§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
MR. BRUCE, in rising to explain the proposals of the Government for the amendment of the laws respecting the sale of intoxicating liquors, said, the measure which he was about to ask the permission of the House to explain, was one which had been demanded by the general voice of the country with an earnestness and an unanimity to which he recollected hardly any parallel. The question was one which had deeply stirred the hearts and feelings of all classes of society. Committees of both Houses of Parliament, the Church in Convocation, ministers of every religious denomination, judges and magistrates collectively and individually, Boards of Health and Boards of Guardians, had all united in proclaiming and impressing upon Parliament the mischiefs which 1063 had arisen from the existing facilities for the purchase of intoxicating liquors. Social and sanitary reformers, who spent their lives in doing good, had declared that their labours for the moral and social improvement of their fellowmen were baffled at every turn by the recklessness and moral degradation which sprung from, and were occasioned by, the liquor traffic. They told us how our prisons, lunatic asylums, and workhouses were filled with inmates whose career had originated in their passion for intoxicating liquors. The tack streets, courts, and alleys of most large towns were thronged with a squalid and dangerous population, who owed their degradation to the same cause; and even the rural districts were not free from the curse. Above all, the working classes of this country, who were the most sensitive to its effects, and who were affected by and felt most the consequences of this system, had, with united voice, called upon Parliament to deliver them from temptation. He would not stay to inquire what amount of exaggeration there might be in the statements made; or ask whether some of the evils attributed to drunkenness might not be traced to infirmity of character and weakness of principle which, under any circumstances, would have betrayed their unfortunate victims into criminal careers. Nor would he pause to ask whether drunkenness was or was not on the increase, for he felt satisfied that the evil was so great as to be a blot upon our social system, and a disgrace to our civilization. He believed that there was throughout the House an unanimous desire to apply itself vigorously to the removal of these evils; and though he was not sure that unanimity would be found as to the mode of applying a remedy, there were certain leading principles in which he thought he might expect the concurrence of all, or nearly all, the Members of the House. He should expect them to concur in the proposition that, under the existing system of licensing, far more licences had been issued than were required for the public convenience. He had no doubt of this concurrence in the face of the fact that there exists a publichouse or a beerhouse for every 182 of the population. The next proposition he would advance was, that the present mode of issuing licences was unsatisfactory, 1064 no guidance being afforded to the magistrates either as to the number to be issued, or the respectability and responsibility of the persons seeking to be licensed. The third proposition in which he expected general concurrence, was that no sufficient guarantees were taken for the orderly management of public-houses or for their effective supervision. His fourth proposition was that the laws against adulteration were insufficient, and, such as they were, were imperfectly enforced; and his fifth and last proposition was that the hours during which publichouses were allowed to be open, admitted of reduction without interfering with the liberty or the material convenience of the people generally. He might add two other propositions, which were at any rate assumed as principles in the Bill of the Government. He did not say that he expected an unanimous agreement upon them, but he expected with regard to them to receive the general support of the House. One was that the public had a right to be supplied with places of refreshment, sufficient in number, convenient, and respectably conducted; and the other was that all existing interests, however qualified their nature might be, were entitled to just and fair consideration. The Bill of the Government, which was framed on the principles he had stated, would repeal, in whole or in part, from 40 to 50 Acts of Parliament, and would consolidate and amend the laws regulating the ordinary retail sale of intoxicating liquors. It affected the wholesale trade only so far as that trade was carried on in in conjunction with retail trade.
Retail trade was of two kinds—one, conducted under licences to sell on or off the premises, the other conducted under licences to sell liquor to be consumed only off the premises. The main distinction between these two classes of licences was that magistrates might, in the exercise of their discretion, refuse to grant licences of the first-named class, there being reserved a right to appeal to the Quarter Sessions in the case of refusal; while they were not authorized to refuse licences for the sale of liquor to be consumed off the premises, except on proof of some statutory disqualification in the applicant. With respect to the licences for the sale of liquors to be consumed off the premises, the Bill would make very slight changes in the 1065 existing law. He proposed, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee presided over by his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers) to abolish the table-beer licences, which were formerly issued by the Excise, without any certificate from the magistrates, on a simple payment of 5s., the licence allowing the sale of beer at not more than 1½d. per quart. As these licences were merely used as excuses for keeping houses for the sale of other and more potent liquors, the Government proposed to abolish them; and, with this exception, and that of the obsolete liquor licence, also to be abolished, the law relating to the sale of liquor for consumption off the premises would remain as at present. The changes introduced by the Act of the hon. Member for Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), which made it necessary that the issue of a magistrate's certificate should precede the granting of a licence by the Excise were retained. That Act was temporary, but considering the very general support which it received in passing through Parliament, he thought the House would agree in its being made the basis of future legislation. Applications for certificates for the sale of intoxicating liquors not to be consumed on the premises were not, however, to be required to be made by the applicant in person, except in the case of the beershop licence. This trade being of a lower character, greater vigilance was needed as to the persons by whom it should be carried on. In two cases no preliminary certificate would be required—namely, that of the wholesale spirit dealer's additional retail licence and the wine merchant's licence. It was conceded on all sides that there was no necessity for applicants for such licences to obtain magistrates' certificates.
He had now stated what was proposed with regard to the sale for consumption off the premises. There remained the far more important branch of the question—that of licences for consumption on the premises. It was necessary, in considering any licensing system, to decide two questions—first, how, if at all, is the number of licences to be determined; and, secondly, how, if at all, is discretion to be exercised in the selection of those who are to be allowed to hold licences. Three antagonistic modes of action had been adopted or advocated for solving 1066 these questions. They had actually tried the systems of magisterial selection and of free trade, and it had been urged upon the Government that they should adopt a system of popular control. Between the system of selection and that of free trade there had been much vaccilation on the part of the Legislature; and from that vaccilation had sprung many of the evils of which they had now to complain. Up to 1830 magisterial selection was the rule, and that was a plan which, at the time it was adopted, seemed calculated to work well. The magistrates were supposed to know the wants of their districts, and might, therefore, it was thought, be safely intrusted to select those who should receive licences. As time went on other ideas began to prevail; and the free trade principle led to the passing of the Beerhouse Act, which remained in force until 1869, when it was repealed. The refreshment house wine licence was a compromise between the two systems, for the Act authorizing the issue of those licences allowed them to be freely granted by the Excise, subject to a power of veto in the magistrates, if certain statutory conditions, as to the character of applicant and premises, were not satisfied. Much difference of opinion, however, had existed throughout the country in reference to this subject of licensing, and a most complete inquiry had been made by a Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers), and composed of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, Mr. Kerr Seymer, and others of great weight and authority in the House. Their recommendation was founded upon the principle of free trade. It took away the magistrates' power of selection; but qualified free trade by the requirement of various statutory conditions. Free trade had also been the basis of the two Bills promoted by the town of Liverpool, where great attention had been paid to the subject of licence reform, and which had become as distinguished in connection with the licensing system, as Manchester in connection with the improvement of the educational system. On the other hand, the 1067 evils arising from the unrestricted, issue of licences were felt to be so great that in 1857 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) brought in a Bill investing the magistrates with the issue of beerhouse licences as well as publican's licences. That Bill was defeated; but a similar one, subsequently introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), passed without a Division. Yet that Act was regarded only as a makeshift until some complete measure could be introduced. The legislation affecting the trade was in such a state of confusion that it had become necessary to have a conclusive measure. Existing Acts contained conflicting provisions; there was a strange variety of licences; while there was no definite principle on which licences were to be granted. The hours of closing differed in various places, and while publichouses in towns were closed from 1 a.m. to 4 a.m., in the rural districts they might be kept open during the whole night. There were also variations in the Excise duties, depending on whether a particular licence was taken out alone or in combination with others. The Act of 1869 recognized a certain vested interest in beerhouse licences existing at the time of its introduction; and the renewal of such licences could not be refused by magistrates except for certain reasons. There was no obligation to renew any publican's licence. Under these circumstances, it was clear that consolidation and simplification of the law was necessary, and there next arose the question—"On what principle shall a new system be founded?" The magisterial system had much to recommend it. It was founded on the principle that the magistrates possess great local knowledge, so that they are well qualified to distribute licences, and he was bound to say that, notwithstanding particular exceptions, the duties imposed upon the magistrates had been discharged with great integrity and public spirit. There was, however, much that was irrational in a system which gave to the magistrates the power of bestowing gratuitously a privilege of great pecuniary value. Again, not a penny from the granting of licences went to the alleviation of local taxation, though publichouses were known to cause a great increase of the rates, and 1068 to make necessary a large police force. The ratepayers, too, whose convenience and pockets were so greatly affected by the multiplication of publichouses, had no means of preventing an increase of their number. As far, however, as the country districts were concerned, the objections that had been raised to the action of the magistrates in this respect had less weight, for he was bound to say that the duties of the magistracy in the rural districts had been in the main satisfactorily performed, the number of licences was not so excessive as elsewhere, and the decisions of the Bench were received with general approval and respect. But in large and populous towns the case was very different, and it was not unusual at the annual licensing sessions of such places for 50 or 60 applications for new licences to be made. Every kind of argument was brought forward in favour of the applicants; some asserting that they ought to have the larger licence because they had conducted a beerhouse respectably; others claiming on the ground that they had prepared suitable premises, while some appealed to motives of partiality or interest; and it was known that retired butlers, old soldiers, and widows with many children were frequently regarded with special favour. And, again, there were others opposing. Some had conflicting interests, as publicans already licensed, who did not wish to see others entering into competition with them for the business of the neighbourhood, and behind them were the brewers and distillers, who exercised very great influence, and were interested, either as owners or as mortgagees of a large number of existing houses; it being, probably, no exaggeration to say that in large towns there existed such an interest in as many as two-thirds of the houses now licensed. Besides this, there was the influence exerted by builders, by the representatives of at least two political parties, by the owners of house property, and by the supporters of temperance societies, who were, perhaps, as active in opposing as any who interested themselves in the granting of licences. Under these circumstances it was not surprising to find the magistrates had great difficulty in making a proper selection in the absence of any established principle to guide them; nor was it surprising that the great majority of those who were disappointed in their 1069 applications accused the magistrates of partiality, and attributed their want of success to anything but their unfitness. But, apart from that, the magistrates themselves naturally pursued different courses in different parts of the country. In one place the Bench was inclined to adopt free trade, and freely granted licences to all respectable applicants, while others acted with a desire to prevent the increase of publichouses. A distinguished Member of this House had asked a brewer, one of his leading constituents, what course was adopted within his experience? He replied that in the district in which he lived the obtaining a licence depended very much on the licensing division to which the applicant went, and that while in one county hardly any respectable applicant was refused; in another adjoining county a successful application was extremely rare; in his own borough applications were granted only to the adherents of a certain political party; and in another place the temperance societies were uniformly successful in opposing fresh grants. Such a state of things must necessarily give dissatisfaction to those who had failed in their application, and who went away abusing the magistrates for partiality or improper motives, and it was a matter of great public importance that the impartiality of the magistrate should not be questioned. One result of the present system was that the most highminded men in some places abstained from attending Licensing Courts, and the Bench was therefore composed of those who freely distributed licences. It was long since he had himself acted as a magistrate on licensing day; but he recollected with disgust not only the attempts made to influence his decisions from all quarters, but that there were magistrates on the Bench who were ready to act from motives of partiality; and, acting so, they would ask—"If the applicant is respectable, why should he not have a licence?"
