COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 02 August 1872 vol 213 cc346-77

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Entry on Premises.

Clause 32 (Entry on premises by inspectors and constables).

MR. LOCKE

proposed, in page 13, line 26, to leave out "a constable," and insert "an officer of Excise." He thought it would be better to have an officer of Excise to examine any public-house or hotel, if he had reasonable ground to suppose that liquors were kept in them for an unlawful purpose, than any constable or member of the police force.

MR. BRUCE

said, the power of visiting hotels and public-houses by constables had been in existence for the last 30 years, and was inserted in various Acts of Parliament. Since that period no complaint had ever been made of the power being abused, and he was of opinion it would be better to leave it as it now stood than transfer it to officers of Excise.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WATNEY

proposed as an Amendment in page 13, fine 26, after "all," to insert "reasonable."

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the Amendment was inconsistent, for the police might construe it to mean whenever they had what they might call a reason.

Amendment negatived.

MR. RAIKES

moved in page 13, line 27, after "every," to insert "public," so as to protect the family of the licensed victualler from unnecessary annoyance.

MR. CAWLEY

said, the Amendment would lead to a room in which improper proceedings were going on being marked "private," as, indeed, was now sometimes done with regard to gambling.

MR. BRUCE

also objected to the Amendment upon the ground that if it were carried all liquor liable to seizure would be sure to be stowed in the private part of the house, and there would be no security against an infringement of the law.

Amendment negatived.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

moved in page 13, line 36, to omit "week," and insert "month." The hon. Baronet explained that the object of the Amendment was to afford officers in charge of warrants a better opportunity of visiting the premises of persons alleged to have committed offences against the Act.

Amendment negatived.

MR. LOCKE

then moved to insert; in page 14, line 15, at the end of the clause, "if the convicting justice shall so order." The hon. and learned Member said, he should not think of applying that condition to the first part of the clause, but he thought it essential that it should be introduced at the end, in order that tavern-keepers might receive a fair amount of protection, particularly in cases where they chanced not to be so active as the police constables might think they ought to be. As the Bill stood, his failure to bring a candle, or a lucifer, or to omit doing anything which the constable might deem to be necessary for the furtherance of his object, would be a serious offence, and constitute a proper ground of conviction, and the conviction was to be endorsed upon his license. When the Committee remembered that only three offences were necessary in order to deprive a publican of his business and means of livelihood, it would not deem any security too great against his being ruined for any trivial cause.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

reminded the hon. and learned Member for Southwark that he had supported him in most of his previous efforts on behalf of the publican as regarded endorsing the license, because he thought that it was now a question of one of those wilful things that should be visited with the full penalty of the law. The publican in such a case could not say that the act complained of had been done without his knowledge or consent.

MR. MUNTZ

thought that if the magistrate were left to himself he would be certain to exercise a proper discretion in this matter. In many cases, however, the magistrate would be compelled to endorse the license, and that would have a cruel effect on the holder of it.

MR. BRUCE

thought the distinction drawn by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex a perfectly just one, and it was not to the interests of the publican, or of anyone else, that conduct such as that against which the clause was directed should have a shield thrown over it. He was content to go to a division, if necessary, upon the clause as it stood.

MR. DODSON

remarked that though the magistrate was not to have a discretionary power, the constable would be allowed a considerable one.

MR. COLLINS

said, that the discretion for the magistrate would be as to whether he should convict or not convict. He had supported the hon. and learned Member for Southwark in his series of Amendments as to hours and the definition of "quarrelsome," as to which doubts might arise, of which the publican should have the benefit. He was aware that the acts complained of had been done; but this was a matter of complaint as to which ignorance could not be pleaded.

MR. CANDLISH

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would sustain his clause. He could not see that the constable would have so much power under the clause. All he could do would be to state facts, while it would be for the magistrates to interpret them.

MR. RAIKES

remarked that it was very hard that the holder of a license should be punished by the endorsement of it for an offence which was only trivial.

MR. LOCKE

contended that the magistrates ought to have a discretion as to endorsing the licenses with convictions of minor offences. The furnishing of a constable with an insufficient light might be a trivial and the only offence the publican had committed; and in such a case a magistrate might very well come to the conclusion that, although he would inflict a penalty, yet at the same time he would not endorse the license.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Registers.

Clause 33 (Register of licenses).

MR. DIMSDALE

moved as an Amendment, in page 15, line 12, after "district," to insert— And there shall be paid to the clerk in respect of such registration the sum or fee of two shillings and six pence for every license granted or renewed. He observed that some such provision was necessary, as the issue and renewal of licenses would entail heavy burdens on the justices' clerks.

MR. BRUCE

agreed that some remuneration was due to the clerks, and would suggest that the fee should be 1s.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment of Law as to Grant of Licenses.

Clause 34 (Licensing committee in counties).

MR. DICKINSON

moved the omission of the words, in page 15, line 14, "in counties." He asked permission to state why he preferred his Amendment to the proposition of the Government. He thought it was exceedingly desirable to keep as much as possible to the old-established authorities. The Bill would create a new authority for the purpose of confirming the licenses which had been granted, and he wished to keep up the present appellate authority of the Quarter Sessions. The proposal of the Government was, that in the larger boroughs a committee of three justices would issue licenses, and a larger body of the same justices would confirm them; and in the second class of boroughs the confirming authority would consist of three justices of the county joined with three justices of the borough. He proposed that the Court of Quarter Sessions should decide appeals, but that the justices voting in respect to them should not exceed 10 in number, and should have been appointed for that purpose. Also in boroughs the appeals should be decided at the Quarter Sessions by justices appointed to discharge that duty. At present the clerk of the peace disposed of all questions connected with the granting of licenses, and he saw no reason why that officer should receive extra payment for performing that duty. All these things might be avoided by making the one Court uniform for the entire county.

MR. CAWLEY

said, he had an Amendment which was to leave out the first three lines of the clause, which provided for the appointment of a standing committee to confirm the grant of new licenses, but it appeared it was to have nothing to do with renewals. Now, he was at a loss to see what means this standing committee could have of judging whether the magistrates who granted the license in the first instance were right or wrong in their decision. He assumed the standing committee was to be a substitute for the Court of Quarter Sessions; but if there was still an appeal to that tribunal—which he would wish to get rid of—then he could not see what could be the possible use of the committee. He would therefore like to get rid of this appellate Court altogether.

