CONSIDERATION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 07 August 1872 vol 213 cc647-86

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th August], "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

Question put, and agreed to:— Bill considered.

MR. BRUCE

said, he desired to propose a clause to follow Clause 27, with the view of preventing intoxicating liquors being drunk at refreshment-houses during the hours when public-houses would be closed. It was to this effect— (Intoxicating liquors not to be drunk at refreshment house during the hours when the house would be closed if it were an inn.) No intoxicating liquor shall be consumed upon premises licensed as a refreshment house, but not for the sale of any intoxicating liquor during the hours during which the same premises would, if they were the licensed premises of licensed victuallers, be closed by law for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor. If any person licensed to keep such refreshment house allows any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the premises in contravention of this section, he shall be liable for the first offence to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and for any subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds. There would, he thought, be very considerable danger if refreshment-houses were allowed to be open for the consumption of liquor when the public-houses were closed, for all the owners would have to do was to obtain a large quantity of drink from the public-houses. It was to meet that danger, which had been suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex, that he moved the clause.

Motion agreed to; Clause added.

MR. BRUCE

said, the next new clause, relating to the mode of ascertaining annual value, was merely formal. It would follow Clause 45, and was in these words—

(Mode of ascertaining annual value.) The licensing justices shall take such means as may seem to them best for ascertaining the annual value of any premises for the purposes of this Act, and may, if they think fit, order a valuation to be made of such premises by a competent person appointed by them for the purpose, and may order the costs of such valuation to be paid by the applicant for a license. The annual value of premises for the purposes of this Act shall be the annual rent which a tenant might be reasonably expected, taking one year with another, to pay for the same, if he undertook to pay all tenant's rates, and tithe commutation rentcharge (if any), and if the landlord undertook to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance and other expenses (if any) necessary to maintain the premises in a state to command the said rent, and if no license were granted in respect thereof; 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.

Motion agreed to; Clause added.

MR. BRUCE

said, that he proposed to omit Clauses 48 and 49 in the Bill as it now stood, having reference to the application to remove licenses, as well as the mode of removal. Those clauses were introduced at the instance of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex, but they would in his (Mr. Bruce's) opinion be better if consolidated, and therefore he should move as a substitute the following clause:—

(Provision for removal.) Licenses may be removed from one part of a licensing district to another part of the same district, or from one licensing district to another licensing district within the same county in manner following:—The application for an order sanctioning removal shall be made by the person desiring to be the holder of the license when removed, and shall be made at a general annual licensing meeting of the justices authorized to grant new licenses in the licensing district in which the premises are situated to which the license is to be removed. Notice of the intended application shall be given in the same manner as notice is given of an application for the grant of a new license. A copy of the notice shall be personally served upon or sent by registered letter to the owner of the premises from which the license is to be removed, and the holder of the license, unless he is also the applicant. The justices to whom the application is made shall not make an order sanctioning such removal unless they are satisfied that no objection to such removal is made by the owner of the premises to which the license is attached, or by the holder of the license, or by any other person whom such justices shall determine to have a right to object to the removal. Subject as aforesaid, such justices shall have the same power to make an order sanctioning such removal as they have to grant new licenses; but no such order shall be valid unless confirmed by the confirming authority of the licensing district.

SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he had no objection to the substitution; on the contrary, he thought it brought the clauses more into harmony with the existing licensing authority than his own.

MR. HENLEY

asked, if it would not be necessary to have the consent of the owner in writing?

MR. BRUCE

said, the clause provided that a copy of the notice should be personally served or sent by registered letter to the owner, and the magistrates would require evidence that that was done.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he would propose that the proposed substituted clause should be amended by the insertion of words allowing the application for change of license to be made not only at an annual licensing meeting, but at "any adjourned meeting thereof."

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 48 and 49 struck out; New Clause, as amended, added.

MR. RATHBONE

said, he desired to improve the Bill by the insertion of a clause dealing with the disqualification of premises, and the one which he had guardedly and carefully drawn up would not, he believed, meet with any objection. It would follow Clause 28, and would run thus—

(Disqualification of premises.) The following additional provisions shall be enacted with respect only to convictions of persons who may hereafter become licensed in respect of premises, and shall not apply to a conviction of any person licensed for any premises at the passing of this Act so long as he is licensed in respect of the same premises, viz.:—1. The second and every subsequent conviction recorded on the license of any one such person shall also be recorded in the register of licenses against the premises. 2. When four convictions (whether of the same or of different licensed persons) have within five years been so recorded against premises those premises shall during one year be disqualified for the purposes of this Act. 3. If the licenses of two such persons licensed in respect of the same premises are forfeited within any period of two years, the premises shall be disqualified for one year from the date of the last forfeiture, 4 The tenancy of any such person, if he holds otherwise than as lessee under a lease made before the passing of this Act, or as assignee of a lease so made, may, upon a conviction being recorded on his license, be determined without notice, and possession of the premises may be summarily recovered in the manner prescribed by the Act of the first and second years of Her Majesty, chapter seventy-four, and a subsequent conviction of the same person before the time when he can with reasonable diligence be evicted shall not be recorded against the premises if the owner of the premises satisfies the Court before whom such person is convicted that he used all reasonable diligence to evict such person. He believed the clause would remove a blot in the Bill. While the Bill dealt severely with licensed victuallers, it in a great measure allowed many owners of public-houses to profit from a drunken trade, for there was no provision to remedy that in the Bill. He had been told that the clause was weak and moderate. It was weak as to an accidental bad tenant; but in regard to future licenses it would check owners who wished to reap large profits out of a discreditable trade, and then to avoid the penalty by repeated change of tenants. The clause in no degree applied to existing licenses or leases, though almost all good landlords or owners of public-houses had clauses in their leases to do what he proposed—but that could only be done by a long and tedious process, instead of by the power of summary ejectment.

