HC Deb 06 April 1865 vol 178 cc863-8

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. COX,

in moving the second reading of this Bill, complained that he had been represented as desiring to re-instate the orgies of the Haymarket. No man was better pleased than himself with the result of the Public House Closing Act upon the neighbourhood in question; it had put down scenes which were a disgrace to the metropolis; still he would again assert that the measure was directed against that locality, and he was borne out in this view by the language of the Home Secretary in introducing the Bill. When that speech was made every Member understood the right hon. Gentleman to apply his observations to the Haymarket and Coventry Street. Yet, while he freely admitted that the result of the Act had been beneficial in those quarters, it had also inflicted very great detriment and injury upon many of Her Majesty's sub- jects. He alluded to persons who were in the habit of attending the public markets of the metropolis. One petition in favour of the present Bill was signed by 400 persons attending the Metropolitan Cattle Market. Another was signed by 895 gardeners, salesmen, and greengrocers attending Covent Garden Market. Petitions for the Bill were also signed by 691 persons attending Newgate Market, and 150 persons attending Farringdon Market. There had also been a petition signed by 1,187 persons engaged in the offices of the morning newspapers and on the printing establishments of the metropolis. They had to commence business at 7 p.m., and when they came out of their places of business between 2 and 3 o'clock a.m., they were unable to obtain any refreshment. Why should not these persons be able to take a cup of tea or coffee? A petition had been presented against the Bill, which was signed by a person who called himself the Chairman of the West London Association for Suppression of Public Immorality. He (Mr. Cox) was as anxious as the chairman who signed the petition to suppress public immorality; but the Bill before the House had nothing to do with morality at all. His Bill simply proposed to give a discretion to the Home Secretary, to the Lord Mayor of London, and the mayors of boroughs where the Act had been adopted to give licences for opening not only public-houses but also coffee houses. The Bill gave power to the local authorities, on evidence being produced of the necessity of accommodating any considerable number of people attending markets or being otherwise engaged within the prohibited hours, to grant occasional licences for the sale of refreshment. A great deal of hardship was suffered, under the present law, especially in regard to markets. For instance, all the people who were obliged to be at the Islington Cattle Market by eleven or twelve o'clock on Sunday night, arriving, perhaps, from distant parts by railway, were unable to obtain any refreshment until four o'clock in the morning. This was a great hardship, and during this inclement weather was a very serious thing. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading, and expressing his readiness to receive any suggestions for its Amendment which might be tendered in Committee.

COLONEL EDWARDS

had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He was, however, extremely sorry that this Bill should be brought on at this late hour (a quarter to one o'clock), because he knew that on that (the Opposition) side of the House there were many Members absent who approved of the measure, and would have wished to take part in the discussion. He wished it to be perfectly understood that, whilst advocating this Bill, he did not wish to interfere with the Public House Closing Act of last Session, which had been such a great boon to the metropolis, but simply to grant one or two licences to houses for the use of the night workers, to be placed under the control and surveillance of the local authorities, near the markets and morning newspaper offices, to relieve from a great grievance and most meritorious and important class, to whose labours during the midnight and early morning hours not only the United Kingdom, but he might add the whole civilized world, were indebted for rapid information of all occurrences in all countries, whether political or social. He alluded to the compositors who supplied the formes for the press, and they were hound to do all in their power to promote the comfort and well-being of these people. It might be urged by the Home Secretary that the lending journal had already provided for those in their employment upon their own premises, which was most commendable, but there were other proprietors, whose premises were more limited, and so circumscribed, that it was impossible to afford space for a canteen where the night workers could obtain refreshment. When at two or three o'clock in the morning they left their work, where they had been engaged in an artificially heated atmosphere, there was no place open in which they could find those refreshments which were absolutely necessary for them, and, from the arduous nature of their employment, a certain amount of stimulant was essential. Some of them, after these long hours of toil in this unwholesome air, had long distances to walk before they reached home without having any resting place. Under these circumstances he thought the Bill absolutely necessary, and the hon. Member for Finsbury was entitled to much credit for having introduced it. Although the House was small, he trusted the Bill might be allowed to be read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Cox.)