MR. BRUCE

, while admitting that in the rural districts three or four magistrates generally performed all the work with unanimity and satisfaction, remarked that in some cases the wisest magistrates were overruled in the issue of licenses by their colleagues. The object of the plan proposed by the Government, therefore, was, by constituting a committee of the leading magistrates in the county to review the decision of the licensing magistrates, to give the people confidence that no licenses would be improperly granted. With regard to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, he could not but look upon it with favour, as it was almost identical with one of his own contrivance; but it was open to this objection—that it would bring together too large a number of magistrates, so that the tribunal would become an unwieldly one. On the whole, he considered the plan of the Government the most satisfactory one.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he concurred in the views of the right hon. Gentleman. Those who had experience of the Courts of Quarter Session knew that you could always put your finger on a few magistrates who did the whole work of the county.

MR. BRUCE

said, he forgot to mention, with respect to renewals, that he thought the best course was to leave them where they were, it being desirable in the case of vested interests to have the matter argued by barristers.

Amendment negatived.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

then moved the insertion, in page 15, line 14, after "Counties," of the words "and Boroughs," the effect of which would be to place the review of all licenses, whether granted in counties or in boroughs, in the hands of one and the same committee.

MR. BRUCE

said, that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was not required, for the experiment of having a committee had been already tried with success in some of the larger boroughs. In these cases a small number of the best and most active magistrates were chosen, and they dealt with the question of granting and renewing licenses; and although the general body of the magistrates had power to reverse their de- cisions, such a power was rarely exercised.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

moved as an Amendment, in page 15, line 14, to leave out from "a grant of," to "new licenses," in line 17, page 17, and insert— and boroughs the licensing authority shall be composed of not less than three or more than six justices, as may be determined by a Secretary of State, such justices to be appointed by the justices having jurisdiction therein from among themselves, with whom shall be associated for all purposes of a licensing authority a like number of ratepayers, who shall be elected for that purpose by the ratepayers in each borough or petty sessional division in counties, in like manner and under the same regulations as guardians for the relief of the poor are elected; the licensing authority to appoint one of their body to act as chairman, who upon all occasions shall have a second or casting vote; the quorum of such licensing authority shall be three members; the election to take place in the month of April, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, and afterwards in the same month in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, and every third year afterwards, the retiring members, whether justices or elected ratepayers, to be eligible to be re-elected. If from any cause any member may not have been appointed or elected to succeed the retiring members, such members may continue to act until their successors are appointed or elected. Any vacancies arising from death, resignation, or other causes may be from time to time filled up in manner similar to that in which the member was elected whose place has to be supplied. The clerk of the petty sessional division or of the borough justices, as the case may be, shall perform all such duties in relation to the licensing authority as he is required by law to perform in relation to the justices, or as nearly thereto as circumstances, require. The hon. Baronet said, that the Amendment which he had proposed was the backbone of the Bill which he had placed upon the Table of the House, and which he had long wished to have an opportunity of discussing. The real question was whether, in this important matter of licensing, they could trust the people themselves. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated on Saturday last that there was a strong opinion pointing in the direction of the Amendment. It was true that his right hon. Friend was speaking of hours; but what applied to hours was equally applicable to the issue of licenses. He said that there was no one more interested than the inhabitants of a place in the hours of closing, and that there would be a great advantage in leaving that question to be decided by those who were elected by and were conversant with the wants of the public; and if that principle were applicable to hours it was still more applicable to the granting of licenses. The power which he proposed to give the people was a very small one; and he could not conceive why the elected representatives of the people should not be associated with the justices in this matter. His right hon. Friend had admitted that the number of magistrates who attended the licensing courts was small, and that among them were very often to be found magistrates influenced by carelessness, indifference, and jobbery; and when a Secretary of State said that, it appeared to him (Sir Robert Anstruther) that it was a strong argument in favour of his proposition. If he found any support he should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon it.

MR. BRUCE

said, that his hon. Friend had said with great truth that this was the backbone of the Bill which he (Sir Robert Anstruther) had introduced into the House; and he would therefore admit that it was hardly proper to discuss in Committee on this Bill another Bill which was inconsistent with its essential principle. His hon. Friend proposed that the body which was to exercise the licensing authority should be composed one-half of persons elected by the ratepayers. He (Mr. Bruce) did not say that in all cases it would be bad, but he thought that on the whole it would be a dangerous principle to admit. In the borough with which he was connected, out of 60 public-houses, no less than 50 were in the possession of one brewer. Let them conceive the influence which would be exerted for the purpose of having on the licensing authority members who were in the interest of that brewer. This proposal would lead to constant struggles between those who were in favour of reducing the public-houses and those who were not, and he therefore could not accept it.

MR. B. SAMUELSON

said, he felt that the proposal of his hon. Friend was in conformity with the traditions of local government in this country. There was a strong feeling in many parts of the country in its favour, and unless some control was given to the inhabitants of the various districts they would have year after year the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle brought forward. If they did not concede to the inhabitants some control over this matter of licensing, they would be obliged to resort to that measure. He felt convinced that the country would be disappointed if they passed this Bill without giving some control to the ratepayers, and he regretted that the Government had not introduced some clauses for that purpose, and also for continuing the suspensory power of last Session.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 14, to leave out from the words "a grant of," to the word "Committee," in line 16, inclusive, in order to insert the words "and boroughs the licensing authority shall be composed of not less than three or more than six justices as may be determined by a Secretary of State, such justices to be appointed by the justices having jurisdiction therein from among themselves, with whom shall be associated for all purposes of a licensing authority a like number of ratepayers, who shall he elected for that purpose by the ratepayers in each borough or petty sessional division in counties, in like manner and under the same regulations as guardians for the relief of the poor are elected."—(Sir Robert Anstruther.)