Clause (Disqualification of premises,)—(Mr. Rathbone,)—brought up, and read the first time.

MR. CHARLEY

What is to become of the premises during the time they are disqualified?

MR. RATHBONE

When once the cause of disqualification arose it was right the owner should suffer.

MR. T. HUGHES

The hon. Member for Salford asks what would become of the premises? The premises would be loft for the owner to make the most of them. They were not likely to fly away. He contended that the owner should be held in some degree responsible for continued infraction of the law in the conduct of business carried on on his property, but they knew by this time how hard it was to touch the owner of a public-house. There were three classes affected by the pains and penalties of this Bill. Drunkards of the lowest class, licensed victuallers, and brewers. On the drunkards they had screwed down the lid pretty tight. They had no champion to represent them in that House, if indeed, he excepted, perhaps, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), who spoke a good deal about liberty in general, and was an advocate of the liberty to get drunk. Then, again, the licensed victuallers who infringed the law would suffer under this Act. But when they came to the owners of the premises, who, generally speaking, belonged to the great brewing interest, it was quite another matter. So far as they had yet gone, the brewers had got the better of that House in every single attempt to put any load on their backs. On the question of using houses as brothels he had unsuccessfully tried to fix a penalty on the owner; but without success. The House passed a provision imposing for the offence on the publican a penalty of £20, and rendering him incapable of holding a license; but left the owner, the brewer, absolutely untouched. He would remind the brewers of an ancient idea, which prevailed in classic times, of making sacrifices to fortune when you had had an uninterrupted run of good luck. If they wanted the Bill to put an end to the agitation which had prevailed for many years, they should make a small sacrifice by allowing the House to get this clause into the Bill, and thereby inflicting some small penalties on the proprietors of houses where a constant infraction of the law occurred. The brewers had, in great measure, taken the law into their hands through the whole of this discussion, and they really should in decency remember that they were really the executive in this licensing question—["Oh, oh!"]—well, half of them were actually magistrates themselves. The greater number of brewers, he repeated, throughout the country were magistrates. [An hon. MEMBER: But they do not act, especially in cases of licensing public-houses.] If they did not act they were yet intimate with persons who did act, lived in daily intercourse with them, dined with them, and influenced their views; of course, the result was that the brewers got very different measure from licensing boards from what was meted out to drunkards and licensed victuallers. For that reason, he hoped the House would adopt the clause.

MR. STRAIGHT

said, he had no objection to the clause as it stood, nor did he wish, in any undue manner, to protect the brewers; but it was rather hard to inflict on them the consequences proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Frome. He considered the 4th subsection a very valuable addition to the Bill.

MR. HINDE PALMER

believed the magistrates throughout the country would do their duty, whether they were brewers or not; but brewers were generally ex-clued from the commission of the peace. He begged to remind the House that by the Bill as it stood there must be four convictions within a year to disqualify a man from holding a license; but the proposition now before the Committee was entirely different. The point, however, to which he wished to call attention was the 4th sub-section of the proposed clause itself. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Frome, when it was proposed, contended that the landlord should have the summary powers given him by the 2 & 3 Vict. to bring an action of ejectment against his tenant and oust him from the premises, but now he was for punishing the person holding as a lessee before the passing of the Act. A man might have taken a lease for 21 years, and paid a large sum of money for it; but because the tenant, or himself, if he resided in the house, became disqualified under the clause, was it fair to give the landlord, who might be the owner in fee-simple, or possess the freehold, the power of ejecting any of the parties without due notice. It would be a serious alteration in the law of landlord and tenant, and would almost amount to confiscation of property. For his own part, he did not believe that most of the property in public-houses was in the hands of brewers; and as to their conduct as magistrates, he would remind his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Frome that that was a subject for the consideration of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Lieutenants of their respective counties. It was their duty to see that the magistrates of the country properly performed their duties, and if not to remove them from the commission of the peace. He hoped the House and the Government would carefully consider the 4th sub-section of the clause.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the 4th sub-section was inconsistently stringent when compared with the other provisions of the Bill. They enacted that a certain number of records of conviction should be made on the license before a publican became disqualified from holding it; but this sub-section proposed that on a first record of a conviction a man should be punished. In a previous section of the Bill, as passed by the House, it was declared necessary to have three records of convictions; and in another, a discretionary power was given to the magistrates to decide whether any record should be made at all. But here there was not only no discretion given, but one record of a conviction was to cancel the lease a man might hold from his landlord. That, in his opinion, was a most stringent provision. It might, no doubt, throw a greater responsibility on the brewer and the publican; but it was an enormous power to place in such a Bill in this its last stage, and on so hurried an occasion.

