COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 18 May 1865 vol 179 cc542-55

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Power to Local Authority to grant Licences to Licensed Victuallers and Refreshment House Keepers suspending operation of recited Act.)

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the object of the clause was to allow the magistrates to grant licences under special circumstances. Care should be taken that the objects of the Act should not be nullified, or that its original intention should not he departed from. While persons attending markets at an early hour should have accommodation, care should be taken that others not entitled to such privileges should not come in.

MR. AYRTON

said, that having made a false step in the first Bill we were now likely to commit a greater error. In the first Bill the police were allowed to interfere with respect to the opening of public-houses during certain hours; but this Bill would vest a power of selection in justices of the peace. He wished to take away altogether the power from the police, and place it in the hands of the justices who originally granted the licences, consistently with the whole course of legislation on the subject. It was not necessary here to consider if they were the proper persons to grant licences or not, but under the provisions of the present Bill it was better they should exercise the powers it conferred than the police, because they acted in the face of the public, and everything said or done was known to everybody. The Bill, be it remembered, was of a very penal character, and it was better to have the proceedings under it carried on in open Court than intrusted to the police. He submitted, therefore, to the Committee that if the powers given by this Bill should be exercised at all it should be by the justices, and his first Amendment, therefore, was to leave out the words "any local authority," and insert "the licensing justices at the time of granting or renewing any licence."

Amendment proposed, in line 10 to leave out Any local authority in the said Act mentioned," and insert "the licensing justices at the time of granting or renewing any licence" in lieu thereof.—(Mr. Ayrton.)

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that so far as he understood the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman it proposed to supersede the "local authority" altogether. It would, he considered, be absolutely impossible to carry out any such provision. It was impossible that the justices could for see the occasions of granting such extension of a licence, which in fact arose from day to day—when a ball was given at an inn, or when a public dinner took place there. On these occasions application was made to the police for licence to keep the house open beyond the legitimate hours, and it would be quite impossible to make these constant applications to the justices each time that an occasional licence was required. It was, too, quite impossible that they could, at the time when the annual licences were granted, ascertain when the occasional licences would be necessary. When an occasional licence was granted it became necessary that decorum should be maintained, and where it was not maintained if a similar extension was applied for it would be refused. This power had been for some time exercised by the police, and there had not been the slightest complaint of its having been in any way abused. It would then, he considered, be unwise to disturb the existing state of things.

MR. COX

said, he had no objection to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. He would say farther, that when he was preparing the measure he would have introduced a clause in the same spirit, had he not expected to bring down upon him from Her Majesty's Government a much stronger opposition than he had encountered in his attempt to pass this measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that he objected to the Amendment because it was impossible for the licensing justices to grant those occasional licences; but if he (Mr. Cox) understood the Amendment, it had nothing whatever to do with the licences granted under the Act of 1864. It would, in respect to that Act, leave them exactly where they were at present, dependent for the licences on the constituted authorities and the Secretary of State. His hon. and learned Friend's Amendment referred to licences which were not occasional licences in the same sense as the occasional licences in the Act of 1864. It was found necessary to bring in this Bill to remedy what was an admitted evil, and he certainly had no objection to an Amendment which would give to the justices the power now exercised by the police. The Act of 1864 had been introduced to meet the case of the Haymarket, as he could prove from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. They were all agreed that the state of the Haymarket was an evil which ought be put down; but if the police and Sir Richard Mayne had done their duty there would have been no occasion for that Act; but they preferred to carry everything with a high hand. The Act had no doubt remedied that evil, but it had inflicted a great hardship on other classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there was a grievance on the part of those who attended the markets, and proposed to amend the Bill in that respect; but his (Mr. Cox's) object was to give relief not only to those who frequented the markets, but to all persons who followed a lawful trade or calling. He (Mr. Cox) had presented petitions signed by 4,000 persons pursuing lawful trades and callings in favour of such an Amendment in the Bill as would afford them the necessary accommodation; while the petitions presented from persons frequenting the markets were by no means so numerously signed. He would not object to close the houses from one to two o'clock, but the right hon. Baronet objected to that arrangement. His (Mr. Cox's) desire was that victuallers and refreshment-house keepers should, on application to two justices for a licence, not be precluded from obtaining it, and from supplying the necessary refreshments to those persons pur- suing lawful trades or callings when they required them. He understood the right lion. Baronet to say he would not object to open the houses to persons of any lawful trade or calling; but the right lion. Gentleman in his Amendment made an exception in favour of those persons who frequented the markets only. Now, any man having a trade or calling should have the opportunity of getting the necessary refreshment within reasonable hours. He did not know whether his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets intended to divide the House upon his Amendment, but if he did ho should support him. His object was that the provisions of the Bill should extend to other persons than those who attended the markets—that was to those pursuing lawful trades.