MR. COLLINS

said, they had not had much assistance from the front Opposition bench in the conduct of this Bill. He saw that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam) had taken the position of Leader of the Opposition, and he should be glad to hear his opinion on the subject.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, that the proposal of the hon. Baronet had received a considerable amount of support out-of-doors, and that was more than could be said for the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. Then, again, it was said there were difficulties in the scheme of his hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire. Of course there were. There were difficulties in most schemes. The whole thing itself was a difficulty and an anomaly, and the trade was in an anomalous position altogether. All he could say was, that there was a growing opinion in favour of giving a majority of the ratepayers a control over the licensing system, and he should certainly support the modification of it contained in the proposal of his hon. Friend, if he went to a division.

MR. GREGORY

said, the Amendment recognized the representative principle introduced by the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) in his Permissive Liquor Bill—a principle which, if enacted, would bring influences to bear on the action and decisions of the licensing board. The opponents of that scheme had been all along trying to eliminate and get rid of that principle, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would resist the Amendment.

MR. MUNTZ

said, the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet would be to give a perfect control over the licensing system to the hands of those whom it was not desirable to entrust it. They should leave the matter in the hands of the magistrates. It would not do to have one-half of the licensing board appointed by the ratepayers and the other half consisting of magistrates. They had had a similar attempt at such a composition in the proposed county boards of some time ago; but the feeling of the House was so much in favour of leaving the power in the hands of the magistrates that the scheme was defeated. If the hon. Baronet went to a division, he should certainly divide against him, and vote with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

said, that to meet the wishes of the Committee, which he thought had lately been exhibiting a decided predilection for water, he had diluted his proposal, and instead of the proposal to have the licensing boards composed wholly of members elected by the ratepayers, he had suggested that those boards should be composed partly of justices and partly of ratepayers. After the support he had received from hon. Members behind him, he should certainly divide the Committee.

MR. BRUCE

said, if the Amendment were carried, it would result not in a mere introduction of "water," but in an infusion of "beer" into the subject.

Question put, "That the words 'a new licence shall not be valid unless it is confirmed by' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 38: Majority 72.

MR. DIMSDALE

moved in page 16, line 3, after "assembled," to insert— And shall, in respect of the discharge of such duties, be entitled to such remuneration as the licensing committee or committees shall fix and determine.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, that in his county they paid their clerk of the peace by salary, and whether an addition should be made in consequence of these new duties was a question which required consideration.

MR. COLLINS

said, the same remark applied to his county, and he should, therefore, oppose the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, it was with very great pleasure that he found so many friends of the principle, which he had advocated for years, present, and voting so steadily in the face of adverse majorities. They might for the time-being be beaten, but he had a firm conviction that the time was not distant when the Legislature would assent to their views. Be that as it might, those who with him thought that the decision ought not to be left in the hands of a selected and scarcely responsible body were bound to assert their principles on all fitting occasions. This was one of them, and he therefore proposed to add at the end of the clause under consideration— Provided that in any parish the ratepayers may by a vote taken according to the regulations in or made under the third Schedule of this Act, prevent the issue of any certificate or licenses by the licensing authority or revenue department for the sale of intoxicating liquors within the parish in which such vote is taken. The Amendment explained itself, and he need only say that he had adopted as nearly as possible the words used by the Home Secretary himself in his Bill of last year, and he must add that he was always glad to follow the right hon. Gentleman whenever he possibly could do so. At all events, his Amendment only carried out the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman last year, for the proposed Proviso would only give a veto power to the ratepayers after a certain number of licenses had been granted. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) had asked why they should have legislation of this kind, and said it was not needed for Oxford. In reply, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) might say that there were many smaller places than Oxford where the inhabitants wanted less beggary and vice and fewer public-houses; and it was rather hard that they should not have a voice and a veto upon a question which affected them so nearly, and to decide as to the number of these houses they would permit to be opened. It had lately been said by an eminent authority that public-houses degraded and ruined those who used them. That statement was made not by any rabid advocate of the permissive or prohibitory principle, but by the leading journal of this country—a journal which, though it might be seldom far in advance, never lagged very far behind public opinion. More than that, his right hon. Friend had himself said on former occasions that the ratepayers ought to have a control in this matter, and the larger that control the better. Moreover, the numerous public meetings held in every part of the country, and the rapturous applause which greeted the speakers who advocated these principles, showed that opinion was ripening upon this question, and unless he heard some better and stronger reasons than any he had heard yet against the adoption of his addition to the clause, he should certainly take the sense of the House upon it. For his own part, he did not believe in what was called personal government, or agree in handing over such questions to the magistrates and allowing them to deal with them as they pleased. One thing he did know—the division upon the Motion would be scanned throughout the whole country more closely than any which had taken place on this Bill, and though he might be defeated, that would only be an incentive to renewed efforts to win for the people at large self government in a matter which more deeply interested them than almost any other that could be named.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided that in any parish the ratepayers may by a vote taken according to the regulations in or made under the third Schedule of this Act, prevent the issue of any certificate or licenses by the licensing authority or revenue department for the sale of intoxicating liquors within the parish in which such vote is taken."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, there were two ways of voting in that House—one was to be absent, and the other to be present. He was glad to see his hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who had presided over a conference at which the principle advocated by the hon. Baronet was upheld, was in his place. He presumed that as those who usually occupied seats on that bench were absent, they were on the permissive side of the question. Notwithstanding the absence of those hon. Gentlemen, he believed the hon. Baronet opposite would be beaten on this question again.

MR. WHITWELL

objected that the Amendment introduced a totally new principle in dealing with established and vested interests, and ought not to be adopted as it were by a side-wind, but deliberately considered in relation to all its possible consequences. He therefore moved as an Amendment to that of the hon. Baronet to add the word "new," after the words "after the issue of any."

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the words "issue of any," to insert the word "new."—(Mr. Whitwell.)