MR. WATNEY

believed the clause now proposed was entirely inconsistent with the other provisions of the Bill, and entirely altered the present law. He differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Frome—that, generally speaking, brewers were the landlords of or possessed the freeholds of public-houses. There might be cases of that kind, but they were not so many as had been supposed. Now, he would ask, was it just that where a man took a piece of land and built a house upon it, which cost him a considerable sum of money, he should be compelled after one conviction to give it up to his landlord? The sub-section was, he believed, an unfair one, and did not do justice between the owner of the property and the publican who acquired it.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he could not see that there was any reasonable objection to passing the first portion of the clause, nor was there, in his opinion, any great injustice even in the sub-section referred to, for if it included present licenses it would bear the character, perhaps, given to it by some hon. Members; but there was no injustice in including future licenses, because the holders of them would then know what the law was.

MR. RYLANDS

thought that that part of the clause did involve some difficulty; yet, though there might be some danger of injustice being done, he should be very unwilling to lose the value of the other part of the clause on account of that difficulty. It was not so important in the interests of the great brewers, perhaps, because they were naturally anxious that their houses should be conducted respectably, and that their tenants, or other persons connected with them, acted properly. Under Clause 30 he thought the owner of a house would take care to dispossess a tenant who had carried on the business in such a way as to imperil the value of his property. But the object of the clause of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) was to meet the case of a large number of small brewers throughout the country—the owners of small public-houses—who knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately allowed a low and disreputable trade to be carried on in them. Now, if they did not have such a clause the effect would be that, after one tenant had gone on for some time violating the law, he would be turned out and another put in his place, and thus they would have a succession of bad tenants, and things would go on as badly as ever. He hoped, therefore, that the clause would be adopted. He did not think it a harsh clause, and it was a reasonable one, as it would only apply in the case of houses which were badly conducted.

MR. BRUCE

said, there was no doubt the clause remedied a defect in the present Bill. The present Bill was very severe on the holders of licenses, as it provided that on a third offence being recorded on the license, the party forfeited it and was disqualified for holding one for the next five years. But if the house was the property of a brewer, for instance, he had the power of changing his tenant as often as he liked, and the offences might be continued indefinitely. What his hon. Friend proposed was that after five offences, though by different occupiers, the license should be forfeited. In order to protect the owner against the misconduct of bad tenants, he provided that, in regard to future leases, the landlord should have power, after the conviction of a tenant had been recorded, to oust him. Now, he (Mr. Bruce) contended that that would be fair notice to those who took those houses in future. And he would remind the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that the lessee could have protection, by insisting on a clause in his lease binding the owner to waive his power of ousting him; but the clause would protect the owner in cases where he had not waived the benefit of it. He was told that at that moment in most leases and mortgages the lessee or mortgagee, especially where a brewer had advanced money to the publican and got control of the house, had a covenant inserted that the brewer should waive his power of ousting the tenant upon his conviction of an offence. ["No, no!"] Well, he was told that that was so. He must say upon the whole that, subject to objections as to the relative powers of lessor or lessee, there had been a great accord in favour of the clause. He would suggest, therefore, that the clause be read a second time, and that modifications or Amendments of it he introduced hereafter.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he agreed that the clause ought to be read a second time, as he thought the first part of it dealt with a subject which had not been properly provided for in the Bill of the Government, and it was only with regard to that latter portion that he had any considerable doubt. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman just now was that the tenant of a house might protect himself when making his lease, by a condition which would destroy the effect of that portion of the Bill. He would remind the House, however, that that involved a question of contract, which was open to the other party also; and that the owner not only might, but actually did, and would in future, protect himself by some clause of that kind. He would suggest, therefore, that a special provision was not necessary. Let the matter be left to contract between man and man. The clause only applied to future leases, and therefore all parties would be able to protect themselves. Practically, this policy would destroy that portion of the Bill itself. A tenant on a third conviction was to forfeit his license. Trivial offences were not to be recorded; but, practically, they were now proposing to give to the owners that which the Bill itself should confer directly, if at all—the right of eviction on the first conviction of the tenant. Now, he maintained that that matter must have been fully considered at the time the Government Bill was drawn. The Government evidently believed it was sufficient to protect the owner, and to call upon him to show cause why his house should not be disqualified. He might thus have shown that he had done the utmost he could under his lease to get rid of an objectionable tenant. They had done what they could to protect the owner; but they were now setting up another and harder punishment for the tenant. If the clause was read a second time, he thought they ought to consider whether the last sub-section should not be omitted, leaving the matter to the ordinary course of arrangement between man and man.