MR. LAWSON

opposed the Motion. The Bill of last Session had proved itself a most useful measure, and had effected a wonderful improvement in the appearance of the streets of London at night. The Vestry of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, had petitioned against the Bill. There were thirty-one towns under the operation of the Act, besides the metropolis, with a population of upwards of 2,500,000, and the Act worked well in all of them; and he, therefore, thought that any alteration would be imprudent. The hon. Member might have established some cases of grievance, but they were entirely local—confined to the metropolis. What The Times could do for its employés the other London journals could do for theirs. ["No, no!"] It was an insult to the proprietors and managers of those other papers to say that they could not. He admitted it was a grievance to market gardeners and others whose business required them to be out at a late hour of the night or very early hours of the morning to include the sale of ordinary refreshments with that of spirituous liquors in the prohibition under the Act of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. He thought the sale of liquors not spirituous might have been permitted ["No, no!"]; but if as regarded the sale of spirits an exception was made in favour of compositors, drovers, and gardeners, the public in general would come in, and the Act of last Session would be inoperative. There was a grievance, but it was so small a one that he thought it would not be well to accede to the proposition of the hon. Member. He, therefore, moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

MR. FINLAY

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Lawson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. HENLEY

said, the hon. Gentleman who had moved the rejection of the Bill ought to have been the first to second the Motion for the second reading, for the measure was a very moderate one, and, he thought, calculated to advance the peculiar views of the hon. Member. To put down the assembly of loose men and looser women in a particular quarter of the town the Bill of last Session had been passed. The hon. Member (Mr. Lawson) would open coffee houses, and let the loose men and loose women assemble in those houses. If something were not done to relax the provisions of the Act of last year there would be a re-action. The Members of that House had their refreshment rooms open up to any hour at which the House might adjourn. In those rooms they could have their wine or beer. How, then, could they reconcile it to their consciences to refuse to allow hardworking people an opportunity of purchasing a glass of beer when, if people were working, they most required refreshment? It was all very well to say that The Times had established a club. People were going about endeavouring to get the humbler classes to form clubs; and if they did form clubs, how could the House prevent them from drinking in those places? There was no use in the Members of that House cocking up their noses. If the humbler classes were not permitted to have their refreshments openly, they would have them secretly, and perhaps under much more dangerous circumstances.

SIR GEORGE GREY

should be sorry to sanction any measure which would materially interfere with the operation of an Act which had worked so beneficially as the one passed last year for the closing of public-houses within certain hours. He must observe that the beneficial operation of that Act bad not been confined to the Haymarket. There were places in the East End also in which much disorder had prevailed, and the Act had worked well in that quarter of the metropolis as well as in the West End. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lawson) appeared to think that refreshment houses ought not to have been included in the Bill of last year; but if the hon. Gentleman was in possession of the facts which had been laid before him in respect of many of those houses, he might, perhaps, be disposed to change his opinion. He was bound, however, to say that he had received many representations of the inconvenience felt by a portion of the community, especially persons having business in the markets of the metropolis, in consequence of the operation of the Act; and he thought those persons were entitled to have their case fairly considered. He believed that, without injuring the beneficial operation of the Act, or destroying any of the restraints imposed on disorderly houses, it might be possible to effect the object which his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury had in view. The case of persons attending the markets was not so difficult to deal with as that of other parties from whom representations had been received, because generally there were public-houses within the precincts or in the immediate vicinity of the metropolitan markets. But with respect to public-houses scattered in other localities, it was not so easy to make a selection of public-houses without imposing an invidious duty on the police. He should have already given notice of Amendments to his hon. Friend's Bill, but he had been seeing deputations on the subject from day to day. Only that day be had received a large one from the neighbourhood of Covent Garden. Those whom the deputation represented were not anxious that the Bill should be relaxed, and asked that if a relaxation of its provisions were decided on it should be to the least extent possible. He should not oppose the second reading of his hon. Friend's Bill; but he should have certain Amendments to propose in Committee, and of these he should give an early notice.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that the hon. Member for Finsbury did not pretend to give additional means of refreshment to particular classes, but merely allowed the authorities to extend the hour for closing refreshment houses.

MR. AYRTON

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give power to the police to give certain tradesmen liberty to keep open beyond the usual hours. This was a point for the consideration of the magistrates only. It was impossible to open certain houses for the accommodation of certain classes—if open to any one, they would be open to all. He thought it would be better to repeal the Bill of last Session altogether rather than to amend it in the way proposed.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, the local authorities of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, dreaded the public-houses in that place being opened while those in the surrounding neighbourhood were closed, as the consequence would be that all the improper characters would congregate there.

MR. LAWSON

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday 4th May.

House adjourned at half after One o'clock.