COLONEL EDWARDS

was happy to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Homo Department had conceded one point in favour of those who attended the markets; but there was another interest—namely, that of the compositors, who as a class were exposed to great hardship.

SIR GEORGE GREY

reminded the Committee that the question now before them was simply whether these occasional licences should be granted by the police authorities or by the justices.

MR. ROEBUCK

desired to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary whether, under the circumstances, he intended to oppose the Amendment of which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had given notice, which proposed to give to two justices the power to grant licences under the particular circumstances he had mentioned. This was different class of licences from the other. Could he doubt that they ought not to be in the hands of the police? He thought they ought to be granted by the magistrates, and not by the police. This did not do away with the occasional licence, which remained with the police. He asked whether it was wise to oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, if it was put on that ground, he saw no objection to it. He did not think there was any great objection to this class of permanent licences with regard to markets being in the hands of the justices if it was understood that the occasional licences would be left with the police.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, it would be quite time enough to discuss the second propo- sition when they came to it. He thought with the right hon. Gentleman that the occasional licences had better be in the hands of the police.

MR. AYRTON

said, the question before the Committee was to confine the power of the justices to the granting of permanent licences. He did not wish the Committee at this stage to pledge itself to anything to be done on any subsequent clause.

MR. HENLEY

said, they were opening grave questions. The more they kept the executive office separate from the exercise of quasi-judicial functions the better. Hitherto we had been careful in this country in this respect; but step by step, and little by little, we were putting into the hands of the police functions which would be much more properly exercised by other authorities. Besides, the police might be supposed to look more leniently on the abuse of a licence granted by themselves. He was for keeping those things out of the hands of the police, whose duty it was to look out for breaches of the law, and to take up and harry those who broke the law; but they ought not to be made judges as well as accusers. He would be glad to see this part of the licensing duty put into the hands of the magistrates instead of the police.

Amendment agreed to.

Another Amendment proposed, In line 14, after the word "market," to leave out the words "or following any lawful trade or calling," in order to insert the words "in the pursuit of their lawful occupation between the hours of two and four of the clock in the morning."—(Sir George Grey.)

COLONEL EDWARDS

said, he had no desire to infringe upon the existing law, which he thought had conferred a great benefit on society, but he must say that the law did inflict a great hardship upon a meritorious class of the community—he meant the compositors who were engaged on morning newspapers in this town. While so engaged, they carried on employment in a vitiated atmosphere, and when they had concluded their labours between two and four o'clock in the morning, they were unable to procure refreshment. It was quite true that in the office of the leading journal there were facilities for affording refreshment to the men employed on it, but that was not the case with respect to the minor offices, and the consequence was that the men employed in these offices were unable to obtain that refreshment which they stand so much in need of, and were obliged to go through the streets of London subject to every inconvenience arising out of the existing state of the law. This was peculiarly hard as respected these men, and he hoped the Secretary for the Home Department would make a further concession in respect of this Bill, and consent to the opening of houses within the prohibited hours in the neighbourhood of the newspaper offices. He thought that all that would be required to afford the necessary accommodation to the class of persons to whom he referred would he to grant licences to four or five public-houses in the neighbourhood of the printing offices of the several morning papers, which were situated in one particular locality. The concession would be a great boon to the persons in question, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would grant it. He hoped and trusted the Government would grant the prayer of the petitioners.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that as the matter now stood he did not see how the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) could entertain any fears on the subject. By the Bill a tribunal of two justices was constituted, and applications for licences had to be made in open day and before the public. The right hon. Gentleman had conceded the right of persons attending the public markets to have refreshments. He thought this right imperative. But why deny it to compositors? Why should they not have the same privilege as that accorded to hon. Members, who, if they kept up till one or two o'clock in the morning, were permitted to obtain refreshments at their Club or even in the lobby of the House itself? It was said that by this Bill the compositors would be prevented from indulging in drams. Was it possible to believe that men, whose labour required such a large amount of intellect, could be guilty of such debasing pursuits? Why should those intellectual and highly accomplished men be deprived for two hours of necessary refreshments? These men, it should be recollected, were working for us. Why should they, while working for the public at large, be deprived of their cup of tea or coffee, or their glass of wine? What possible harm could it do to concede to them this privilege?