MR. WHITBREAD

observed, that the clause involved a great change. Brewers, he was sure, would not think it unreasonable that they should be mulcted of their property if they got bad tenants, and that circumstance would make them careful, if they were not so now. But this clause would have a serious effect, which the House did not contemplate. It did not seem to him to be drawn only to affect a trade in which a brewer was the owner of the lease of a house and put in the tenant. There, by the 4th sub-section, he would get rid of one tenant and put in another, and could clear his house and keep the license in his hands. But that was not the case with a large portion of the London trade. There the brewers were not the owners, and he believed that that was the most healthy form of trade; and for this reason—that in the London trade the licensed victualler was obliged to embark a large share of his property and only got a loan from his brewer. Both parties under such a system had a great interest in the good conduct of the house; but that 4th sub-section would enable the London brewer to get rid of his tenant. He was not the holder of the lease, but the licensed victualler was the holder of the lease. It might be said that that affected only future contracts, and that the brewer could protect himself. But if he did so, and inserted a clause in the lease giving him power to eject a tenant for the first offence, did they suppose that the licensed victualler would put a large sum of money into the business as now? The effect of the clause would be to put the London trade in the same position as the country trade now was in that respect, and that no licensed victualler would embark money to a large extent under a new lease. They would, if they adopted this clause, lose the best security which they had for the good conduct of the house, and which was the large stake which the licensed victualler himself had in the property, and that, in his opinion, was too serious a risk to run; and, moreover, it would completely alter the system under which public-house property was held in the metropolis.

MR. HENLEY

opposed the clause, and complained that it took hon. Members by surprise. Looking at the pro-sent state of the House, it was nothing else than a farce to talk about this proposal meeting with a general assent. It was by far too stringent in its application; for it amounted to this—that after a single summary conviction, a man should be turned out of his house neck and crop. There was, he thought, no justification for the introduction of such a clause as that; and, as it had only been placed in the hands of hon. Members that morning, they had not had time to form an opinion with respect to it.

MR. RATHBONE

observed, that the clause had been on the Paper for three weeks, and would have been moved in Committee had it not been that the House was desirous to come to a decision on the Bill.

MR. WINGFIELD BAKER

was understood to oppose the clause, and to complain of its being hardly fair to catch a division on it. The disqualification of the premises ought only to arise from the improper conduct of the occupier; but if they found the owner using his power to get rid of a disreputable tenant, the premises ought not to be disqualified.

MR. WHITWELL

hoped there would not be any further delay, but that the House would now read the clause a second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 24: Majority 30.

Clause read a second time.

On Motion, "That the Clause be made part of the Bill"—

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

moved to amend the clause by omitting the 4th sub-section, determining the tenancy on a single conviction.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he had voted against the second reading of the clause, as, independently of the objectionable principle involved in it, there had not been sufficient notice given of a proposition of such importance. The operation of it would be practically unlimited, and it was rather inconsistent on the part of the House, after requiring the record of three convictions as a necessary precedent of the forfeiture of the license, that they should now proceed to take action on one conviction. Much had been said of the monopoly of the brewer; but by this clause, wherever the brewer was the owner, they added to his monopoly by giving him the excessive power of summary ejection, which was contrary to all the principles of English legislation. He did not know what the licensed victuallers as a body had done to merit such a stigma as this clause had cast upon them. It appeared to him to be most objectionable and unfair.

MR. RATHBONE

expressed his willingness to alter the phraseology of the 4th sub-section, so as to modify its stringency.

MR. BRUCE

thought the latter portion of the sub-section unnecessary, for the owner would have all the necessary power by Clause 65.

MR. F. S. POWELL

did not think the landlord would have the benefit of Clause 65. It only applied to cases where the Court had made an order; but under the clause now before the House no order was to be made. The person who was convicted was the wrong-doer, and the owner of the house was an innocent party. He knew nothing of the transaction, and in some shape or other there ought to be some protection to the owner, so that he might not be taken by surprise. There would be a forfeiture on the one side or the other; but that forfeiture should not fall upon the innocent party.

MR. CAWLEY

entirely agreed that some protection was necessary for the owner of the property. The House had overlooked the point that by this Bill they were enabling the tenant to continue to inflict injury upon the property. [Mr. BRUCE: He can do that at present.] Whether so or not, the question was, whether they should not, in this Bill, give the owner of the property some power over his tenant. If the owner had to proceed by action of ejectment, it might take eight or nine months before the case was finished, and during that time the tenant might continue to run up offences.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

pointed out that the tenant could not continue to commit offences with impunity, because on the third conviction he would lose his license.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

thought they should omit sub-section 4, and substitute some other words. The object of the hon. Member seemed to be that the disqualification should be subject to some sort of appeal, and he would, therefore, suggest that the following words should be inserted in place of the sub-section:— Provided that such disqualification as aforesaid shall be subject to appeal in the same manner as an order under this Act declaring premises disqualified would be.

Motion agreed to; sub-section struck out accordingly;—Proviso inserted.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 1 (Short Title).