He maintained, therefore, that the dissatisfaction of the magistrates and the ratepayers, and the anxiety of those who had embarked large capital in this species of property with respect to its future value, alike called for the re-adjustment of the licensing system. It must be acknowledged that a system, the administration of which had lost public respect, could not stand, and he believed none were more 1070 anxious for its revision than the great brewers. The opinion he had expressed that the magistrates were unfit to decide on the granting of licences was not his own merely; it was the opinion of the Select Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers), which had reported on the subject in these words—
Your Committee forbear to enter at length on the evidence condemnatory of the exercise of the magisterial power of granting licences. The existence of a suspicion that licences are withheld and granted capriciously, and that the influence of builders and brewers is more potent than either the character of the applicant or the requirements of the public in procuring a licence, whether it were proved or not, might afford sufficient ground for relieving the magistracy of duties which, however great their desire to do so, it has been found impossible for them satisfactorily to discharge.The magistrates of Liverpool, sensible of the difficulties of their position, for some years licensed all respectable applicants; but the evils resulting from that course obliged them to abandon it, and to attempt a revision of the licensing system. In 1865, the licensed victuallers of Liverpool, in conjunction with the justices, procured the introduction of a Bill into Parliament for the purpose, the Preamble of which was instructive. It ran—Whereas differences of opinion have arisen for several years past among the justices of the peace for the said borough of Liverpool as to the interpretation to be put on the first herein-before-recited Act (Publichouse Act, 9 Geo. IV., c. 61) so far as regards the considerations which should influence the said justices in granting or withholding licences for the sale of exciseable liquors by retail as in that Act mentioned, and it is expedient that such differences should be determined, and that the considerations which should influence the said justices in granting or withholding such licences should be more strictly defined and settled.The Bill proceeds to provide that all licences should be granted by the justices; that there should be one uniform licence, authorizing the sale of all liquors; that this licence should be obtainable by any applicant who could show good character, and provide two sureties, each of £50, whose premises should be rated at £50 a-year, and who would pay £30 a-year to the Excise. In 1867 another Bill, also emanating from Liverpool, proposed that the ratepayers should have power to veto the opening of a publichouse in their neighbourhood.1071 The question the Committee had to consider was whether any improvement of the present system could be suggested. If licences were to be distributed at discretion he was clearly of opinion that no better authority than the justices could be intrusted with the power of granting them, since they were men of social position, acquainted with local circumstances, and were frequently men of legal attainments; above all, they were nominated by a higher authority, and were not elected by those who would seek licences. The suggestion that Boards of Guardians should be intrusted with the duty could not be adopted; their very constitution would act as a disqualification, because if Boards of Guardians were constituted licensing boards they would very soon be composed of the nominees of the brewers and licensed victuallers, who had almost boundless opportunities of corruption. On the part of the association of brewers in the country repeated representations had been made in favour of the appointment of barristers to distribute new licences, and decide on applications for renewal of licences; but such officials would necessarily be wanting in local knowledge; they would be unable to say whether the number of licences already granted was too large; they would be quite in the dark as to the character of the applicant; and unless the Act prescribed with the greatest minuteness upon what principles they should go, their decisions would be of the most conflicting character. The objections to the appointment of such officials were so strong that but for the respectability of those who had made the recommendation, he should not have troubled the Committee with it. The next proposal with which he had to deal was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—the permissive prohibitory system, the peculiar characteristics of which were that it ignored all vested interests, and treated the licence as merely annual, without conferring any right to renewal; it made no difference between consumption on and consumption off the premises—between mere drinking-houses, and inns and eating-houses; it involved all in common extinction; and it offered no middle course to the ratepayers; it forced them to choose between the present system and complete prohibition of the 1072 liquor trade; and, even if carried, it could not in the slightest degree improve the licensing system, except in the particular places in which it had been adopted. His hon. Friend was, no doubt, sanguine as to the number of places in which it would be adopted. He was not able himself to form an opinion on that subject; but certainly there would be a very large portion of the country in which it would not be adopted. He believed, moreover, that that system would lead demonstrably to increased evils, and to violations of the law such as no exertions of the police or the Excise would be able to suppress. There was one sentence in the Report of the Committee of 1854 which had struck him as remarkable for its truth—namely—
It is scarcely possible to carry into effect any enactment opposed to the convenience or ordinary habits of any large number of people.The strongest proof of the correctness of that statement which he had seen—although much evidence might easily be accumulated on the subject—was contained in a very remarkable paper, written by Mr. Richardson, chairman of the Board of Health at Jarrow. He did not know whether that paper had been generally circulated among the Members of that House; but, among the vast number of communications that he had received it had struck him as being one of the most instructive and most fertile in good suggestions. Mr. Richardson's paper embodied his experience as to the working of the licensing system in Jarrow. Jarrow consisted of two parts, one of which contained a population of about 3,000, and the houses there, and the whole of the property, were entirely in the hands of the proprietors of certain works, who allowed no licences to be taken out, and no intoxicating liquors to be sold on the premises; and having effectual power over those houses they were successful in their endeavours. Their next neighbours, the Messrs. Tennant and Co., were equally desirous to suppress that traffic. They had also a large power over the houses inhabited by their workpeople; but, unfortunately for the success of their measures, their power was not so complete as that of the company to which he had first referred. Although the extract was rather long, yet it was so instructive that perhaps 1073 the House would allow him to read it. The writer said—The next village, New Hepburn, is inhabited mainly by the workpeople employed by Messrs. C. Tennant and Co., who about five years ago became lessees of about 100 acres of land adjoining the river Tyne, upon which they have erected large works, and have leased portions for house building, so that a village has been built upon land of which they are the lessors. Their workmen's houses are owned by several people, who have built them on the land leased to them by these gentlemen. One of the conditions of the lease is that beer or spirits shall not be sold on the premises under penalty of forfeiture of the lease and consequent loss of the property. This is a usual clause in building leases in this district, and is generally made use of by the lessor to obtain additional ground rent from those tenants who sell beer or spirits. Messrs. Tennant and Co., however, have endeavoured to use it as a means of mitigating drunkenness among their workmen, by prohibiting the traffic entirely. Very soon, however, after the houses were inhabited, beer and spirits were sold in the dwelling-houses. About a-year and a-half after the houses were erected, and when the population of the village amounted to 1,950 souls, men, women, and children, there were 17 houses known to the police where beer and spirits were illicitly sold. The occupiers were at once threatened with dismissal from their employment unless they desisted, and this threat was carried into execution; but though some desisted, it had no effect in stopping the trade, as many persons seemed to find it more profitable, or more suitable to their taste, to suffer dismissal, and continue their illicit trade. The next step taken was to inform the proprietors of the houses that, as beer and spirits were being sold on their properties, they had rendered themselves liable to the forfeiture of their leases, and they were requested to expel the offenders from their houses, as the only condition on which they would be allowed to retain possession of their property. There was, however, so much trouble and difficulty in obtaining evidence, and so much delay in getting a legal conviction, that by the time one offender was evicted, some other person was doing as brisk a trade as before, and often the evicted person got into another house, under another name, and was as bad as ever.The result was that Mr. Richardson applied to the Excise on the matter. He took infinite trouble and pains to procure evidence as to the illicit sale of liquors; he succeeded in obtaining some convictions, but he found it was quite impossible to prevent that illicit trade, and it was now a flourishing traffic. Mr. Richardson described the state of things in the rest of Jarrow, where the publichouses and beerhouses throve, and where he was afraid, also, that an illicit trade in liquors was carried on in some houses. Everything there was about as bad as it could be, and Mr. Richardson had made a number of suggestions for 1074 the improvement of the law—many of them, he was bound to say, showing great sagacity and a thorough knowledge of the subject. But it was instructive to read the final conclusion come to by a gentleman so sensible of the evils of that traffic, and so earnest in his desire to suppress them. He said—After much careful consideration, the writer is of opinion that any radical change in the habits of the people as to intemperance will be the effect of other than legislative measures which it is not the purpose of this Paper to discuss; and that with the present wretched house accommodation available for a large proportion of the workmen of this district, their deficient mental culture—which makes drinking almost their only amusement and relaxation—and the limited number of workmen's clubs, mechanics' institutes, and other places of resort for recreation or profitable occupation of time, publichouses for refreshment and social intercourse are almost a necessity. If their number were reduced, so as to be no more than sufficient for the reasonable requirements of the people, or, what would be the same thing in effect, if proper order were enforced therein and drunkenness and riotous conduct prohibited (in which case many of them would not be worth carrying on), and if means could be devised for insuring a supply of pure wholesome ale instead of the noxious compound now usually retailed in this district, probably all that legislation could effect would be done.Those seemed to him to be very wise words, and he would anticipate one part of his statement by saying that he had striven with earnestness throughout his Bill to give the utmost effect to them.He had explained that he could not in any way accept as a solution of that question the Bill brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. At the same time he was bound to say he thought that measure contained a very valuable principle, and that the principle of an appeal to the ratepayers on matters affecting their interests was one of which great use could be made. Over and above the fact that the ratepayers were the persons chiefly interested, that it was their comfort and convenience and not that of other people that should be consulted, that they were the persons who bore nearly all the burden of the crime and misery produced by the multiplication of those houses and by their disorderly conduct—over and above those considerations there was another, and in his view a most important one—namely, the advantage of enlisting the minds and hearts and feelings of the people in the thorough consideration of that subject. 1075 Let them give the ratepayers a voice in that matter—let them give them the power in some way or other of deciding how far those houses should exist amongst them, and they would at once create a strong public opinion, they would encourage among them that sort of feeling which among the upper classes of society had long made drunkenness disgraceful, which was rapidly also making it disgraceful among the working classes themselves, and which no longer permitted them to call a mere sot a good fellow, or to look on the offence of drunkenness as merely venial. He was satisfied, therefore, that if they were to create a wholesome and vigorous public opinion on that subject, they must give the ratepayers of the country some direct control over it, and that the more widely that control could, without injustice, be extended, the greater would be the social advantage. It was true that the establishment of free trade in the liquor traffic had been recommended by the Committee of 1854. No doubt that principle had the merit of perfect simplicity and impartiality, and the question was whether or not those advantages would be counterbalanced by the evil of insufficient restriction. There was this difference between free trade in alcoholic liquors and free trade in other articles, that excess of supply was not self-corrective to the same extent as it was in other trades. It created a demand at once artificial and dangerous to society. Free trade was a good principle where their object was to develop trade to the utmost; but as that could not be their object in respect to the liquor traffic, it seemed to him that it would be dangerous to apply that principle to the traffic. It had been advocated mainly by those who looked only to the abuses of the magisterial system, or who insisted upon the application of abstract principles. The experiment had been tried with regard to beerhouses, and immediately after the passing of the Act great complaints had been made. Act after Act had been passed "weighting" the trade in various ways, certificates of character, and other conditions being attached to the granting of licences—all of which, however, had failed to save the Act from general condemnation. It was also a remarkable fact that among the thousands of Petitions which had been presented to that House in favour of some method of suppressing 1076 the evils of that traffic, not one, as far as he was aware, was in favour of the free trade principle.