MR. CRAWFORD

concurred in the view that the compositors should not be deprived of the privileges of having refreshments during their work. Consider the satisfaction enjoyed by the public in having the newspaper on the breakfast- table every morning. He thought it would be most unjust to this respectable and intelligent body of men to deprive them of the means of refreshment at the very moment when that refreshment was most needed. Persons applying for such licences must give proof before the public that they possess good characters; and if they do not stand an examination fairly they are refused. Under all the circumstances ho hoped and trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give way; and if not, seeing the feeling of the Committee in favour of the clause, he should certainly move the omission of the proviso.

MR. HENLEY

also hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give way on this point. What, he asked, were public-houses provided for, but to give what people could not at all times get in their own houses? And how were they, in that House, to define what the people of this great metropolis wanted, and at what hours they should have what they required? Were they, before procuring refreshments, to go before a magistrate and prove that they had "a lawful calling?" It was cruel, in his opinion, to refuse what was asked. Members of that House were in a line of life to procure refreshments when they pleased—they might keep their servants out of bed to provide them; but these poor people could not do so. Their wives and children go to bed, and they were unable, therefore, to obtain any refreshments whatever when they most required them. They worked harder than we do, and what harm can possibly occur from granting a licence to let them have refreshments at a certain hour? If any harm occurred they had a police to prevent any bad consequences, and it was unjust that, because there were some loose houses, the whole should be closed up.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he only wished to secure the advantages which had been already conferred on the community by the Act of last Session, and it was therefore he proposed to insert the words "lawful occupation." The effect of this clause would be to give power to the licensing magistrates to supersede the Act of 1864. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members cried "No, no," but the cabmen on their stand were following their lawful trade, and under the provisions of this Bill the proprietor of any public-house in the neighbourhood of a cab-stand could apply for an exceptional licence. The words of the Bill went to that extent. Compositors were one class; but there were many other classes of men engaged in night work who used public-houses not much to their own advantage, and therefore it would be unwise to give every public-house situated in the neighbourhood where these men were employed the power of saying they desired to have an exceptional licence for the accommodation of men following their lawful calling. The case of the markets was different, for within the precincts of these markets were certain houses which might, without any general inconvenience, be exceptionally licensed. The licensed victuallers themselves, residing in the neighbourhood of the newspaper offices, very earnestly deprecated any interference with the present Act. They stated that they considered the Act had worked most advantageously, and that they had special opportunities of observing its action in respect to persons engaged on the newspaper press, and that although it might be true that these men did require refreshment while the public-houses were closed, still it could easily be obtained by purchasing it before the hour of closing, and that therefore it was not necessary to keep public-houses open for their accommodation. The Times newspaper provided refreshment-rooms for those engaged on their establishment, and the same could be done by other newspaper proprietors, or by the men combining for that purpose. He had received from Manchester an inquiry as to whether there would be any illegality in having a room in which refreshments might be served during the prohibited hours, and he replied that if the place was not licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors no objection would arise. Ho believed that a similar arrangement might be made in every newspaper office in London. He wished to remind the Committee that the words of the clause were not confined to the case of compositors, but would include every other lawful occupation.