MR. LOCKE

moved, at end of clause, the addition of the words—"And shall come into operation on the 25th September, 1872." It would be extremely inconvenient if this Act were brought into operation immediately after its passing, and the date which he suggested was the day of the Brewster Sessions.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 11, after the words "1872," to insert the words "and shall come into operation on the 25th September 1872."—(Mr. Locke.)

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

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

should like to know in that case how they were to proceed with the appointment of the licensing committees in counties. If the Bill came into operation at once, there would be time to take the necessary steps.

MR. BRUCE

said, it was extremely inconvenient to propose Amendments without Notice. If he had known of the Amendment he would have considered the changes which it would have involved in the Bill, for there would be important alterations in its framework if the change were adopted. He was not aware of the inconvenience to which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) referred. The matter had been considered in the House of Lords.

MR. CHARLEY

suggested that the date of the commencement of the Act should be the 10th October.

MR. LOCKE

said, there was a strong feeling in the trade that the Bill should not come into operation at once. Perhaps his right hon. Friend would make some suggestion to meet the case.

MR. STRAIGHT

suggested that the 1st of September should be the date.

MR. BRUCE

said, that if the Amendment were withdrawn he would undertake to consider the point referred to.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 (Prohibition of sale of intoxicating liquors without license).

MR. BRUCE

moved the omission, in page 2, line 9, of the word "an," and the insertion of the words "a second or any subsequent conviction." His right hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson), on a former occasion, had suggested that the clause was extremely severe. It provided that on a first conviction for selling an article which the licensee had no license to sell a forfeiture should take place, and he now proposed that the forfeiture should only follow on a second conviction.

Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Internal communication between licensed premises and house of public resort).

MR. WETHERED

moved, in page 4, line 7, after the word "license," the insertion of the words "as the Court shall so direct." His object was simply to protect the owner from injury to his property. As the present clause now stood, a first offence involved the absolute forfeiture of the license, the magistrates not having the slightest discretionary power, even though it might be proved that the owner of the property to whom the injury would be done had used all diligence to ensure the good conduct of the house. Under the circumstances, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in common justice, would consent to the Amendment.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, that surely this was a case in which there ought to be no discretion. The offence would be wilfully committed.

MR. BRUCE

said, he quite agreed with the observation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and therefore could not consent to the Amendment proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 (Penalty for permitting drunkenness).

MR. CAWLEY

then moved the omission of the word "knowingly" in page 10, lines 10 and 12. The object of the clause was to prevent a person permitting drunkenness and quarrelsome or riotous conduct in his house, or the sale of intoxicating liquors to drunken persons. The introduction of the word "knowingly" he was quite certain would create difficulty in enforcing the clause, for it would afford means to a low class of persons of evading, to a great extent, the penalty it was proposed to inflict. A thing might be permitted in two ways—either by actually assenting to it, or by neglecting to take the measures necessary to prevent its being done. If "knowingly" were retained, the attorney for the defence would contend that personal knowledge must be affirmatively proved; and everybody knew that nothing was so difficult as to prove affirmative knowledge. He held that a man ought not to be excused if he employed those who neglected their duty; and he believed that a first offence, unless it was committed by the publican or beerhouse keeper himself, could not be successfully proved under this clause. In that way houses of a low class would continually evad ethe law.

MR. BRUCE

was bound to say that he thought there was great force in the argument of his hon. Friend. It was never intended that the permission of drunkenness, in the absence of the keeper of the house, should not be a punishable offence; and, moreover, there would be a risk, undoubtedly, of some magistrates thinking that the knowledge must be actual, direct personal knowledge. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had an Amendment to the clause also, to which he (Mr. Bruce) wished to refer. He did not deny that there was great force in the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) on Friday last, and he (Mr. Bruce) assured him that he was not insensible to it. It was necessary sometimes to balance advantages and disadvantages on either side. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that if justices, whenever a case was proved, were obliged to record the conviction, they would often be very slow to convict where otherwise they would be ready enough to do so. Recognizing the force of that argument, he would be prepared, if the word "knowingly" were omitted, to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark, believing that if the clause were so amended it would be thus made more workable.

DR. BALL

was in favour of the retention of the word "knowingly." A licensed person would be liable to a penalty not exceeding £10 for the first offence if he permitted drunkenness, or any violent, quarrelsome, or riotous conduct on his premises; but supposing a country cart, filled with noisy people, were to arrive, and they committed a riot and fought with each other, the innkeeper would be liable to the penalty under the clause. Well, how could he prevent riotous conduct under such circumstances, unless he kept a large force constantly at command to repress such proceedings? The word "permit" was in law precisely analogous to "failure to prevent." To make the mere fact decisive in the case would introduce a number of offences at present unknown to the law, and of which the consequences could not be foreseen. He held that there should be some qualification of the abstract expression "permit."

MR. STRAIGHT

thought the suggestion of the Home Secretary a good one; and as he had conceded discretion to the magistrates to endorse the license, he thought the House should now agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. HENLEY

thought the clause would read better with the word "knowingly" than without it.