Having gone through the existing system, and the various other proposals which had been suggested, the result, as far as he had proceeded, would hardly be encouraging to the House, inasmuch as while finding fault with the present system he had found still greater fault with all other proposals. The system proposed by the Government he would now state in as few words as he could. The broad principles upon which the Bill was framed were as follows:—In all cases the grant of licences by the Excise would be preceded by a certificate from the justices. The licences themselves, their conditions, and the licensing jurisdiction would remain substantially unaltered. The licences, called in the Bill "publicans' general licences," would correspond with the present publicans' licences, and those called in the Bill "publicans' limited licences," would correspond with the present beer licences, except that they would confer the power of selling wine. The licensing justices would have the same jurisdiction as they possessed at present; but, for convenience, the area over which it extended would be sub-divided into licensing districts, which the magistrates would have the power, in case they thought fit to do so, to further sub-divide into smaller districts. The question of the number of licensing certificates to be issued on the licensing day would be considered by the justices altogether apart from that of their distribution, and would be determined by the justices, subject to a limited veto to be exercised by the ratepayers. The distribution of the certificates after the number to be issued had been settled by the magistrates would be determined in the only impartial manner that had suggested itself to the Government. Each certificate would be given to the bidder of the highest annual licence-rent. These licence-rents would be appropriated to public purposes, and the certificate-holder would be at liberty to use his certificate where he choose within the district, subject to certain restrictions, the justices, as guardians of the public, being satisfied that the premises were fit and proper for the purpose, and that they were under the control of a fit manager. All these certificates were to be granted for a certain limited period, and were to 1077 be liable to forfeiture, not, as hitherto, at the discretion of the licensing justices, but in the event of a certain prescribed number of convictions having being recorded against the holder for offences under the Act.
Having thus sketched the general outline of the main principles of the measure, he would now proceed to enter into its provisions in greater detail. As he had before stated the licensing jurisdictions, would remain practically unaltered. In the boroughs, whether with or without a separate Court of Quarter Sessions, the licensing justices would be the justices of the boroughs, while in the counties they would be the county justices acting in and for the special sessional divisions. Stipendiary magistrates, not being metropolitan police magistrates, would be empowered to act as licensing justices, so far as concerned all certificates within their jurisdiction. No appeal would be given from the decision of the justices in respect of the exercise of their licensing jurisdiction, they, living on the spot, being supposed to be better judges of local and personal questions than the justices of Quarter Sessions could be. But, although the Bill retained the present divisions for licensing purposes, those divisions were sub-divided by the Bill into more manageable areas, chiefly with the view of facilitating the determination of the justices with reference to the appropriate number of licences to be issued. The licensing districts so proposed would be in boroughs where there were wards, the wards, and in boroughs without wards, the whole borough; in a petty sessional division of a county, each parish or place where a separate rate was or could be levied. The justices would be empowered, in the exercise of their discretion, further to divide those districts. At the general annual licensing sessions the justices would deal separately with each licensing district in their division. The first step which the justices would have to take would be to consider what was the number of new certificates which the circumstances of the district would entitle them to issue. In the event of their being of opinion that no increase in the number of certificates was desirable, none would be issued; but, if otherwise, they would then determine, by resolution, what number should be issued. The justices would then advertise the number of certificates 1078 proposed to be issued, and it would be open to a certain proportion of the ratepayers mentioned in the Bill to take a vote of the ratepayers on the question, and a majority of three-fifths were to have the power of vetoing or of reducing, but not of increasing the number proposed. There was, however, to be a limit to this power of the ratepayers. The Bill would prescribe a certain proportion of publichouses to population. If at the date of the proposal the number of publicans' certificates in existence in the district, and the number proposed to be issued did not, when added together, exceed the proportion of one certificate to so many ratepayers, no poll could be taken; and if the justices proposed to increase the number above the Parliamentary standard, and the ratepayers voted that it should be reduced below the standard, the justices might, nevertheless, raise it up to the standard by issuing the necessary number of certificates, general or limited, as they might think fit. The number and character of the certificates having been thus determined, the next step was to distribute them. The process was to be by tender. Any person not within the statutory disqualifications might tender for all or any of the certificates. The form of the tender was an undertaking to pay a licence rent annually during the continuance of the certificate, such licence rent to be a percentage on the gross annual value according to the poor rate assessment of the premises to which the certificate was to be attached; so, however, that no tender should be of less than 5 per cent on the gross estimated rental, and no premises should be deemed to be assessed at less than £50 or more than £300. The thing to be tendered for would be a publican's general certificate authorizing the holder to set up a publichouse anywhere within the district unless any part or parts of it had been barred by the justices; such certificate to be good only for a term of 10 years from the passing of the Bill, but during that term to be annually renewable. Applications for tenders would be duly invited by advertisment. They would be received by the justices and opened publicly by them on a given day. The certificates would then be allotted to the persons making the highest tender. The same process would apply to publicans' limited certificates, with this exception—that the minimum licence rent would be 1079 lower. The certificates, however, thus allotted would not be finally issued to each allottee until the justices had approved of the premises proposed and of a manager for them. The part of the Bill which related to the manager of premises to which licences were to be attached was, in his opinion, of the greatest importance. The manager was necessarily, as the responsible person, bound to reside on the premises, residence not being required of the holder; but the holder would appoint his own manager, and, of course, might appoint himself. As to premises, the justices might withhold their approval only if either the structure or the fitting up was unsuitable for a publichouse, or if the premises fell within the statutory disqualifications. Opportunity, however, would be given to the allottee to apply to the justices for the approval of the premises before he had actually acquired them, or had been put to the expense of fitting them up, or for the approval of the plans before the premises were constructed. After the manager and premises had been thus approved, the allottee would pay his first year's licence-rent in advance, obtain his certificate, take it to the Excise authorities, and obtain his Excise licence. Having stated the outline of the scheme, he would now point out what he conceived to be its advantages. In the first place the licensing justices would be relieved from the impossible task of considering the requirements of enormous unwieldy districts, which would be partially divided for them by the Bill, and which might be further sub-divided by themselves where necessary. Having so sub-divided the districts, the justices, having thoroughly considered the wants of each particular district, would give public notice of the determination at which they might have arrived on the subject of the number of licences to be issued. The ratepayers would thus have an opportunity of expressing their assent or dissent with reference to the number proposed, and candidates would no longer be exposed to the chance of loss they now incurred by preparing premises to which licences might be refused. The whole of the annual licence-rent would be applied for the public benefit, in the manner to be hereafter explained. Then, with regard to the renewals of licences. At present the renewal of publicans' licences was 1080 entirely in the discretion of the magistrates. He was bound to say that the very frequent complaints which he had received from former holders of licences of the manner in which they had been deprived of them were, in many instances, well founded, because not only was no notice required to be given of the intention to oppose the renewal of a licence at the next licensing meeting, but the evidence as to acts which might have occurred months previously, upon which the opposition was founded, was not even required to be upon oath. This did not appear to him to be just. The offence ought to have been charged against the licensee at the time of its committal, when either he might have been able to meet the charge, or it would have been proved in a court of justice. If a certificate was forfeited, the forfeiture should be part of the punishment for a legally proved offence. The Bill would, therefore, give the magistrates power of refusing to renew a certificate at their annual meeting on one or two grounds only, having reference chiefly to the residence of the manager during the past year. Then as to removals. The Bill would enable the holder of a certificate to remove it from one house to another within the district, subject to the approval of the justices. It would be seen that the issue of new certificates, except in very few cases, would depend upon the consent of the ratepayers. As to the issue of certain special certificates their consent would not be required, and he did not think it would be contended that it should be required. This remark applied to inns and eating-houses, which were necessary for the accommodation of travellers and inhabitants of towns. These establishments, if properly conducted, were most useful. So long as they were bonâ fide eating-houses and inns, and not kept for mere drinking purposes, there was every reason why they should be encouraged, and they ought to be placed on a different footing to publichouses and beerhouses. The Bill therefore provided that inn certificates should be issued at the discretion of the justices, which would authorize the sale of fermented liquors and spirits for consumption on the premises, with the restriction that such liquors must be sold exclusively to travellers and persons taking meals in the house. Eating-house certificates issued also at the discretion of the justices would 1081 not authorize the sale of spirits under any circumstances. It would be necessary to guard against an abuse of these certificates, and therefore the Bill provided that the justices who were intrusted with the issue of them, should ascertain whether the application made was bonâ fide. They would also have the power of summoning at any time the holder of any such certificate for the purpose of meeting any charge made against him of carrying on upon his premises a publican's business. A second conviction would involve a forfeiture of the certificate. Renewal of such certificates might also be refused at any licensing sessions. The issue of certificates for railway station refreshment-rooms would be at the discretion of the justices, and they would only be permitted to supply railway travellers and persons engaged on the premises. The refreshment-house wine certificate would correspond with the licence authorized by the Act introduced by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, and would be granted to any person in respect of any premises so long as those premises were within the statutory qualification.
