in order that those two right hon. Gentlemen might come to some accord as to the real effect of the clause.

MR. MAGUIRE

begged to suggest the postponement of the clause, but as the Bill was very much wanted in Ireland he hoped it would be proceeded with. He did not think the great brewers should be treated with any indignity.

COLONEL DICKSON

said, he thought the Bill a very inadequate, a very useless, and, in some clauses, a very objectionable one. He should persevere with his Motion to report Progress.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again on Tuesday next.