MR. CHARLEY

said, that by this Bill the publican was placed at the mercy of the police. In Clauses 15 and 17 the word "knowingly" occurred, and yet although the offences dealt with in them were of a graver character than that of the present clause, yet on conviction of any of those offences the endorsement was optional. By bribing a policeman a publican might escape conviction under Clause 13, where the endorsement was compulsory, and be convicted under another clause where the endorsement was optional. If the word "knowingly" was left in Clause 17 it ought also to be left in Clause 13.

MR. LOCKE

said, he was quite willing to accede to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. F. S. POWELL

thought there was more to be said for the retention of the word in the latter of the two cases where it was proposed to be omitted. A person in a partial state of intoxication might be served in great haste by the waiter, and without opportunity being given for ascertaining the condition of the customer.

Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.

On the Motion of Mr. LOCKE, Amendment made by inserting at end of clause,

"unless the convicting magistrate or justices shall otherwise direct."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 (Adulteration of intoxicating liquor).

MR. BRUCE

moved, in page 7, line 8, to leave out the word "and" and insert "or"; and in line 32 to leave out from "he" to "and" in line 36, both inclusive, and insert— And his license is not forfeited for such offence, the police authority of the district shall cause a placard stating such conviction to be affixed to the premises. Such placard shall be of such size and form, and shall be printed with such letters, and shall contain such particulars, and shall be affixed to such part of the licensed premises as the police authority may think fit, and such licensed person.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 (Schedule of deleterious ingredients).

MR. WINGFIELD BAKER

moved, in page 8, line 16, after "Gazette" to insert "and a printed copy or notice thereof he placed on the usual board or means of giving such notice in each parish by the overseers or police thereof;" and in line 18, after "publication," insert "and placing such notice."

MR. BRUCE

said, he was reluctant to introduce such an Amendment, seeing that, as a matter of fact, whatever was published in The Gazette was certain to be published in all the newspapers, and that the dealers in spirits would be sure to know it. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 (Times of closing).

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

moved, in page 10, line 14, to leave out the words—"or the parishes mentioned in Schedules A and B of the Metropolitan Local Management Act," and to insert—"or any parish or place subject to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works." The hon. Gentleman also moved, in page 10, line 17, to amend the clause thus—After "the whole day" to leave out the words "up to" and insert the word "before;" and in line 19, to leave out the words—"between the hours of eleven o'clock at night and five of the clock of the following morning," and to insert—"after the hour of eleven of the clock at night."

Amendments agreed to.

MR. LOCKE

said, that after those Amendments, he still considered an alteration in the clause necessary, and for this reason—He was told that the parish of Hornsey, which included Stoke Newington Road, was not within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works; and although in some parts of London houses would be closed at a certain hour on Sunday night, in other parts they would not. The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works would have force in this case on one side of the road and not on the other. He moved, after sub-section 1, to amend the clause by the insertion of the words—"such portions of parishes as are within four miles radii of Charing Cross."

MR. BRUCE

said, he did not see that there was the slightest objection to the insertion of those words.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

, in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, in page 10, line 20, to leave out "five," and insert "four," said: Mr. Speaker, the Amendment which I rise to move is not one which could well have been moved when the House was in Committee. In the last few minutes of a lengthy Sitting—the hour of 6 for the earliest time of opening—which involved a limitation which had not been defended by a single word, was changed for 5, which was likewise undefended by a word. The present law—made only in 1864—allows public-houses in London to open at 4 A.M. I know only the case of London; but the hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Straight) will perhaps give the House the benefit of his knowledge of the importance of a similar Amendment to other parts of England. For the moment, I speak only of London—when I ask that this part of the existing law should be let alone. There are in this City hundreds of thousands of people at work all night long. Your present closing hours, from 1 to 4, are hardship enough to them, but may be for police reasons desirable; and I, for one, give way as to 12 o'clock, though I have doubts whether public morality will gain, and though I should be glad that the matter had been settled rather by usage than by law. I repeat that to enforce the closing of all houses till 4 is bad enough; but, why till 5? Iron-workers in Southwark and Lambeth—railway porters at many goods stations, and at three passenger stations—printers in Westminster and in the City;—fish porters and sailors on the Thames shore;—fruit and vegetable carriers at Covent Garden, and along the roads that lead there:—carters, drovers, butchers, fishmongers are at work at 4 A.M., not to speak of cabmen and of many law-stationers and writers—who often labour all night long. The houses that are open between 4 and 5 in the morning are among the best-conducted in all London. I caused an examination to be made this morning of the houses open between 4 and 5 in the long line of streets from Charing Cross to Tower Hill, and in the still longer line from Apsley House to Clerkenwell by Long Acre and High Holborn. A very largo number of houses were open and driving a great trade:—not by any means confined to beer. One house in Cranbourne Street sells little except coffee to the market men, and yet is a house so far from the market itself that leave to open early under the 27th clause would probably be refused to its proprietor. The inn opposite to the Mansion House drives a roaring trade in milk, can after can of which very harmless beverage is consumed by thirsty workmen about 5 o'clock. I know that it will be said that the so-called hours of closing are not closing times at all—but only hours during which beer may not be sold, though tea and coffee may;—but I doubt whether the Home Secretary will venture to advise a publican to stop open all night for this kind of trade, and will insure him against the censure of the magistrates on the information given by the police. Three of the printers' houses near the Strand—which open at 2 A.M.—by special license, I suppose, for printers, open at 4 for the public, and are well filled. There are four large houses in King Street and Thames Street, which have a large trade between 4 and 5. At no less than 10 houses in Covent Garden, Long Acre, Low Street, Russell Street, and James Street—which are open before 5—hundreds of people breakfast. In Holborn two houses, and in Aldersgate one, are open at 4 o'clock. At Smithfield no less than seven houses are open at that hour. I am well aware, Sir, that there is a power of exemption in the Bill; but I dislike exemptions as applied to a trade in which there is a monopoly. I had sooner see law—than exemption from the law—in force. I object both to the fact and to the machinery of the proposed exemption. In the City it is to be worked by the Lord Mayor—an officer who will import his own prejudices into the matter. One Lord Mayor of a convivial turn will open every public-house within half-a-mile of a theatre, a cab-stand, a railway station, a market, or a newspaper office, for as many hours as the law allows—while another of a more serious disposition may refuse to put the exemption clause in force. I shall, Sir, unless good reasons be shown for closing till 5 instead of 4, certainly divide the House—even if it be only as a protest against the view taken by some that the rule should be closing—unless you prove a need for opening, while we believe that freedom should be the rule—subject to limitation in case of proved necessity.

Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 22, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "four,"—(Sir Charles Dilke,)—instead thereof.

MR. BRUCE

said, he quite concurred with his hon. Friend in the opinion that every facility should be given to those persons who carried on their business and occupation during the night and early morning to procure necessary refreshments. But his hon. Friend had, no doubt unintentionally, misstated the actual bearing of the Bill upon that question. He limited his remarks to "markets;" whereas the Bill itself added the extension "or any lawful trade or calling." The Bill, therefore, already met the case of the persons named by his hon. Friend, subject only to the sanction of the Secretary of State. Another argument of his hon. Friend was, that the change of the hour from 4 to 5 would interfere with the opening of houses as at present for the supply of tea, coffee, and other refreshments other than beer or spirits within the prohibited hours, except by special license. The fact was, that the Bill would not prevent the opening of houses for such purpose: if intoxicating liquors were not sold, holders of licenses might open their houses during what were called the closing hours, without any risk whatever of losing their licenses. He hoped that having thus made provision for meeting the cases referred to by his hon. Friend, the Committee would not agree to the Amendment.

Question, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

MR. BRUCE

, in the 2nd sub-section, in line 25, moved to leave out the words "and the parishes mentioned in Schedules A and B of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1835," and to insert "and the parishes or places subject to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works."

MR. LOCKE

said, this gave him the opportunity of repeating his Amendment respecting the parishes or parts of parishes which were not under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member that those parishes and parts of parishes ought to be included; but the difficulty was that if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member was agreed to, it would extend the jurisdiction of the Board to other portions of the parish lying outside that jurisdiction. If the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Amendment he would take care to insert words on the third reading of the Bill which would at once secure the object of his hon. and learned Friend and obviate the difficulty he had pointed out.

Amendment agreed to, with the addition of the words "within a radius of four miles from Charing Cross."

On the Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Proviso inserted in page 11, line 22, after the word "considered," as follows:— Provided, That no order allowing licensed premises to remain open after the hour of ten at night on Sunday, Christmas Day, or Good Friday, or after the hour of eleven at night on other days, shall, as to such allowances, apply to premises in respect of which a certificate is in force under 'The Wine and Beer-house Acts 1869 and 1870.'

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

wished to ask with regard to this Amendment whether it was to be limited to places below 2,500 inhabitants, or applied to all rural districts? It seemed to him to extend the action further than the House had decided upon.

MR. BRUCE

was understood to say that in all cases he thought it undesirable the hours of keeping open beer-houses should be extended.

MR. T. HUGHES

asked if the clause referred to a portion or the whole of a district?

MR. BRUCE

replied, to the whole, except so far as exemption was concerned.

MR. WATNEY

inquired if the Amendment applied to London?

MR. BRUCE

said, it did not.

On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, the following words were inserted in page 11, line 28, after "night:"— Any order made by the licensing justices for the alteration of closing hours shall not come into operation until the expiration of one month after the date thereof, and in the meantime shall be advertised in such manner as the licensing justices shall direct.

On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, the words in line 29, from "Provided," to end of clause, struck out.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 (Exemption from closing by order of local authority in respect of certain trades. See 28 & 29 Vict., c. 77, s. 2.)

MR. DIMSDALE

proposed to insert in page 12, line 22, the words—"or the meetings of any club or other societies assembled for any lawful purpose." After the exemption which had been introduced in favour of houses near the theatres, there was no valid reason why the principle should not be extended to working men's clubs, and why these latter should be placed under restrictions which did not apply to the wealthier clubs used by the aristocracy. Moreover, it was well known that working men's clubs were very generally being established throughout the country, and it would be of the greatest possible benefit to the working classes to be allowed to attend them.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 22, after the word "market," to insert the words "or the meetings of any club or other societies assembled for any lawful purpose."—(Mr. Dimsdale.)