He had now to deal with the question of issuing new licences, and came to an incomparably more important question, the treatment of existing licences. He admitted, and no person, he thought, could deny, that the number of licences in most parts of the country was too great. Temptation was thereby thrown in the way of the population. It was quite clear that in the town of Wolverhampton, for instance, there were too many public and beerhouses, the proportion of them, as he was told, being 1 in 70 of the population. In Middlesborough the proportion had recently been 1 in 60, and in Liverpool 1 in 190. It was utterly impossible that these houses could be carried on at a profit after payment of the Excise duty, and of the other expenses of such establishments, if the law was obeyed, and pure and unadulterated liquor was sold in them. But the question how the number of these licences is to be reduced, was very difficult to solve. He did not think that the House was prepared for any general confiscation of licences. It might be that a vast number of public-houses were ill-conducted, but it was impossible to distinguish between the better and the worse. A Royal Commission 1082 could not be issued to decide which of them were respectably conducted, and which were disreputably conducted. If the House dealt with them, it must deal with them on some broad general principle. If the House were not prepared actually to confiscate them, there remained only the question of buying them up. It had been suggested that the Imperial Exchequer should bear part of the burden of buying them up, but he doubted whether his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would entertain that proposal. He thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would hardly at the first blush sanction a proposal that rates should be applied to that purpose. It would be urged that would be a most impolitic, and unjust application of rates. The fact that a certain number of bad houses would be suppressed by the expenditure of local moneys, would greatly enhance the value of the remaining houses. Having examined the question most carefully with those who were most competent to advise him, he had failed to devise any scheme by which Imperial or local revenues could be applied to purchase the surrender of licences. At the same time he thought it was impossible to present to the House any measure which would be worthy of their reception, which did not attempt to deal with that part of the question. What therefore he proposed was this. He could not assent to the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle that these houses had no sort of interest. They had an interest, although it was undoubtedly of a qualified description. His hon. Friend founded his proposition on the superficial fact that these licences were annually renewed, and that the justices might any year refuse to renew them. But the fact was that the justices nearly always renewed these licences unless the holders of them, by bad conduct, had rendered themselves unfit to hold a licence, and it should be borne in mind that they could not be refused without an appeal to the Quarter Sessions: and had anyone ever heard of such an appeal being decided, except with reference only to the conduct of the holder of the licence? On the other hand the House had never recognized any vested interest in this species of property, or any right to compensation, yet it had frequently interfered with the trade. It greatly inter- 1083 fered with it when it passed the Beerhouse Act; again, when spirit dealers were allowed to have retail licences; and again, when the Act for closing publichouses was passed; and in 1854 it was proposed by Mr. Villiers' Committee to introduce free trade into the business without providing compensation. The knowledge of the holders of these licences that their right to compensation was of a very qualified nature, made them extremely anxious for anything like a fair and equitable arrangement of this question. What he was anxious to provide was that Parliament should deal fairly towards the holders of these licences, while without any delay, by means of stringent police regulations, and efficient guarantees for orderly conduct and for the sale of unadulterated liquors, an end might be put to a vast number of the present ill-conducted houses. He, therefore, proposed to substitute for the present precarious annual licence an assured certificate for the term of 10 years, subject to a moderate licence-rent sufficient to pay the costs of proper inspection, and proportioned to the gross estimated rental. The holders of publichouses would be entitled to what was called a publican's general certificate, and the holders of beerhouses would be entitled to a publican's limited certificate. For a publican's general or a publican's limited certificate £2 per cent would be paid on the gross annual value; no premises to be deemed to be assessed at less than £50, or more than £300. That would amount to only £1 per head from beerhouse-keepers, which were all, or nearly all, under £50; and only £1 per head from the 53,000 innkeepers whose premises were under £50. The remainder would have to pay from £2 up to £6, according to circumstances. These certificates would be subjected to the police regulations of the Bill, subject to these regulations, they would be renewable for the term of 10 years, and at the end of 10 years, when they would cease to exist, it would be for the magistrates to decide what number of certificates should be issued. Now, take the case of Wolverhampton, where there were 999 licences to 72,000 persons. After the expiration of the first 10 years the number of certificates, though greatly reduced by the operation of this Bill, would probably be still in excess of the actual wants and necessities of the population. 1084 The justices would meet, and their decision, if in favour of a larger proportion than that indicated in the Bill, would be subject to the popular vote. Suppose, for instance, that the proportion mentioned in the Bill was 1 licence to every 1,000 of the population. If, therefore, the Wolverhampton magistrates decided to grant 70 certificates their decision must pass unchallenged; if, however, they proposed to grant 100, the ratepayers might be asked to vote, and might either accede to the proposition or reduce the number proposed, but to not less than 70. There would be another provision in the Bill, giving at the end of 10 years a priority to the holders of existing licences in the distribution of the new certificates. The new certificates, if not fewer in number, would be assigned to the holders of the expired certificates; if fewer in number than those expired, they would be put up to the tender among the holders of the expired certificates exclusively.
He had just now stated that he had no proposal to submit to the House for the compensation of existing licence-holders with a view to an immediate reduction in the number, but he did not altogether despair of seeing some experiment tried with this object within a few years of the passing of this Bill if the House should see fit to adopt it. He did not know whether the House had read a very interesting statement which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) with regard to the practice that had been adopted in Sweden. Sweden, as most hon. Members probably knew, did not bear an exceedingly high reputation for the temperance and sobriety of its inhabitants, and though he did not go so far as to say that the practice which prevailed in a part of Sweden was one which they should adopt, still it furnished an instructive example. He referred to the town of Gottenburg, which had adopted a system which had been attended by excellent results. The municipality of that town had bought up all the publichouses and established a number of well-conducted houses, into which they had put managers, who were paid by salary, and had no pecuniary interest whatever in the liquor they sold. They were thus never placed in the position in which publicans too frequently found themselves. A man who had drank too much would often be encouraged by the dis- 1085 honest and disreputable publican to drink more, because by so doing the profit of the publican would be increased, while many a man who was not disreputable or dishonest would willingly refuse to supply anyone who had drank too much if it were not for the fear of offending a customer. No such reason, however, would apply in the case of a manager appointed in the manner he had indicated. Where this system prevailed there was, too, this further security. It was provided that the liquor sold should be pure and unadulterated, and in addition the manager was allowed to trade on his own account in tea, coffee, and other innocuous beverages, so that every encouragement was given to the conversion of these houses thus under municipality control into places for innocent assembly. The change in the habits of the population, resulting from the adoption of this system, had been very marked, and, where, before intemperance was rife, the people had become a model to every other part of Sweden. He did not think this country was ripe for committing to any body of ratepayers the purchase of publichouses; but he could very well perceive that, as every year the efflux of time would decrease the value of the licence, it might offer to the authorities an opportunity for buying up existing licences, and letting a smaller number to the highest bidders on the principle recommended by the Bill, for thereby at once reducing the number of publichouses. On the whole, he believed the proposition contained in the Bill afforded a basis for dealing fairly with the difficult question of vested interests.
He would now pass to the part of the Bill which proposed to deal with the rating qualification. In counties no licence would be granted to a house of a lower gross annual value than £9 per annum; in towns where the population did not exceed 10,000, £15; where it was above 10,000 and under 30,000, £20; and where the population exceeded 30,000, £25. This part of the subject was one of extreme difficulty, because although the population of two towns might be the same, the rateable value of similar houses varied very much, and what was fair in one place would be unfair in another, and therefore he had not ventured to carry the rating qualification too high.
1086 Now, another important point had reference to the hours of closing. At present, publichouses were closed in large towns between 1 and 4 o'clock in the morning, but were open through the night in portions of the country where the provisions of the Early Closing Act did not apply, or had not been adopted. Beerhouses were closed in the metropolis between 12 at night and 4 in the morning, in country towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants between 11 and 4, and in smaller places between 10 and 4. He proposed to eqalize the hours of closing in the case of beer and publichouses, and, as far as the night went, to adopt the hours now applied to beerhouses. In addition to that, the Bill gave the power, and he had no doubt it would be frequently exercised, to the magistrates to make a further reduction, with the consent of the ratepayers in every case of one hour, so that in the rural districts the magistrates might, with the concurrence of the ratepayers, close the houses at 9 at night instead of at 10, as at present. The hour of opening would be 7 in the morning, instead of 4. There was a great deal of drinking of a very objectionable character between the hours of 6 and 7 by workmen proceeding to their labour, and it would be of great public advantage if the facilities for it were cut off. He then came to a much more difficult question, that of closing on Sundays, in which his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had especially interested himself. He had had before him a great deal of evidence of the very strong feeling which pervaded the country on this subject, and he had no doubt whatever that a very large number of the working people were in favour of the total closing of publichouses on the Sunday. But, on the other hand, he must be guided by considerations of general policy, and he could not but think that if a great change were suddenly made in the habits of the people with respect to the accommodation they had hitherto enjoyed on Sundays, there would be a revulsion of feeling which would prevent much of the good that might otherwise be effected. He proposed, therefore, a reduction of hours founded on the Report of the Committee of 1854, which inquired very carefully into the subject. The result of their inquiries was that publichouses on Sunday should be closed except from 1087 1 to 3 in the afternoon, and from 7 until 9 in the evening. These were the hours which he proposed to adopt. But it was intended that the justices, with the consent of the ratepayers, might close publichouses for the whole of Sunday, except for sale for consumption off the premises. There would, of course, be special exemptions to meet peculiar cases, as with regard to houses situated near market-places. But he would not trouble the Committee by entering into these details. At the closing hour the houses were to be cleared, after it no article whatever was to be sold, and persons found on the premises would be subject to punishment.