MR. COX

said, he presumed ho knew more of his own Bill than the right lion. Gentleman did. He (Mr. Cox) said, the words of the clause would be a complete answer to the observations of the right lion. Gentleman as to this proposal producing such terrible disaster in the metropolis. The words were "It shall be lawful" & c.," upon the production of such evidence as such justices shall deem sufficient to show that it is desirable for the accommodation of any considerable number of persons attending any public market or following any unlawful trade or calling." He thought he had guarded the granting of such a licence in the strictest possible way by the providing that there shall be evidence, not only that it is "necessary," but also that it is "desirable," and that it shall be for "the accommodation of a considerable number of persons" When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of two justices granting a licence to a cabstand with two or three cabs upon it, he (Mr. Cox) replied that he had so constructed the provision that the evil he anticpated could not be fairly apprehended. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer to this question. Why should not the cabmen whom they saw waiting outside in scores till two or three o'clock in the morning, in order to take hon. Members to their homes, be able to get refreshment? He thought that the safeguards which he had thrown around this provision ought to disarm the objections which had been made. The turning point of the Bill would be upon the division as to retaining the words" or following any lawful trade or callings."

COLONEL EDWARDS

said, it was not half an hour since, in the lobby of the House, he was in communication with the Secretary of the Manchester Association, who distinctly told him—(probably he was in the House now)—that he approved of Mr. Cox's Bill in its entirety, and that he bad no objection whatever to it; and yet they had beard read from the table of that House an adverse report, he supposed, from the Manchester Association—[Sir GEORGE GREY: No!]—a report condemning the Bill of the hon. Member for Finsbury altogether. The compositors were a class of people frequently employed from six o'clock at night till four in the morning. They were confined in printing establishments during the whole of that time, and he maintained that when they came from their work it was essential that they should have some refreshment, and some shelter in case of need, seeing that some of them had four or five miles to travel home.

MR. GOSCHEN

suggested, that instead of the words "following any lawful trade or calling," the words should be adopted, "or engaged in their usual occupation in the composition or compilation of the daily paper"

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause"

The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 40: Majority 20.

SIR GEORGE GREY

then proposed a proviso to this effect— That the house shall be within the precincts of the market at which such persons attend, or at a distance of not more than fifty yards from such precincts and that in regard to persons following a trade or calling, the house shall be within fifty yards of the place where the persons are so employed

MR. COX

said, that this was a reasonable proposal, and he would not object to it.

MR. HENLEY

suggested that there might not be a public-house within fifty yards.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, fifty yards was a reasonable distance.

MR. ROEBUCK

wished to give a discretionary power to the magistrates as to distance. Such peddling legislation was beneath the dignity of the House. If the magistrates could not be trusted on a matter so simple as this they should not be intrusted to perform the more grave duties committed to them.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the Bill did not propose to leave anything to the decision of the magistrates. [Mr. ROEBUCK: But I do.] He thought it desirable to fix the distance. It would relieve the justices of great difficulty if that were done. He had no objection to 100 yards, but the limits should be defined.

MR. HENLEY

said, it was absurd to lay down a rule which would prevent a man from obtaining refreshment because a house was a yard more or less from his place of business.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that if the feeling of the House was strongly opposed to the proviso he should not put Members to the trouble of dividing again. The proviso had only been proposed in deference to the representations from licensed victuallers and other residents in the neighbourhood of the markets.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR GEORGE GREY

then moved the addition of the following provisoes:— That a printed notice stating the days and special hours during which, and the class of persons for whom, the house is open under such licence shall be affixed in a conspicuous position outside the house; That such persons only shall be admitted during special hours as belong to the class for which the house is licensed to be opened during those hours

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE

wished to know how it was possible to carry out such a provision. Was a man to write on his forehead that he was a compositor, or was the provisoto apply to men wearing fustian jackets or some other distinguishing dress?

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the object of this Bill was to limit the licence solely to the persons of that class, and for their accommodation alone. It would prevent publicans keeping their houses open to prostitutes and persons of bad character.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that as the police would know the circumstances under which each licence was granted, they would be able to report if the conditions of the licence were not complied with; and if prostitutes or other bad characters were admitted, the licence could be at once cancelled. The public could have no greater protection.

MR. COX

said, that there was an immediate power of withdrawal vested in the justices.

MR. COLLINS

thought the first proviso an excellent one, and therefore suggested they ought to be put separately.

MR. HUNT

thought the people who propose to use the houses during those hours ought also to be licensed; for it would be necessary for each man to have a ticket to show the occupation he was engaged in, to entitle him to be served.