MR. BRUCE

hoped that neither the hon. Member for Carlisle, by his Amendment, nor the hon. Member for Kendal, by his Amendment of that Amendment, was about to raise any discussion on the Permissive Bill, the principle of which had already engaged their attention for a sufficiently long time. By his Amendment the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had introduced all the evils connected with the action of the ratepayers, and he had made it still more objectionable to give them the power and control he contemplated, by connecting their power with the suggestion of a wholesale confiscation of licenses. This year Government had brought forward a measure which embodied everything they thought the time was ripe for, and it certainly was not ripe for the Permissive Bill. The hon. Baronet was on that subject in advance of the age. He trusted that he would not continue to occupy the time of the Committee by further contesting the principle, but that he would allow the consideration of the Bill they were engaged upon to proceed.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he hoped to have an opportunity of voting against the Amendment of the hon. Baronet; at the same time he sympathized with him in one of the sentiments to which he had given utterance—namely, his objection to the machinery of the Bill being entrusted to one body—the licensing justices—for the tendency evinced towards that system of legislation was, he thought, to be deprecated. But the hon. Baronet proposed to substitute ratepayers for magistrates, and that in his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) opinion, would be jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire. One was bad enough, the other worse.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

expressed surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had mixed up the Amendment and the amended Amendment. The latter dealt only with the issue of fresh licenses, was in no degree connected with the confiscation of existing interests, and was similar in principle to one of the clauses which the right hon. Gentleman himself introduced last Session—the best part, indeed, he thought of last year's Bill. He hoped the hon. Member for Kendal would divide, in order that he might have the opportunity of giving him his support.

MR. CAWLEY

thought that if the ratepayers were to have a veto given them over the issue of licenses they also should have the power to compel their issue. Any limitation of the prohibition could hardly be reconciled with strictly equitable dealing.

MR. T. E. SMITH

considered that had it not been for the action of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, the Home Secretary would not have got so far as he had done on the question. He further believed if the right hon. Gentleman's own feelings in the matter were free, they would have something like popular control in this measure. The Amendment might be like the Permissive Bill; but the question the Committee had to decide was, whether they would admit popular influence and popular feeling into the settlement of this important issue. He believed it must be settled in that way, and he should vote for the Amendment, because he felt that the people ought to exercise a voice in dealing with this matter.

MR. BRUCE

urged the Committee to proceed with the consideration of the Bill. The permissive principle had for many days occupied the time of Parliament, and in now again discussing it the hon. Baronet only injured his own cause. He recommended the Amendment to be withdrawn.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his advice; but he should conduct his own case in his own way. He wanted to know his Friends and the friends of popular control. As the right hon. Gentleman had to some extent, even in the present Bill, given indications of recognizing that principle, he was not without hope that at the last moment the right hon. Gentleman would go into the same lobby with him. If he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), as the Home Secretary alleged, were in advance of the age, the right hon. Gentleman lagged behind. As to the Permissive Bill being a measure of wholesale confiscation, he utterly denied the charge. The same accusation had over and over again been made in the journals of the trade against the right hon. Gentleman's own measure, and more especially in a letter recently published from a poor man who kept a public-house. It was not exactly correct, moreover, for the right hon. Gentleman to state that he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was going by his Amendment to substitute ratepayers for the magistracy.

MR. AUBERON HERBERT

thought he could point out a way by which the hon. Baronet could carry his measure. If he would get that portion of the ratepayers who were of his opinion to ask that they might be allowed, so far as they themselves were concerned, to prohibit the use of all spirituous liquors and the entrance into all public-houses, and would be willing to inflict penalties for non-compliance upon themselves, without interfering with the rest of the community, the House would, no doubt, give a very hearty support to his measure next Session.

Question put, "That the word 'new' be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 118: Majority 76.

Question put, "That the words 'Provided that in any parish the ratepayers may by a vote taken according to the regulations in or made under the third Schedule of this Act, prevent the issue of any certificate or licences by the licensing authority or revenue department for the sale of intoxicating liquors within the parish in which such vote is taken,'

be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 128: Majority 105.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 35 (Licensing committee in boroughs).

MR. BRUCE

moved in page 16, line 21, to leave out "time of," and insert "commencement of the time appointed for;" in line 22, "fifteen borough," and insert "ten;" in line 23, after "justices," leave out "qualified under this Act," and insert "acting in and for such borough;" in line 27 leave out "qualified borough," and insert after "justices," "acting in and for such borough;" in line 32, leave out "nine," and insert "seven;" and in same line after "number," insert "but no justice shall be appointed member of such committee unless he is qualified to act under this Act." Further, as the Bill came down from the Lords, it did not deal with the small boroughs, and he should therefore introduce a new clause for the purpose, which he hoped would meet it satisfactorily.

MR. DIMSDALE

believed it would be found still more convenient if the number were reduced to six instead of the proposed number.

Amendments agreed to.

MR. BRUCE

, in order to supply the deficiency of which he had spoken, then moved the omission of all the words from "in boroughs," page 17, line 5, to the end of the clause, and the insertion of the following:— In boroughs in which there are not ten justices acting in and for such borough at such time as aforesaid, new licenses shall be granted by the qualified borough justices, but the grant of a new license by such justices shall not be valid unless it is confirmed by a joint committee appointed in respect of such borough in manner hereinafter mentioned: A joint committee for any such borough as last aforesaid shall consist of three justices of the county in which such borough is situate, and three justices of the borough, but no justice shall be appointed a member of such committee unless he is qualified to act under this Act. The three county justices on a joint committee shall be appointed by the county licensing committee. The same county justices may be appointed members of more than one joint committee under this section. The borough justices on a joint committee shall be appointed by the justices of the borough for which they act, or by the majority of such justices assembled at any meeting held for that purpose. Any casual vacancy arising in the joint committee from death, resignation, or other cause, may from time to time be filled up by the justices by whom the person creating such vacancy was appointed. The quorum of the joint committee shall be five members. The joint committee shall at every meeting elect a chairman, and in the event of an equal division of the committee the chairman shall have a second vote. Provided that so far as respects any new licenses to be granted in any borough at any general annual licensing meeting, or any adjournment thereof, held between the twentieth of August and the end of September in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy two, the following enactments shall take effect:—1. If no licensing committee has been appointed in the county in which a borough is situate, for which a joint committee is required to be appointed by this Act, the county members of the joint committee shall be appointed by the justices in quarter sessions assembled, and in any such borough as last aforesaid, any new license, if confirmed by the joint committee, shall be in force from the date of the confirmation thereof until the eleventh day of October, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three. 2. All notices and ministerial acts given or done in relation to the grant of such licenses shall be valid, notwithstanding such notices may he given or acts be done before the appointment of a borough licensing committee, and the borough justices may appoint a time at which the borough licensing committee will be prepared to grant new licenses. No objection shall be made to any licenses granted or confirmed in pursuance of this section on the ground that the justices or committee of justices who granted or confirmed the same were not qualified to make such grant or confirmation. From and after the passing of this Act, the justices of a county shall not for licensing purposes, save in so far as respects the power of appointing members of a joint committee, have any jurisdiction in a borough in which the borough justices have for such purposes concurrent jurisdiction.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, this was an extraordinary Amendment, for it would take the jurisdiction of the borough magistrates and give it to the county magistrates, who, if they attended at all, would only discharge their duty in a perfunctory manner. If it were agreed to, it would cause a great deal of ill-feeling. Moreover, he objected to an appeal from borough merely to county magistrates.