The penal provisions of the Bill had been very carefully considered, because he felt obliged to leave in existence a number of publichouses which he admitted to be a great evil; and that was an additional reason for taking the best possible security for public order. It was well known that licences were very rarely forfeited under the present Acts. However numerous the convictions might have been, the justices were not obliged to forfeit the licence. They were frequently moved by various considerations, as for example that forfeiture would be a too severe penalty, that the licence-holder was not the real owner, and so on. What he wanted to do was to introduce a system which should be self-acting, and, therefore, he proposed that all offences against the licence of whatever kind, whether for selling liquor which there was no right to sell, for adulteration, for permitting drunkenness on the premises, and so forth, should be subjected to a certain penalty under the Bill. Whenever a conviction for these offences occurred the fact of the conviction would be endorsed on the back of the certificate, and under no circumstances should it be removed. If the penalty imposed should exceed half of the highest amount that might be inflicted for the offence, then the whole penalty would be entered as if it had been inflicted; if less than half, then half the penalty would be entered. When the sum of these penalties added together reached £65 in three years, or £100 in five years, the certificate would be ipso facto forfeited without any discretion on the part of the magistrates. In the meantime, the existence of the record of these convictions on the back of the certificate would depreciate the value of it; and in 1088 conjunction with the next proposal which he had to make would form a strong guarantee against the repetition of offences against the licence. Supposing the penalties for these offences reached a certain maximum within a given time, not only would the holder lose his certificate but the premises themselves could not be licensed after a certain number of offences had been recorded against them; and, moreover, the personal disqualification of the manager would extend to five years. One of the most frequent difficulties which arose at present was with regard to the interpretation given to the word "traveller." Nothing was more difficult than to prove whether a man found in a publichouse when the house ought to be closed was a traveller or not. What he proposed was that a traveller should be held to be a person not less than five miles from the place of his residence, and the burden of proof should be thrown on the publican on whose premises the person was found during the prohibited hours. At the same time the publican would be protected by the imposition of a penalty in persons falsely professing to be travellers. As to a breach of the closing regulations, the Bill imposed the same penalties as those imposed by the Act of the hon. Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson). There had been many and serious complaints with respect to disorderly houses, such as those in the Haymarket, and other such places. The penal provision against allowing persons of bad character to assemble and remain in these houses was made more stringent; and it was provided that a second conviction for this offence should involve the forfeiture of the certificate. One of the greatest offences against the tenour of the certificate was permitting drunkenness on the premises. He could conceive few greater offences. It often happened that when more than enough was given to a man, he became animated by a sort of maudlin liberality, and insisted on treating all round, so that in a few hours he might spend on his boon companions the earnings of a week, and leave his wife and children starving at home. The burden of proof in this case would be thrown on the manager, and he would be required to show that he took reasonable means to ascertain, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that 1089 the drunken person when supplied with liquor was not drunk. With regard to the difficulty of proving when a person was really drunk, he thought the keeper of the house should by his long experience be able to know what was the state of his customers; and if it could be shown that a drunken man had been supplied with liquor the burden of proving that he was ignorant of the fact ought to be thrown upon the publican. Further, he proposed to impose a penalty for drunkenness not only in the streets, but in publichouses, and to raise it to 20s.; and, in default of payment, the offender might be sentenced, not only to imprisonment, but to imprisonment with hard labour. Then there would be a heavier penalty on persons found drunk when they were specially bound to be sober—as when in charge of a horse or steam-engine, or having dangerous weapons in their possession. With respect to adulteration, the Bill provided that samples might be taken by the authority named therein and duly tested; and arrangements had been made that analyses should be conducted in Somerset House laboratory. This provision was most important. He looked upon adulteration as a most iniquitous fraud, and its effects as of a most injurious character. Acts of the most dangerous violence with which the police had to deal were committed by persons intoxicated with liquors into which noxious ingredients had been introduced. As offences of this kind were very serious, he proposed for the first offence the imposition of a heavy fine, with imprisonment at the option of the magistrates; and for the second offence a still heavier fine, together with forfeiture of the certificate. He came now to a very important part of the Bill—namely, that which dealt with the managers of publichouses. The law at present was that a licence should be granted only to the man who undertook to reside on the premises, the purpose being to prevent the acquisition of publichouses by brewers, and their multiplication in a few hands. But that purpose had totally failed. As a matter of fact it was well known that, directly or indirectly, the enormous majority of publichouses were controlled by brewers. It seemed to him that this enactment was attended with disadvantages without any compensating advantage. If the brewer were capable of holding the 1090 licence in his own name, we should have the guarantee of his own character for the proper conduct of the house, and he would choose persons who would do credit to him to manage the business. At present, as the fact of the ownership was known to but few, the brewer might put into the house the first person that offered to sell a certain quantity of liquor; if his conduct imperilled the licence, some other person was put in his place, and the house was conducted very much as before. What was now proposed was that any number of certificates might be taken by the same person, who was to appoint a manager for each house. The manager was to reside in and to be responsible for the conduct of the house. If he committed an offence, the penalty would be indelibly marked on the certificate. At present, if the manager committed an offence the owner would turn him out, and there would be an end of the matter. But when every conviction was registered, and depreciated the value of the certificate and of the premises, the owner would take the utmost care that the next manager would not further depreciate the value, or bring about the forfeiture of the certificate By those means the best security would, he thought, be afforded that managers should be responsible persons; and there would, therefore, be an obvious advantage in their appointment over the present system.
There were already strict laws against publichouses, and all sorts of conditions were attached to a licence, a failure in the performance of which subjected the holder to punishments more or less severe. Practically speaking, however, the law had turned out to be inefficient and inoperative. What was the reason? It was to be found in the fact that those who were charged with the enforcement of the law—that was to say, the police—could not and ought not to be trusted within the walls of a publichouse. Except when called upon to quell disorder, or when it was kept open at improper hours, constables were under orders not to enter a publichouse, because they were there subject to temptations of every kind. An efficient inspection could, in his opinion, be conducted only by a body of men superior to the ordinary police, and not charged with ordinary police duties. He had stated that all the holders of existing licences would 1091 have to pay an annual licence rent, which he calculated would produce £130,000 a-year. That amount, he proposed, should be paid into the Treasury; and the Treasury would provide for the cost of an efficient body of publichouse inspectors. There would be one Inspector-in-Chief; and England and Wales would be divided into districts, with an inspector for each—every large town and district having a superintendent, under whom there would be a carefully-selected and well-paid body of men. Those officers would have the power of obtaining admittance to a publichouse at all times, and of asking for samples of liquor for the purpose of having it tested; they would, in fact, be a body of men specially charged with the duty of seeing that no offence was committed in a publichouse which was prohibited by the law; and an efficient system of inspection would thus, for the first time, be established. Under such a system of inspection, and with such police regulations as he had described, and a considerable contraction of the number of hours during which they could remain open, there would, he thought, before long, be a considerable decrease in the number of public-houses. Many of those now in existence would not, it was well known, be able to subsist were it not for the constant infraction of their licences; and if the opportunities of such infraction were cut off, and the system which he had sketched out were vigourously administered, there would be, he believed, not only a reduction in the number of publichouses, but those which remained would be of a much better description. It was impossible to estimate the exact cost of the system of inspection. It would, however, be no real charge on the Treasury, but on the trade which required it. And whatever surplus remained, after the cost of inspection had been defrayed, would be paid into the fund of the district from which it came.
He had now explained the provisions of the Bill. He had endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to deal with a subject, the difficulties of which no one could rightly estimate who had not taken them into consideration. He had sought to deal fairly with the interests of the owners of property in publichouses, on the one hand, and with those of the public on the other—he proposed to give 1092 the people a control over the issue of new licences. The Bill would provide also for the impartial distribution of licences. The rules, with regard to early closing, and the precautions taken against adulteration, would, he thought, have a most wholesome influence on the conduct of publichouses for the future. The Bill would not remove all the human misery which proceeded from the excessive use of intoxicating liquors. That was an object which he believed no legislation could accomplish. The ultimate remedy for the evil of drunkenness was not to be found in the mechanical difficulties which might be interposed in its way—though he was far from depreciating such means—but rather in the moral influences of education, in the creation among the people of a high moral standard, of a state of feeling which would lead them to look upon drunkenness as a disgrace, and would give them a truer sense of what was due to their families as well as to themselves. By those means, and by those means only, would the people of the country become a moral, religious, and sober people. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolutions:—
- (1.) That it is expedient, from the 1st day of October 1871, to repeal the duties of Excise charged in England in respect of Licences authorising the sale by retail, and not (except in the case of Publicans' Licences) by wholesale, of intoxicating liquors, and of Licences to keep Refreshment Houses, imposed by the several Acts relating thereto.
- (2.) That it is expedient to grant to Her Majesty, from the 1st day of October 1871, the following Duties of Excise to be payable in England (that is to say):—
| Publican's General Licence. | |||
| £ | s. | d. | |
| If the annual gross value of the premises do not exceed £10 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Exceed £10 and do not exceed £20 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Exceed £20 and do not exceed £30 | 11 | 0 | 0 |
| Exceed £30 and do not exceed £40 | 14 | 0 | 0 |
| Exceed £40 | 17 | 0 | 0 |
§ (3.) That it is expedient to authorise the imposition on holders of Certificates from Justices authorising those holders to obtain a Publican's General, a Publican's Limited, an Inn or an Eating House Licence, of a Licence Rent bearing such proportion to the annual gross value of the licensed premises as may be fixed by or in pursuance of any Act to be passed in the present Session.