The first proviso was then agreed to; the second, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 amended, and agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

MR. LAWSON moved to insert the following clause:—

("Act to be in force in certain districts, &c") The said Act, as herein amended, shall be in force in such districts under the operation of the Public Heath Act, 1848, or the Local Government Act, 1858, as adopt the same; and Local Boards of Health established under or by virtue of the said Public Health Act, 1848, and Local Boards established under or by virtue of the said Local Government Act, 1858, may adopt the said Public House Closing Act, 1864, in the same manner, and the same shall come into operation at the same time as is provided for the adoption and coming into operation of that Act by corporate boroughs or Boards of Improvement Commissioners. The Act of last year applied to corporate towns and towns under Boards of Improvement Commissioners. There were a number of other towns under the Local Government Act of 1858, and the Local Board of Health Act, 1848, who wished to come under the operation of the Act; and the object of this clause was to enable them to do so.

Clause agreed to.

MR. AYRTON moved to insert a clause of which he had given notice for taking the power of granting these occasional licences out of the hands of the police and giving it to justices. He thought it much better that the justices should grant these occasional licences, and that the police should look after the execution of the law. They should not give the police the power of making the law. He would leave the question entirely in the hands of the Committee, and if the feeling of the Committee be in favour of his Amendment, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman will not object to it.

Moved, to insert the following clause:— So much of the 8th clause of the said recited Act as defines the local authority to be a Commissioner, superintendent, or other chief officer of police, shall be repealed, and, instead thereof, the local authority shall be in any district, city, or town where petty sessions are held, two justices of the peace sitting in petty sessions, and in any other district, city, or town, two justices of the peace acting in the district, city, or town."—(Mr. Ayrton.)

Clause (Licences to be granted by two justices,) brought up, and read 1°.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he believed that this proposal would render the Act almost inoperative. A man wanted to keep his house open half an hour or an hour beyond the usual time, on the occasion of a dinner, for instance, and he got a licence at once by-applying to the authority specified in the Act. He hoped the House would not disturb the arrangement made last year with regard to the occasional licences, as it had worked exceedingly well.

SIR ROBERT CLIFTON

thought the right hon. Gentleman was not quite right in what he had just stated to the Committee. He said they had only to apply to the police to get an occasional licence. Now, he had a letter from the Chief Constable's Office, Town Hall, Manchester, December, 1864, which stated— In reply to your letter I am to inform you it is not the intention of the authorities to grant any occasional or special licences under the Public Houses Closing Act. In Manchester they could not obtain special licences, and he had known a case in London in which a person went to the proprietor of a large establishment—it was in Regent Street—and wanted to hire a room for a ball. An occasional licence was obtained, but just as a large party was sitting down to supper, the inspector of police came in and dispersed the company and closed the doors. He would not say that the company was very respectable, but he said that the authorities ought to have looked into the demand before they granted the licence.

MR. EWART

was understood to say that occasional licences could not be got in Liverpool.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the report of the Mayor of Liverpool did not bear out the allegation that occasional licences were invariably refused.

MR. COLLINS

said, the magistrates knew the character of every licenced victualler in the country, but that was not the case in the metropolis, and could not be.

MR. CRAUFURD

said, the Scotch Act gave this power of special licensing to the justices, and there was no reason why it should not be so in England.

MR. HORSFALL

said, it was to two justices in petty sessions.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that if there was to be this restriction to two justices it would restrict the operation of the Act.

MR. AYRTON

said, it could not be so. People did not get up great balls at an hour's notice, but knew of them a week, I or a fortnight, or a month beforehand, and justices could meet in petty sessions at any time. Where there were no petty sessions, two justices could do it. There would, therefore, be no delay to complain of. He hoped that the Committee would rescind the error which they had committed in giving the police the power of granting these licences.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he did not think that any error had been committed in giving the power of granting occasional licences to the police, and he therefore thought that that power ought to be left in the hands of the police, and not be given to two justices. He believed that the parties most interested would rather that the power of granting the licences should be continued in the hands of the police, and not be transferred to justices of the peace.

COLONEL EDWARDS

was of a different opinion. He thought that the power of granting the licences in question ought to be given to the justices, as proposed by the Amendment.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 40: Majority 10.

Clause added.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]