MR. BRUCE

said, the hon. Member could hardly be aware that at the present time an appeal lay solely to the justices of Quarter Sessions. If the county justices should not attend, then the borough justices would be in a majority, and they would have no reason to complain.

MR. DIMSDALE

opposed the Amendment, because he believed it would do a great injustice to borough magistrates.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

supported the Amendment, believing that the introduction of the county element into the borough licensing authority would have a beneficial result. During the whole history of this question, complaints had constantly been made of the conduct of magistrates in small boroughs. He suggested that, in order to avoid any jealousy between the borough and county justices, it should be provided that the chairman should be the senior magistrate.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

objected to the clause, but admitted that it was analogous to one just passed.

MR. COLLINS

defended the proposal, believing it would make the borough justices act cautiously, and that an appeal would seldom be necessary.

MR. WHITWELL

said, it was evidently intended to introduce into our law a totally new principle. From this Amendment it would appear that the borough magistrates were incapable of performing their own business, for the grant of a new license would not be a perfect act until it had been confirmed by a joint committee of county and borough magistrates. If agreed to, the provision would cause great dissatisfaction.

In answer to Mr. GREGORY,

MR. BRUCE

said, the Bill would take away the right of appeal given by the Act of 1828, in the case in which a new license was refused.

MR. GREGORY

was of opinion that that right should be preserved, and intimated his intention of moving an Amendment to provide for its continuance.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

, in reply to the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), contended that the borough magistrates were competent to discharge the duties devolving upon them, and that they had satisfactorily done so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 (Stipendiary Magistrates may act as licensing justices), verbally amended, and agreed to.

Clause 37 (New licenses and transfer of licenses).

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

, in moving as an Amendment in page 17, line 35, after "license" to leave out to end of sub-section, in page 18, line 4, and insert "from the holder thereof;" and in line 35, after "license" leave out "he shall" and insert— From the holder thereof to any other person, the person to whom the license is to be transferred, shall apply to the licensing justices at any special sessions appointed by the justices for granting such transfers of licenses, for a license authorizing such transfer, and shall satisfy the licensing justices,—1. That the holder of the license consents, or by reason of having removed from the premises or of any other cause, is not entitled to object to such transfer. 2. That the applicant has. He said it often happened that the owner of a licensed house allowed a bad tenant to remain in possession in order finally to secure his consent to the transfer. The Amendment would enable the owner to apply for the transfer in any case where, from bankruptcy or any other cause, the occupier would not be entitled to object.

MR. BRUCE

considered the case was already met by the 14th section of the Act of George IV. Still he had prepared a clause to meet the case of a man refusing to consent unless he received a money payment, but every case of real hardship would be covered either by this clause or by the present law.

MR. WETHERED

asked whether the provision contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman would meet the case of a disreputable tenant who had received notice to quit, and refused to transfer the license or to get it renewed? He knew an instance in which a man who had notice to quit refused to appear, unless he got £50.

MR. BRUCE

said, that they could not refuse him the right to appear to oppose the transfer; but if he did not appear at the Brewster Sessions, with the intent that the license might be lost, then an application could be made to the Special Sessions for a transfer.

MR. COLLINS

said, as the Brewster Sessions were held only once a-year that might involve a twelvemonth's delay.

MR. BRUCE

said, that was not so, as there were eight sessions held in the year for the transfer of licenses.

Amendment negatived.

MR. PLIMSOLL

moved in page 18, line 4, after "notice," the insertion of a new sub-section, providing that no application for a new license, or for the transfer of a license from some other house, shall be considered by the licensing authority unless it be accompanied by a memorial, in form given in Schedule, signed by two-thirds in number of the occupiers of all the other premises, any part of which is within 150 yards from the centre of the principal entrance door of the premises for which the original license, or removal of license, is applied for, stating the opinion of the persons signing such memorial that a licensed public-house is required in that neighbourhood for the convenience of the inhabitants, and their approval of the premises for which the license is applied for, or to which it is proposed to remove an existing license.

MR. PIM

supported the Amendment, on the ground that the inhabitants of the immediate neighbourhood of the house had a right to have their wishes in the matter respected.

MR. BRUCE

said, that he must oppose the Amendment, for the reason that by it, within a radius of 150 yards, the inhabitants would have power to prevent the establishment of that which was assumed to be a public convenience. Moreover, many persons would desire that the public-house should be removed from their own immediate neighbourhood, for while there might be a general desire for a public-house, everyone desired that it should be placed not beside themselves, but beside their neighbours. The most fatal objection, however, to the proposal was the amount of corruption to which it would give rise. They would have the would-be publican and the existing publicans alike bribing freely, and they would have all the evils of corruption of the most extended and degrading character.

Amendment negatived.

MR. DENISON (for Sir GEORGE JENKINSON)

moved in page 18, line 4, after "notice," to insert words— Providing that when an application was made for the transfer of a license by the owner of a public-house in consequence of the misconduct of the holder of the license, it should not be necessary for such holder to concur in the application. His object in moving the Amendment was to ask the Home Secretary how he proposed to deal with the case if the outgoing license-holder refused to agree to transfer?