§ (4.) That it is expedient to amend the Laws relating to the sale of Exciseable Liquors in England.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, it was impossible to form any very accurate opinion upon the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had brought in, or to master many of its complicated clauses; but he thought it was evident from the careful speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just made, that he had taken a great deal of labour in endeavouring to improve the system which that Bill was intended to improve. All those who wished to see an amendment in the existing state of things must 1094 be grateful to him for the labour he had expended in this matter, and he was quite sure that all would think it labour worth so expending, for he had no hesitation in saying that if the right hon. Gentleman could do anything to diminish intemperance, he would have done more than any statesman of his generation for the welfare of England; and he knew, as well as he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did, that it was only the overwhelming demand of the country for a reform in this matter which had enabled him to bring forward that Bill. Parliament, for generations back, had been dealing with this question, and so far it had utterly failed to do what it had intended—that is, to make the licensing system, instead of a curse, a blessing to the people. The old system, as he had said, had been a total failure; they knew that it was intended to enable the sale of intoxicating drinks to be carried on, and, at the same time, to prevent drunkenness. That could be seen from the very wording of the licences given to every person who succeeded in obtaining one—"He shall not knowingly permit drunkenness or disorderly conduct on his premises." Well, all old schemes had failed. The Beer Act had been a great failure; and they knew also from the examinations and inquiries made by the Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) how bad the system had been during the years that supervened after the passing of the Beer Act. Archbishop Manning said a short time since, that he had only read the Report of that Committee lately, and that he felt as if going from one chamber of horrors to another, while reading the revelations which it made. So strong was the evidence adduced before that Committee, and so strong was their Report, that a Bill was promised by the Government. That Bill had been promised for 15 years, and to-day they saw the realization of that promise. He was sure the hon. Member (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would admit—he had heard him say that the Bill which he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) passed two years ago was only touching the fringe of this question; for after it was passed, they remained in the same position, or, as he thought, in a rather worse condition than they did before the passing of the Beer Act in 1830. His right hon. Friend had now 1095 made an effort to put things right, and he wished to make a few remarks on the subject; but he would not like to speak decisively before he saw exactly what was the value of the Bill. But he must protest at this, the very earliest, opportunity against one principle in the Bill which gave a vested interest in licences. As far as he understood, the habit had been that licences for the sale of drink should not be granted for a longer period than 12 months; but he found now that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to break through this rule, to increase, strengthen, and create vested interests. If that was so, there were, he thought, several hon. Members in that House who would oppose that portion of the Bill. As to the restrictive clauses and the shortening of hours, he would only say, that as they would reduce the facilities for obtaining drink he should cordially support them, for he thought they would result in good. He did not exactly understand how the matter of compensation, in the way of licences, was to be dealt with, and therefore he should not refer to that clause. [Mr. BRUCE: There is not to be any compensation.] He thought there was a decision, by which a veto power was to be given to a certain number of inhabitants on new applications, but that this veto power only came into operation to stop licences beyond a certain given number. He must say that appeared to him to be a very inefficient power, and it was not satisfactory to persons who suffered from those establishments. They were suffering at this moment from the immense amount of crime and pauperism in this country, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that that arose in a great measure from the sale of intoxicating drinks, and that was a very urgent reason for that Bill. But this veto power was only to apply to new licences—new houses which had never yet done any harm. What he thought was a very serious defect was that, so far as he understood, the Bill was confined to England and Wales, for he saw no reason why it should not extend throughout the whole United Kingdom. The Bill was wanted quite as much in Scotland and Ireland as it was in England. In Scotland there was a strong feeling in favour of a change in the law. Only a few years ago, after much labour and discussion, the House passed a licensing 1096 measure, which was, perhaps, as good a licensing Bill as could be passed, and which had shut up a good many of the houses in Scotland. But there was still as great a need of the Act being applied to Scotland as to England. He had read in a recent publication, that no Act had ever been carried out more effectually than the last Scotch Licensing Act, but yet the drunkenness and immorality that prevailed in Scotland was dreadful. The Bill was also needed for Ireland. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would remember that when the Permissive Bill was last before the House, a majority of two to one of the Irish Members in the House voted in favour of that Bill. If he were to ask any hon. Member from Ireland for his opinion, he had no doubt that he should be told that checking drunkenness in Ireland would do more good than the Irish Land Bill or the Church Bill, or any other Act of the present generation. The great demand of the people for the last eight or ten years, was for power to get rid of these places altogether. They could not go into the question of good houses or bad houses; but the people said there are the houses producing pauperism and crime, let us have the power to put them down. An allusion had been made to something that had taken place at Jarrow, but that did not bear any comparison to the operation of the Permissive Bill; for, in that case, houses were not allowed to be open, simply because a certain owner objected, but with the Permissive Bill the ratepayers were the people to say if houses should be permitted or not. He believed in the principle of free trade for everything that would benefit the community; but as he believed the licensing trade was a bad one, he could not understand why publichouses, which increased the rates and promoted disorder, should be licensed, except by the will of the people. He could not understand why they should licence that which was wrong. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would understand that, although they were in favour of the Permissive Bill, they would not oppose his Bill. He did not believe in it, and thought it could be improved; but he was not going to oppose him. They would still go on trying to obtain their scheme, which they believed would secure order and happiness in that country. If the scheme of the right hon. 1097 Gentleman was passed, there would be nothing to prevent the power of total prohibition being given to the people along with it; and if their scheme was carried, it would not interfere with him in any way.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it was far better that they should not, till the Bill was before the House, discuss its separate provisions; but, having taken some interest in this subject, it might be expected that he should say a few words upon it. He was quite sure that the House would believe that the right hon. Gentleman fully interpreted his feelings on the subject when he said that he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had always looked forward to the day when the Government would grapple fairly with the subject, and deal with it largely as a whole. He had great satisfaction in finding that the right hon. Gentleman had that night grappled boldly, at least, with the subject. There might be points in the Bill to which he should take exception; but there were also many points which had his hearty and cordial support. The hon. Baronet who had just sat down stated that he objected to that part of the Bill in which the veto was given to the ratepayers against the magisterial licensing power, because it only dealt with a very small portion of the question—namely, the new licences. But he had forgotten that all the existing houses, after a period limited in the Bill, would fall under the same ratepayers' restrictions. If they were to adopt the ratepaying veto at all he thought that supported by the Government was quite as extensive as the country would be prepared to receive. The hon. Baronet seemed to forget, when he talked about vested interests, though no vested interests existed, that there had grown up an equivalent, and that the question could certainly not be dealt with without the recognition of something like vested interests. The Bill seemed to deal with several points which he had always wished to be dealt with in any measure introduced. It dealt with the shortening of the hours throughout the country. It shortened them; and it equalized them. And he had often thought that a great deal of drunkenness existed on account of the different hours for visiting publichouses existing in the same places, enabling a drunkard when obliged to leave a house which 1098 closed at 11 o'clock to go to another closing at 12 o'clock. With the hours equalized, this would not exist. As to the placing of the licences up to public auction, that appeared to him to be open, at first sight, to one objection, and that was that the licences might be made to converge to one particular part of the district, and that part the worst part. Another point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was with regard to the rating qualification. The scale began at £9 in counties; this would be too low in many districts, and that was the beginning of the scale for the beerhouses. [Mr. BRUCE: £8.] With regard to the time during which houses were to be allowed to be open for the sale and consumption of liquors on Sunday—1 to 3, and 7 to 9—he did not understand whether they were the hours during which beerhouses could be open for the sale of beer to be consumed off the premises, or on the premises. [Mr. BRUCE: For both.] He should prefer to see the time of remaining open restricted exclusively to the sale of liquors off the premises, as in such cases the same amount of attendance on the part of those serving would not be requisite. He was exceedingly pleased with the manner in which it was proposed to deal with the question of adulteration. He believed the effect of that part of the measure would be not only to diminish drunkenness, but crime. He had always thought if they had a general Bill, harmonizing all the Acts, bringing them all into one uniform system, they would do much to strengthen their hands in doing away with one of the worst vices of the country. And though there were many points in the Bill to which he must take exception, it was with satisfaction that he found the Government had at last been bold enough to grapple with the question as a whole.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, he would not attempt to pronounce any distinct opinion upon a measure which, at present, he understood so imperfectly; but he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had not taken up all the views of the promoters of the Permissive Bill. He thought the Bill a very complicated one; although, perhaps, in dealing with such a subject, it could scarcely be otherwise. With regard to the veto system on the part of the ratepayers he confessed he did not understand it. The hon. Baronet 1099 the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wanted to give two-thirds of the ratepayers the power to prevent the minority of one-third from having any refreshment whatever in the shape of alcoholic drink. They had been told, on evidence that was accepted by the hon. Baronet who brought it forward, that in Scotland the effect of closing the publichouses on Sundays had been to increase the drunkenness of the nation. [Mr. M'LAREN: No.] Well, he did not quite know whether that effect was limited to the Sunday, or extended through all the days of the week; perhaps the latter, because if a man could get no drink on Sunday he was certain to take all the more on Monday. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) was a witness before the Committee on the Sale of Liquors on Sunday Bill; and the Committee rejected that Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh was not in favour of applying the principle of that Bill to England; he was in favour of the diminution of the hours on Sunday. The chairman of that Committee, Sir James Ferguson, though a Scotchman, was of the same opinion; he highly approved the Report and the rejection of the Bill, because the situation of Scotland was altogether different from that of England. His right hon. Friend was, therefore, perfectly justified in not adopting the permissive system; but he did not understand how magistrates and the ratepayers were to act with regard to licences, or in what manner the character of the person who was to keep the publichouse was to be ascertained. The licence was to be put up to auction, and he that would bid the most money for it was to have the certificate. [Mr. BRUCE: After an examination into his fitness by the magistrates.] That was exactly what the magistrates did now before granting a licence. They examined into the character of the person applying for a licence—the fitness or accommodation of the house, and the wants of the neighbourhood. The magistrates made very strict inquiry into these three points, and unless they were satisfied no licence was given. Now a certain population was to have no more than a certain number of publichouses; but how was the veto of the inhabitants, proposed by the Bill, to be applied? He understood that if the number fixed by the magistrates was more than in a certain 1100 proportion to the inhabitants, the ratepayers might strike off the excess.
MR. BRUCEWhat I said in regard to the veto is this—the veto shall not apply in certain cases, where the proportion of population that shall be fixed upon is not supplied with the means of obtaining liquor. For instance, suppose it is decided that one publichouse to every 1,000 inhabitants is a fair proportion. If there are already 10 houses in a district containing 10,000 inhabitants, and a proposal should be made to licence another house, it will then be in the power of the ratepayers, if they choose, to refuse it. But if there are only nine houses, it will not be in their power to interfere with the decision of the magistrates that a licence for another one shall be granted.
§ MR. LOCKEthought that was quite right, for a population of so many souls might not be "thirsty souls." As to the reduction of houses, he thought it a great hardship that at the end of 10 years of hard work a person who had all along conducted himself and his business properly, without any charge having ever been made against him, should lose his licence and be driven out of his house, and his whole business might be cut away from under his feet—which would certainly be a very harsh proceeding. A more equitable mode of reducing the number of publichouses than that proposed might easily be adopted, for it did not do that justice to the publican which in common with other citizens he had a right to demand; and no doubt Petitions from the publicans would soon flow into the House indicating how they would prefer to be dealt with. The existing law was sufficient, if it were properly carried out, to prevent the adulteration of beer and of spirits; but the law had not been carried out as it might have been if a proper selection had been made from the police of plain clothes officers charged to see that it was duly enforced. The adulteration of food might also be prevented, if it were not for the vestries of the metropolis refusing to incur the expense. In fact, we had permissive legislation, which was ineffectual, because local authorities would not appoint and pay public analysts to test the specimens inspectors might bring to them. Though he did not pledge himself to all the details of the Bill, he considered 1101 that the right hon. Gentleman had conferred a benefit on his country by the introduction of so comprehensive and promising a measure. The Bill was, at all events, free from the peculiarities and eccentricities which distinguished other Bills, such as the Permissive Bill, and the Bill relating to the sale of liquors on Sunday.
§ MR. STRAIGHTsaid, he was extremely anxious to assist the right hon. Gentleman in his attempt to consolidate the law upon this subject. It would be a most important step to take inspection of publichouses out of the hands of the police and to hand it over to authorized inspectors, for publicans naturally very much disliked police supervision. The licensed victuallers, who felt difficulty in appealing to tribunals that necessarily considered it part of their duty to uphold and support the police, would feel considerable relief in being placed under the supervision of independent persons, charged with a single duty, and directly responsible to Government authorities, instead of being watched by those who were charged with the business of detecting and convicting criminals. The business of a licensed victualler was a most difficult one to conduct, especially in some neighbourhoods. He was surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) upon the proposal to require the renewal of a licence every 10 years, seeing that at present it was necessary to renew licences annually. If no complaint was made against a publican his licence was renewed as a matter of course. The proposition to throw upon the publican the onus of proof that he did not know of the drunken condition of a man found drunk in his House, raised a little difficulty; for it was impossible, under some circumstances,—such, say, as the management of a publichouse being thrown suddenly upon the shoulders of one person through the illness of a second, for the person in charge to be cognizant of the condition of everyone in the house, and to know that any particular man was or was not drunk; and under such circumstances it would be hard to convict. After the innumerable conflicting decisions that had been given upon the subject of who was and who was not a traveller, intelligible legislation on the point, something in character to that which the Bill proposed, would 1102 be extremely acceptable. He believed that rateable value was a fair test by which to judge of the suitability of a house to be a publichouse. He was anxious to see how the Bill proposed to meet the fair wants of new neighbourhoods, because the applications of the most respectable persons for licences were at present often ignored, even when backed by the recommendations of large numbers of inhabitants, so that it was often impossible to understand why such applications were not acceded to. He was glad that at least some effort had been made to deal with this long-vexed question, and though the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman would require much emendation and alteration, he sincerely trusted that it might be found possible to place the law upon a basis at once fair to the licensed victuallers and to the ratepayers.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, what he had complained of was not that a publican should have to apply for a licence at the end of 10 years, but that, at the end of that time, without having done anything to deserve it, his licence should be taken away from him as a matter of course.
§ MR. M'LARENentirely approved the general scope and spirit of the Bill; but some of its provisions would be found so much out of harmony with the requirements of large towns that they would require to be considerably modified. The scale of rate, according to rental, was such that the small publican paying £25 of real rent per annum would pay much more than his fair proportion, and, in some cases, 10 times as much as the great innkeepers. He did not see how the auction system was to work. It would be better that the same rate of licence should apply to the new as to the old houses, instead of making the new houses pay more. Under the new scale of 1 house to 1,000 inhabitants, the number of publichouses would have to be reduced to a proportion much lower than would suffice for the wants of large towns. The Government proposed to buy up the present vested interests by giving the present holders a 10 years' tenure. He did not see how new licences could come into operation for 10 years, because everywhere there were at present more publichouses than 1 to 1,000 inhabitants.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the licensing magistrates would have the power of dividing the present districts, so as to make the 1103 growing portion of a town a separate district, and allot licences to that district. In many growing towns there were new districts springing up, and it was desirable that the magistrates should have the power of separating those districts from the rest.
§ MR. M'LAREN(in continuation): What he wanted to call particular attention to was the litter improbability of getting the limit of the publichouses fixed at the line the right hon. Gentleman had drawn before any new houses could be established. He knew a large town which now had nearly 1,000 licences, but which, according to the proportion presented by the Act, ought only to have 200. It was very improbable that during the next 10 years the 1,000 licences would be reduced to 200, but unless they became diminished to that extent there would be no room for any new licences. One to 1,000 of the population was far too small a proportion, and he said so after having acted as a magistrate for many years, and in that capacity having succeeded in reducing the number of publichouses. In fact, such a proportion was practically unattainable in large towns. If attempted, hundreds of unlicensed houses would spring up which all the power of the Executive could not put down. He would therefore urge that that question should be re-considered. In Scotland it was arranged by the magistrates that three convictions for a breach of licence forfeited the certificate, and under that wholesome enactment 145 publichouses were wiped out within three years in one city. Unless they adopted a rule of that kind in England they could not hope for a reduction in the number of publichouses to any considerable extent. He was gratified to see that under this Bill the premises were not only to be closed at 11 o'clock, but cleared at that hour. With regard to diminishing the number of licences by declaring those forfeited where fines of a certain amount had been inflicted, he did not believe that if the police records throughout the country were searched, a single case could be found of a publican who had been fined so much as £65 in three years, or £100 in five years; the number of offences would be a better ground for withdrawing a licence than the amount of fines. In his opinion it would be well to re-consider some portions of the Bill, 1104 which would excite very great interest throughout the country. He entirely approved of the ratepayers getting a veto with regard to the opening of new houses. From personal knowledge he could state that the amount of drunkenness was enormously diminished in Scotland from closing on Sundays, although he must admit that shebeens had increased. For the last 20 years there had been a register kept of all the parties apprehended on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday in Edinburgh, and the result was that not one-fifth of the number of persons were now taken up by the police for being in the streets drunk on Sunday that there were before the Sunday closing enactment. That was surely a complete proof of the efficiency of the legislation in that direction. At the same time he confessed he should be afraid of trying the experiment of wholly closing the publichouses for the enormous population in London, on the Sunday, because many of the publichouses here were also eating-houses, and the poorer class of people required beer for their dinners, and considered it as much a necessity, and to be used in the same way as they used soup in Scotland.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERwished to learn from the right hon. Gentleman whether the districts to be mapped out under the provisions of the Bill would be enumerated in the Schedule of the Bill. He expressed satisfaction with the general provisions of the Bill, while reserving to himself the right of discussing the details in Committee. It was most important that the Government should deal with the subject in a bold spirit, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had done so. On the whole he was glad to believe that the measure would do much to promote temperance in this country. On the last occasion when the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle brought forward his Permissive Bill he gave it his support, because he was anxious to show that the subject should be dealt with in a comprehensive spirit. He had always entertained doubts, however, as to whether the measure would work satisfactorily. Indeed, he believed it would operate in districts where it was not particularly wanted, while in the districts where it was most required it would be totally insufficient to attain the desired end. In illustration of this he mentioned that some years ago he attended 1105 the Quarter Sessions for Middlesex when applications were made for music and dancing licences. One application was for a dancing licence for a low house near the docks, and a petition was presented against it, signed by the clergy of all denominations, the churchwardens, overseers, medical men, and, so far as he could judge, every man of position in the district. The local magistrates also attended to support the same view. This petition bore about 160 signatures, but on the other hand some 400 persons signed one in favour of the licence. This showed that if the power of granting licences was relegated to the ratepayers the licence would have been granted, and that in low parishes a very large number of houses would be licensed. The hon. Member for Edinburgh had referred to the scale in the Bill. That was a matter which required to be well considered in Committee. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the scale was not too high in cheaply-rated houses, and too low in houses rated at a very high rent. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some further information with regard to the inspectors. In conclusion, he expressed his gratification that the Government had taken up this question in a bold spirit, and had dealt with it in a measure which he believed would produce good results.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEcongratulated the Home Secretary on the fact that he had not been induced to recognize the Permissive Prohibitory principle, or to advocate the total closing of publichouses on Sunday. Being intimately acquainted with the licensing system in the City of London and the county of Middlesex, he would point out to his right hon. Friend that if it were intended to limit the number of publichouses in proportion to the population, an exception to the rule must be made in the case of the City of London, where there were nearly 1,000,000 persons who required refreshment in the day-time, but who, as they slept elsewhere, would not be recorded in the Census as inhabitants of the City. With respect to the complaints which had been made as to the mode in which the licensed victuallers carried on their business, and respecting the administration of the present licensing system, he could say that the magistrates for the county of Middlesex 1106 and the City of London had paid the greatest attention to the licensing of publichouses, and he considered that men carrying on a lawful business in a lawful manner had a right to that protection of law which was extended to other trades. He believed there were too many publichouses in some parts of the country; but if some were closed compulsorily, compensation ought to be given either out of the Imperial Exchequer or the rates of the district. Unless that was done great injury would be inflicted on the present occupiers and their families. If they were only to enjoy their present licences for 10 years their property would be deteriorated in value year by year. The hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Straight) thought that the licences were to be renewed at the expiration of the 10 years, unless the occupiers had committed a breach of the law, which would prevent their renewal; but the right hon. Gentleman had distinctly stated that there would be an end of all the licences at the close of the 10 years, and that then the number would be largely reduced, and the remainder be put up to public competition. The injustice of this course would be the greater upon men who had conducted their trading in a respectable and careful manner, because it would be not only their licences but their business that would be put up for sale. Another and great difficulty would be that of deciding upon whom to place the responsible duty of granting new licences when the existing ones were forfeited at the end of the 10 years. The number of years during which a man had occupied a house would have no weight in support of his application for a renewal, as the Bill proposed to hand over the licences to those who offered the most money. Why was the poor publican to be subjected to a ruinous competition with a new comer, who might take his business and compel him to retire into the country upon a pittance? Purchase in the Army was to be abolished, at a cost to the country of £7,000,000, and the officers were to be largely compensated for sums which they had paid in acquiring their commissions beyond the amount recognized by law. But in the present Bill the publicans were to be disestablished, and sent adrift at the end of 10 years, without sixpence in the shape of compensa- 1107 tion, the system of purchase being introduced in order to secure a better mode of distributing licences. At present, only one person was licensed for a public-house; but if publichouses were to be let in the same way as toll-gates perhaps a joint-stock company might purchase a large number, and again put them up to the highest bidder. If owners were to be turned into managers or superintendents and committed an offence, they might be thrown over by the company, and others placed in possession. He objected to the system of putting up houses of this description in such a wholesale manner. It had been said that the brewers held a large number of these houses, and advanced a large portion of the amount paid by the occupier, and therefore that it would be better to meet the brewer at once. If houses were to be put up to public competition in the manner proposed there would be a competition between Bass and Allsopp, between Hoare and Reid, between the City Brewery Company and Barclay. Now, supposing the brewers to obtain possession of the whole of the publichouses, they might district the whole metropolis in the same manner as the Gas and Water Companies had done. Parliament fixed the price of gas and water. Now, was Parliament prepared to settle the price at which liquor of various kinds should be supplied in publichouses? The system of putting up publichouses in the manner proposed was quite novel, and he believed that many evils would arise from it. He hoped on further consideration that that proposition would be swept out of the Bill. He hoped also that the licences of those who had carried on their business honourably would not be forfeited at the expiration of 10 years. Innkeepers had been often regarded as publicans and sinners; but he trusted the House would not look upon them in that light. The Chancellor of the Exchequer derived a large amount of his revenue from publichouses, and probably expected to obtain still more from the disposal of their licences. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman who had asked leave to introduce the Bill would re-consider and amend these clauses, for by so doing he could alone prevent the great outcry against the measure which would arise in all parts of the country, and he could assure him that worthy and respectable 1108 individuals, who had acquired property in their houses by long years of thrift and management, would not submit to be mulcted of their hard earnings in the manner proposed by this Bill.
§ COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he had had 12 years experience as a magistrate in Surrey, and for the past seven years he had taken an active part on the Bench in the Wandsworth and Battersea division, and he protested against the censure which the right hon. Gentleman had passed upon the publicans as a body who permitted a large amount of drunkenness in their houses. Between Wandsworth and Vauxhall 7,000 houses had been erected within the past few years, yet three years ago, when the licences came on for renewal, there was not a single complaint against a licence-holder; in the following year there were but three, and last year there were two only. With regard to the proposal to forfeit all licences at the end of 10 years, he agreed with the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) that it would fail utterly. If a publican knew that in case of offence against the law his licence would be suspended or taken away he would have in that quite as strong a reason as was necessary to induce him to conduct his business properly. He disapproved the proposal to appoint inspectors of public-houses who should be independent of the police force as being unnecessary and enormously expensive. So far as his experience enabled him to judge, no body of public servants in the metropolis were more zealous, independent, and respectable in the discharge of delicate and responsible duty than the superintendents and inspectors of police, taken as an aggregate force. There was not the least necessity for imposing an additional burden of taxation upon the country for the inspection of publichouses. When the Bill reached the next stage he should propose certain amendments of detail.