MR. BRUCE

said, that a large portion of the Amendment was provided for by the Amendment of which he had given Notice. The other portion of the Amendment had been discussed and negatived.

Amendment negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, the following words were inserted at the end of the clause:— The provision of this section as to notices shall extend to all cases where, under the Intoxicating Liquors Act, 1828, notices are required to be served in a like form to or in the same manner as notices for new licenses.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 (Renewal of licenses).

MR. WATNEY

moved the insertion of the following words in page 18, line 23, after "thereof:"— Unless such objections shall be on one of the following grounds: that the house is used as a brothel, or that the license-holder has been convicted within the previous twelve months under this Act, and.

MR. BRUCE

said, he was anxious to give the license-holders all proper protection, and therefore thought it was wrong that they should be deprived of their license without receiving notice of the charge that was brought against them. On the other hand, he desired to leave to the magistrates the fullest discretion; and where they were satisfied from the evidence before them that the house was an ill-conducted house, they should have power to forfeit the license.

Amendment negatived.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the evidence in all cases ought to be taken on oath, whether in renewing or granting licenses.

MR. BRUCE

said, he did not think that was necessary.

MR. COLLINS

said, that the words of the clause were that the applicant for a renewal "need not attend in person." He wished to know if that implied that he was to be represented by an attorney; because, if so, he would be jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire.

MR. BRUCE

said, it was not intended that he should be required to be present either personally or by attorney, except where he was ordered to attend by the magistrates.

MR. COLLINS

suggested that on the Report the words "in person" should be struck out.

On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, the words from "adjourn," in line 28, to "sessions," in line 30, were struck out, and the following inserted:— On an objection being made, adjourn the granting of any license to a future day, and require the attendance of the holder of the license on such day, when the case will be heard and the objection considered, as if the notice hereinbefore prescribed had been given.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 39 (Confirmation of licenses).

MR. DICKINSON

moved in page 18, line 36, to leave out from "Provided," to "aforesaid," and insert— And the confirming authority may award such costs as they shall deem just to the party who shall succeed in the proceedings before them. He said that he would object to a public-house being placed next door to his own house, and he had a right to appear before the justices and justify his objection. In the case of failure, he should think it extremely hard if he had not only to pay his own costs, but the costs of the other party as well, and any compensation which the justices might think proper to give.

MR. MORRISON

said, that the granting of compensation in such cases was utterly unknown to the English Constitution.

MR. MELLY

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment. The clause as it stood would absolutely prevent anyone from appearing and opposing a new license. It was quite right that if they failed they should pay costs, but compensation was out of the question.

MR. BRUCE

said, he had no objection to the Amendment. The object of the clause was to protect license-holders from the action of rich societies, who might use their powers in an illegitimate and vexatious manner.

MR. RAIKES

hoped the Home Secretary would re-consider his decision. If the Amendment was accepted, any teetotaller or fanatic would be able to appear and object to the license.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40 (Disqualifications for licenses), agreed to.

Clause 41 (Annual value necessary for grant of license).

MR. DICKINSON

moved in page 19, line 42, to insert, after "thereof," the following words:— But no land shall be included in such premises other than any pleasure grounds, or flower or kitchen garden, yard, or curtilage usually held and occupied and used by the persons residing in and frequenting the house. The hon. Gentleman also moved in line 43, to leave out from "if," to the word "before," in line 4, page 20, and insert—"This section shall not come into operation till—"

Amendments agreed to.

Further Amendments made.

MR. RYLANDS

moved, as an Amendment, in page 20, at end of clause, to add— Provided, that after the commencement of this Act no new license, and on and after the twentieth day of August in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy eight, no renewal of a license shall be granted in respect of any premises situated within the city of London or the liberties thereof, or the Metropolitan Police District, which are not of the annual value of thirty pounds, or in respect of any premises situated beyond the city of London and the liberties thereof and the Metropolitan District, and in a town containing a population of not less than ten thousand inhabitants, which are not of the annual value of twenty pounds, or in respect of premises situated elsewhere which are not of the annual value of fifteen pounds.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, there were two points raised by the hon. Gentleman, one of which related to the annual licenses; and the effect of that would be to introduce a system which would raise the status of those licenses. He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) agreed with the restriction so far as it affected new licenses; but not as to the renewal of old ones, because the change would affect vested interests. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would lay down some rules as to the qualification of beerhouses.

MR. BRUCE

hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment. The question was one of great difficulty in reference to the question of value, and also upon other grounds. The plan now proposed had often occurred to other persons, but the circumstances of different towns varied so greatly that it was impossible to adopt any uniform scale. The great object, therefore, was to secure a body of licensing justices in whose discretion we could confide, and who would adapt the grant of licenses to those varied circumstances.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that it was, in his opinion, desirable to raise the scale of the rateable value of the beer houses. He would modify his Amendment to this effect— That no new license be granted on and after the twentieth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy eight, to premises situated in the city of London, to houses not of the rateable value of fifteen pounds.

MR. MELLY

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, believing that it was necessary to improve the class of houses to which licenses were granted. He agreed with the restriction so far as it affected new licenses, but not as to the renewal of existing licenses, because the change would injure vested interests, which it had been practically decided not to deal with in the present Bill.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the hon. Member, in his £30 scale, included the metropolitan police district, which extended over a great portion of the county of Middlesex and a part of Hertfordshire. That district included parts of the country quite as rural as any that could be found in Cumberland, and therefore the Amendment would be found to cause great hardship.

MR. MORRISON

reminded the Committee that public-houses of the rateable value of 6s. per week must of necessity belong to a very low class.

MR. BRUCE

said, on the contrary, that many of the prettiest and best-conducted village inns were valued for rateable purposes at a much lower rate.