§ MR. RYLANDSexpressed his gratitude to the Home Secretary for introducing this Bill. A large amount of public feeling had been excited on this question, and it would inevitably lead, whatever might be the fate of this Bill, to a large reduction in the number of publichouses, and in the number of hours during which they should be kept open. The great point was how to reduce the 1109 number of these places of public resort and so lessen these temptations which led to so much crime and pauperism in the country. The right hon. Gentleman's scheme of reducing the number of publichouses through the operation of the penal clauses of the Bill might not be so effectual as was expected, and it should be considered whether it would not be practicable to increase the stringency of the Bill by at once sweeping away all houses that were not rated up to a certain point, for unless the effect of the measure was to reduce the number of publichouses in places where they were in excess of the requirements of the population the Bill would not meet with public support. Such a provision would get rid of the lowest class of houses, and by reducing the number of houses it would decrease the competition and improve the value of those that remained, thus affording some measure of compensation to the large owners of publichouses for those which were refused licences. He presumed that in places where the number of existing publichouses exceeded the limit fixed in the Bill no new houses would be licensed.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the ratepayers would have to confirm the decision of the magistrates in that respect.
§ MR. RYLANDShoped that no increase would be made, for he desired to see an immediate prospect of a rapid decrease in places where the number of publichouses was already excessive. With regard to the number of hours during which publichouses should be open he concurred in the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, but was not sure whether they might not have been limited to a greater extent than was contemplated in the Bill, and in regard to the option of the extra hour given to the magistrates, he thought that option might have been left, to some extent, with the ratepayers themselves. With regard to Sunday closing, public opinion was ripening with great rapidity on that point, and he had just learned that, in Crewe, it had been shown from a canvass instituted by the working men themselves that a large majority of inhabitants were in favour of closing the publichouses altogether on Sundays, while he held in his hand a memorial signed by upwards of 1,000 magistrates in all parts of the country in favour of such a scheme. If the right 1110 hon. Gentleman could not go to that extent he might, at least, give the ratepayers the option of deciding the point, and with this view, when the Bill got into Committee, he should give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the question of Sunday closing as applied to publichouses. He hoped the result of this measure would be to check one of the greatest evils under which the country suffered, and in that case Government would be successful in dealing effectually with a most important question.
§ MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he approved of the Bill, and thanked the Home Secretary for having undertaken the difficult and anxious task of introducing it, which had been forced upon the Government, who were rather behind public opinion on this matter than in advance of it. This Bill he regarded as the result of those measures which had been introduced by independent Members who represented the popular feeling, and desired to promote public morals, for had there not been that action on the part of hon. Members no such Bill as this would have been framed by the Government. If the Bill proceeded upon the popular feeling it would be supported by the country, and much good would be accomplished. As to the objection made by the hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. R. N. Fowler), that by giving effect to the popular voice the result would be that the worst houses would be established in the worst districts, the hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that in all districts the magistrates would still possess their present control over the issue of licences.
§ MR. EYKYNsaid, the House was under a disadvantage in discussing a Bill, the details of which were not yet before them; but he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced a Bill which had long been required, and in the result of which the public were deeply interested, especially with regard to the provisions relating to adulteration and intoxication. Some such measure had been loudly called for, for some time past, and it had now become an imperative necessity. Considering the large amount of capital which was directly and indirectly invested in the brewing interest, he trusted that the effect of this Bill would not be to frighten away capital from its legiti- 1111 mate domain. He was exceedingly glad to find that the supervision which at present was inefficiently performed by the police, was to be transferred to another body. With regard to the brewers becoming licensed owners of houses, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact that distillers had almost as large an interest in them, and he thought both ought to be placed on the same footing. It was, no doubt, very difficult to accurately define a "traveller;" but he thought that a man should not be permitted to get intoxicated simply because he had travelled five miles. He thought the Bill might impose some limit on the amount which the traveller should be allowed to expend in drink, at a time when a restriction was imposed on other persons. Serious amendments would have to be made when in Committee on the Bill in regard to vested interests.
§ MR. T. E. SMITHwas extremely disappointed with the Bill, and was sure that the majority of the working classes in the North of England had expected a much stronger and more sweeping measure. In fact, the Bill only dealt with one part of the question—the relations of the publican and the Government, or its representatives, the licensing body. Whatever advantages might result from the proposed changes in the law, there was nothing in the Bill which would tend to diminish the evil of drunkenness. Hitherto it had been a disputed question whether publicans could be considered to have a vested interest in their holdings; but this Bill created for them a vested interest for at least 10 years, and he was sure this would be greatly disapproved of. Again, it was known that a large section of the population wished to have the power of depriving both themselves and their neighbours of the temptation of indulging in intoxicating liquors; and he believed that it was not just for the Government to prevent their exercising this power. It was said that they could not make people sober by Act of Parliament; but if they could not make people wiser and happier it was a serious reflection upon modern legislation. He hoped steps would be taken in Committee to enable those who were virtuously disposed to have some influence in making the Bill more effective, not only in improving the management of publichouses, but in promoting 1112 sober habits amongst the population generally.
MR. BRUCE, in reply, observed, that he had been very much gratified by the comments that had been made by hon. Members that evening. The speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was a sufficient answer to the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) that this was, in some respects, a measure of confiscation. He wished to remove some misapprehensions which had arisen as to the nature of several provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), who had studied this question so thoroughly, and who understood it so well, had objected to the apportioning of the publichouses at the rate of 1 to every 1,000 of the population, on the ground that at the end of the 10 years the number of licensed houses would be reduced very greatly below what the necessities of the people required. But that was not the principle of the Bill. The limit, whatever it was—and it would be fixed in Committee—was simply to interfere with the action of the ratepayers. The Justices might recommend the licensing of more houses in places like the City of London or Edinburgh; and, with the concurrence of the ratepayers, these licences would be granted—but, while the proportion to be fixed in the Bill was maintained, the ratepayers would have no voice in the matter. The hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) criticized one portion of the Bill; and, in reference to that, he should state that one object of the Bill was to secure the impartial distribution of licences, and they proposed to go a great way in the direction indicated by the hon. Member. But if a publichouse were needed just outside a village, the magistrates had the power of granting it where it was required, instead of being bound, as his hon. Friend supposed was the case, to give it to the village, which might already be amply supplied. Again, the licensing rent of new houses would be higher than the licensing rent of the older ones, because, in the case of the latter, large sums would, in all probability, have already been paid by the occupiers. There was hardly one of those persons who had not paid a heavy sum in acquiring his licence, and they had thought 1113 it unfair to put the licence rent, in their case, at as heavy a sum as in the case of those who started afresh and had their licences free. His hon. Friend had rather misunderstood the application of the cumulative penalties provided for by this Bill. There were many small matters which would not affect the licence, and for which the fines imposable by the magistrates would be sufficient punishment; but the forfeiture of the licence would follow two convictions of the more serious offences—such as permitting drunkenness and intoxication. He had to thank the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) for the manner in which he had spoken of the Bill; also the hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Straight), who had spoken with so much knowledge on the subject, for his offers of assistance. The measure could not but be improved by the impartial criticism of hon. Members, and he was especially obliged for the offers of assistance made in this instance, because it was impossible successfully to carry a measure dealing with the multitude of interests involved in the Government proposals without the cordial support of the House.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEhoped that, upon a subject of such importance, sufficient time would be allowed to elapse before the Motion for a second reading of the Bill, in order to insure a full consideration of its various provisions throughout the country.
- (1.) Resolved, That it is expedient, from the 1st day of October 1871, to repeal the Duties of Excise charged in England in respect of Licences authorising the sale by retail, and not (except in the case of Publicans' Licences) by wholesale, of intoxicating liquors, and of Licences to keep Refreshment Houses, imposed by the several Acts relating thereto.
- (2.) Resolved, That it is expedient to grant to Her Majesty, from the 1st day of October 1871, the following Duties of Excise to be payable in England (that is to say):—
Publican's General Licence. £ s. d. If the annual gross value of the premises do not exceed £10 5 0 0 Exceed £10 and do not exceed £20 8 0 0 Exceed £20 and do not exceed £30 11 0 0 Exceed £30 and do not exceed £40 14 0 0 Exceed £40 17 0 0 1114
Publican's Limited Licence. Beer Licence. If the annual gross value of the premises do not exceed £10 3 0 0
£ s. d. Exceed £10 and do not exceed £20 4 0 0 Exceed £20 and do not exceed £40 5 0 0 Exceed £40 6 0 0 Wine Licence. If the annual gross value of the premises do not exceed £10 2 0 0 Exceed £10 and do not exceed £20 3 0 0 Exceed £20 and do not exceed £40 4 0 0 Exceed £40 5 0 0 Beer and Wine Licence. If the annual gross value of the premises do not exceed £10 4 0 0 Exceed £10 and do not exceed £20 6 0 0 Exceed £20 and do not exceed £40 8 0 0 Exceed £40 10 0 0
Inn Licence. Same as Publican's General Licence. Eating House Licence. Same as Publican's Limited Licence. Refreshment House Wine Licence. If the annual gross value of the premises do not exceed £50 3 3 0 If the annual gross value of the premises exceeds £50 5 5 0 Refreshment House Limited Wine Licence. If the annual gross value of premises do not exceed £30 2 15 8 Exceeding £30 and do not exceed £50 3 0 0 Exceed £50 4 4 0 Railway Refreshment Rooms Licence. If three rooms or bars for different classes of passengers 17 0 0 If two rooms or bars for different classes of passengers 12 0 0 If only one room or bar 6 0 0 Theatre Licence. The same as for a Publican's General Licence. Beershop Licence. If the annual gross value do not exceed £20 1 1 0 If the annual gross value do exceed £20 2 2 0 Spirit Dealers Retail Licence 3 3 0 Beer Dealers Retail Licence 1 2 0 Wine Retail Licence. If the annual gross value of premises do not exceed £50 2 2 0 If the annual gross value of premises do exceed £50 3 3 0 Sweets Retail Licence 1 1 0
§ (3.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the imposition on holders of Certificates from Justices authorising those holders to obtain a Publican's General, a Publican's Limited, an Inn or an Eating House Licence, of a Licence Rent bearing such proportion to the annual gross value of the licensed premises as may be fixed by or in pursuance of any Act to be passed in the present Session.
§ (4.) Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Laws relating to the sale of Exciseable Liquors in England.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.