MR. COLLINS

said, that in the northern counties of England and in Wales such a regulation would be simply monstrous. In Cumberland, for instance, a man might have to walk 10 miles over a mountain, and then have six or seven miles on the other side. There might not be more than 200 inhabitants, and the rateable value of licensed houses would therefore be necessarily very low. But the necessity for the houses themselves, as places for rest and refreshment, was very great, and if the Amendment was passed, the traveller would in future be deprived of both.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that early in the present year he had placed himself in communication with the chief constables of the counties throughout England on that subject, and the information he had received from them was to the effect that it would be possible to lay down a general rule on the subject of rateable value. While considering, therefore, that it was desirable that the amount should be raised in order to improve their character in future—for property and structural qualifications formed the basis of the licensing system in the colonies, he thought the amount proposed by the hon. Member for Warrington too high, and would suggest that the maximum rateable value might be fixed at £12 for old houses; while a higher value might be fixed as the future qualifications for new houses.

MR. WHITWELL

considered that a higher standard should be fixed on, especially with regard to beerhouses.

MR. BRUCE

said, that if such a rule had been in operation three years ago, many of these houses would never have been in existence at all. A Return had been made in 1867 of the number of public-houses in the whole of the country. They were, excluding beerhouses, 68,000; of these there were 29,300 under the rateable value of £15, and among them were many of the most respectable houses that could be found in the villages of Gloucestershire and Worcestershire. In 1867 the number of houses rated under £10 was 8,250, and of houses above £15,21,051. So that the hon. Member for Warrington would see that his figures were too high.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that his Motion had reference to the future, not to the past.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 (Regulations as to licenses).

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

hoped that the Amendment he was about to propose would meet with the support of the Home Secretary. It was, in page 20, line 10, after "licenses," to insert— From and after the passing of this Act no new or additional license for the sale of any kind of intoxicating liquor shall be granted in any licensing district which shall cause the number of licensed houses to be in excess of the proportion of one to every one thousand of the population in urban districts, or of one to every five hundred of the population in rural districts: Provided, That in any rural district where there is no house licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail nearer than three miles by the nearest existing road to another such licensed house, the licensing authority may grant a license for such district, although the population may be less than five hundred in number.

MR. BRUCE

opposed the Amendment. Many most respectable houses in Wales, Yorkshire, Devonshire, and other thinly peopled districts were situated in districts where, within the area mentioned, there was not the number of inhabitants required by the Amendment, and yet no one could doubt that they were not only useful but neces- sary for the purpose of affording refreshment to the tourists who visited the neighbourhood.

MR. MORRISON

said, that Parliament having, in his opinion, wisely determined that there should be a monopoly in the sale of intoxicating liquor, it was desirable for the sake of morality that the trade should be kept in the hands of respectable and solvent traders who had an interest in conducting their business with due regard to the requirements of society, and that everything in the shape of Tom and Jerry shops, which did the real mischief, should be kept down.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, that if the spirit of the clause was to be carried out the wording should be materially altered.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

said, he was prepared to make the alteration which the right hon. Gentleman thought necessary.

Amendment negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, Amendment made, in page 20, line 13, by inserting after "state,"— Provided, That licenses granted at any general annual licensing meeting or adjournment thereof between the twentieth August and the end of September one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, shall be in the forms heretofore in use, but any conditions contained in any license so granted which are contrary to the provisions of this Act shall be of no effect.

On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, another Amendment made, by inserting at end of clause— The Commissioners of Inland Revenue may alter the form of any license granted by them for the sale of intoxicating liquors, in such manner as they may think expedient, for the purposes of bringing such form into conformity with the law for the time being in force.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 (Six-day licenses).

MR. DICKINSON

moved a series of Amendments, to the effect that the justices, on application of the publican, should be empowered to insert in the license that the holder was entitled to close during a period of not less than two hours earlier than the usual closing hour of the district, or during that period and the whole of Sunday. The hon. Gentleman said it was merely an extension of the principle of the licensing early closing system, and in such cases he contemplated proportional reduction of license duty.

MR. F. S. POWELL

thought the principle of the Amendment good; but then there must be a fixed hour at which the publican should close, without caprice or changing fancy.

MR LOCKE

objected to the Amendment. There were many licensed victuallers at present who conducted their business for comparatively short periods of the day. If the Amendment were carried their license duty must be reduced, though from the situation of the houses they were able to take more money than those who remained open during the ordinary hours prescribed by law.

MR. BRUCE

said, that in the City of London there were many houses that closed at 6 o'clock, and they, of course, would claim exemption from proportional duty if the Amendment were sanctioned.

MR COLLINS

would allow houses to close at the earliest hours named in the Bill for particular districts, without reference to the absolute hour fixed for closing by the licensing justices, but there should be no abatement of the duty.

Amendment negatived.

Clause amended, and agreed to.

Legal Proceedings.

Clause 44 (Summary proceedings for police offences, penalties).

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

moved as an Amendment in page 21, line 25, at the end of sub-section 3, the insertion of the following:— And in all cases of summary proceedings under this Act the defendant shall, if he so require it, be allowed to give evidence. It was, in his opinion, a very important improvement in the Bill, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would accept it.

Amendment proposed, In page 21, line 25, after the word "complainant," to insert the words "and in all cases of summary proceedings under this Act, the defendant shall, if he so require it, be allowed to give evidence."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

considered the principle involved in the Amendment a most important one, and that if adopted it ought to be extended to other cases.

MR. BRUCE

replied that the proposal would make a very considerable change in the present law, and ought not, therefore, to be dealt with in this way.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

thought the Amendment a very important one, and reminded the Committee that whenever a charge was made against an individual he was allowed to give an explanation.

MR. BRUCE

said, that the adoption of such a principle would make a great change in their criminal law, and at that time of the night it could not be carefully considered. Besides, the hon. Baronet ought to have given Notice of his intention to bring it forward.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

replied that if it were not a proper time for discussing an Amendment, it was not a proper time for considering a clause of so important a Bill.

MR. BRUCE

reminded the hon. Baronet that it was a very proper time to discuss the details or principle of the Bill, but not for the introduction and adoption of a new principle in their criminal law.

MR. CAWLEY

observed that the Amendment did not introduce a new principle; and he ventured to say that the truth was much more likely to be got at by cross-examining members of the defendant's family, when that could be done, than by examining those who were brought against them.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 51: Majority 17.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 45 (Appeal to quarter sessions); and Clause 46 (Continuance of license during pendency of an appeal), agreed to.

Clause 47 (Exclusion of certiorari).

MR. RAIKES

, in moving the omission of the clause, said, he objected to the exclusion of appeal and certiorari.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

supported the clause.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 48 (Record of convictions).

On the Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Amendment made, by inserting in the clause words providing that notice should be given to the owner of a house of each conviction of his tenant under the Bill.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 49 (Regulations for the protection of owners of licensed premises).

MR. DODSON

pointed out that there were three offences, the commission of either of which entailed the necessary forfeiture of a license and the disqualification of the premises until the next Brewster Sessions. In that case the owner had no means of protecting himself, as the forfeiture followed the first offence. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the expediency of adding another clause to the Bill, or introducing an Amendment by which the owner of premises, the license of which had been forfeited by the first offence of the tenant, should be enabled to obtain at least a provisional transfer of the license to another tenant.

MR. BRUCE

said, that was a matter which he would take into consideration before bringing up the Report.

MR. WETHERED

wished to protect the license against forfeiture for the first offence, without leaving the magistrates any discretionary power, as, for instance, in the case where a beer-seller sold spirits. With that view, he would move as an Amendment, in page 24, line 23, after "made," insert "was a first offence or."

MR. BRUCE

said, he could not accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, but he would again promise to consider the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex.

Amendment negatived.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, it was now two o'clock, and he would suggest that the Chairman report Progress.

MR. RATHBONE

thought it strange that the only Gentleman on the front Opposition bench should appear here for the sake of obstruction.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

denied that he wished to obstruct the Bill, but exhausted nature required rest, and as hon. Members had been in the House until past 4 o'clock on the previous evening, he thought it was now time to bring the discussion to a close.

MR. COLLINS

hoped something would be done to relieve the owner, who was at present completely in the hands of the tenant, who might, by allowing the license to drop, injure the value of the property.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

explained that the object of the clause was to give the owner the right of appeal where the license was forfeited on account of the first offence of the occupier.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

moved as an Amendment, in line 32, after "void," insert— And the Court shall have power to grant on application by such owner or mortgagee, a conditional license to a new tenant to be approved of by the Court, for such house, which conditional license shall be in force until the then next annual licensing day.

MR. BRUCE

said, he could not accept the Amendment, and that the question had already been discussed.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that a man might be deprived of the value of his property by the want of power to put in a temporary tenant.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 50 (Evidence of endorsements and register).

On the Motion of Mr. WATNEY, an Amendment madebyinsertinginpage24, line 40, before "the registers" the words "Where the license is not produced."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 51 (Saving for other Acts) agreed to.

MR. RYLANDS

suggested that the time had now come (10 minutes past 2) to report Progress.

MR. BRUCE

said, that there were still one or two questions which they might settle at the present Sitting.

Miscellaneous.

Clause52 (Disqualification of justices).

On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, Amendment made by inserting in page 25, line 10, after "act," the words— Except in cases where the offence charged is that of being found drunk in any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or on any licensed premises, or of being guilty while drunk of riotous or disorderly conduct or of being drunk while in charge of any carriage, horse, cattle, or steam-engine, or of being drunk when in posesssion of any loaded firearms.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 53 (Extension of jurisdiction of justices), agreed to.

Clause 54 (Evidence), struck out.

Clause 55 (Avoidance of excise license on forfeiture of license); and Clause 56 (Production of license by holder), agreed to.

Clause 57 (Ascertaining of population), struck out.

Clause 58 (Notices may be served by post).

MR. T. CAVE

moved, in line 36, after "sent," to insert— Must be served personally upon any person interested in any licensed premises, and entitled to receive notice of a conviction under this Act: Provided always, That the person so entitled to receive notice shall lose his right to be personally served if it can be shown to the satisfaction of the licensing justices that he is absenting himself for the purpose of or otherwise wilfully avoiding such service, when the said notices and documents. He said that the owner of a very valuable property might be on the Continent, and might never receive the notice through the post. On his return he might find that his property was seriously jeopardized, and he thought, therefore, that there should be something more than the notice provided in the Bill.

MR. BRUCE

said, the practice of sending notices by post had become very common, and it would impose unnecessary expense if they adopted the Amendment.

MR. WATNEY

thought that at least they might go to the expense of a registered letter.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BRUCE

moved an Amendment, in page 26, fine 42, to add at end of clause— Where any officer or other person interested in any licensed premises is entitled to receive notice of a conviction under this Act, he shall supply his address to the clerk or other person required to send such notice; and any notice sent to such address shall be deemed to be duly served; and where no notice is supplied in pursuance of this section, all notices shall be deemed to be duly served if sent to any address which such clerk or other person, in the exercise of his discretion, believes to be the address of the person to whom the notice was so sent.

MR. WATNEY

moved as an Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, that the notice be sent by post in the shape of a registered letter.

MR. BRUCE

said, the cases were very rare where letters would require to be sent.

MR. COLLINS

said, in ordinary cases of borough elections registered letters were sent by post, and surely there could be no objection to conform to that usage in this case.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59 (Enactment as to schedules), agreed to.

Clause 60 (Saving of certain rights).

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

hoped the House would listen to him for a few minutes. They had now arrived at a part of the Bill which he thought would affect very seriously a very large class of the community. By this clause they would be enabling a very large class of persons to take out grocers' spirit licenses; and although he had no fear that any of those persons would do anything to forfeit their licenses, still he was sure that large numbers of those grocers' shops would be created by men taking out licenses simply for the purpose of avoiding the consequences of evading the Act; and where they were trying to amend the law relating to intoxicating liquors, they were by this clause creating facilities for the sale of such liquors, and rendering the persons so selling them free from the restrictions to which publicans were subject. What, he asked, was the Beerhouse Act? They all knew what the Beerhouse Act was passed for. It was passed for the purpose—

MR. DODSON

I rise to Order, Sir. The hon. Baronet is discussing a red-letter money clause, which being recognized only as a new clause should be considered after the other clauses in the Bill.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.