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

MR. BRUCE

replied that a similar Amendment had been already proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford, and rejected. He believed that if the Amendment were carried it would have a very different effect from that which the hon. Gentleman intended, and it would be far better to leave the clause as it stood. There was no analogy whatever between the clubs of the rich and the clubs and friendly societies of the poor, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 (Licensing committee in boroughs).

MR. DIMSDALE

proposed in page 18, line 42, to leave out from "in boroughs" to "second vote," in page 19, line 23. The effect of the Amendment was to leave out the whole of the arrangements made in the Bill for granting new licenses as applied to boroughs possessing fewer than 10 justices of the peace. Under the particular provision in every case licenses must be confirmed by the now licensing body. There was a large number of boroughs in which there were less than 10 justices, and many more with exactly 10, and it would be most vexatious in such cases for them to be brought under the operation of such a clause. He did not think either, from his past experience, that amalgamated boards worked well, and a body composed of three borough and three county justices would inevitably lead to great irritation. The clause was evidently based on a suspicion of borough justices which was altogether unfounded; but he objected to it still more strongly on the practical ground that it would produce great alienation of feeling between town and country. For those reasons, therefore, he proposed to leave out the whole of that portion of the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 19, to leave out from the word "but," in line 1, to the word "vote," in line 23.—(Mr. Dimsdale.)

MR. BRUCE

said, he did not deny that great objection might be taken to the mode in which the confirming body was to be formed in those boroughs; but a body in any way formed would also be open to objection. The hon. Member, however, proposed that in those small boroughs where the evils against which the clause was directed were most numerous and most grave, and where there was no public opinion, there should be no confirming body at all. But that was out of the question. There must be in those small boroughs some power of controlling the acts of the justices, and he hoped the House would adhere to the clause.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

observed, that almost every borough now had at least one journal devoted to its affairs, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman's argument as to public opinion seemed to him very much exaggerated. He hoped his hon. Friend would persevere with the Amendment, as the clause appeared to him to inflict a gross and unmerited slight on borough magistrates.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he thought, with the Home Secretary, that the House ought not to assent to the Amendment. It was the action of the magistrates in small boroughs that had always been called in question. Last year complaints on the subject reached him from all quarters in his own county. Summonses taken out by the police had to be submitted to the magistrates before they were taken into Court; and over and over again he had heard that when the chief constable had charged offences against certain houses in the smaller boroughs, he had not been allowed to take them before the magistrates, because they were the property of some of the magistrates on the bench. That was a strong argument in favour of a confirming authority.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 8: Majority 70.

Clause 43 (Disqualifications for licenses).

MR. F. S. POWELL

moved in page 22, line 20, after "void," the insertion of the words— Any person holding a license so disqualified shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £50, or at the discretion of the justices to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. It seemed to him that when a man who knew he was disqualified obtained a license he was committing a fraud upon the owner, and might do the owner a serious injury. The transaction being in the nature of a fraud ought to be punished as such.

MR. BRUCE

said, that this law had been in existence since 9 Geo. IV., and he had never heard of any case in which the penalty had been enforced. He thought it was objectionable to multiply unnecessary penalties.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 44 (Qualification of house).

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

moved the omission of lines 21 to 24, and the insertion of the following:— Premises to which at the time of the passing of this Act no license under the Acts recited in the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, authorizing the sale of beer or wine for consumption thereupon is attached, shall not be subject to any of the provisions now in force prescribing a certain rate or value or rating as a qualification for receiving any such license. Premises not at the time of the passing of this Act licensed for the sale of any intoxicating liquor for consumption thereupon shall not be qualified to receive a license authorizing such sale unless the following conditions are satisfied.

Amendment agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 47 (Six-day licenses).

MR. F. S. POWELL

moved the omission of the words "which authorizes the sale of beer for consumption on the premises." The clause related to the six days' license, and he did not see why it should not be applied to public-houses as well as to beerhouses. These words did not appear in the last Bill, and they might, if allowed to remain, cause considerable embarrassment.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

said, it was not intended that the clause should apply to the sale of drink for consumption off the premises, but it was intended to apply to all houses licensed for the sale of drink to be consumed on the premises. The objection of the hon. Gentleman would be met by the substitution of the words "intoxicating liquors" for the word "beer."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 50 (Summary proceedings for police offences, penalties).

Amendments made.

MR. JAMES

moved, in page 27, line 11, to leave out the words "if he so require it be allowed," and to substitute for them the words "shall be competent and compellable." As the clause stood any publican who was proceeded against might be examined as a witness on his own behalf, and the object of the Amendment was not only to make him a competent witness, but also to compel him to come up as a witness to be cross-examined in support of the case of the complainant, otherwise he would be in the position of a man proceeded against under the Bastardy Act. If a publican were allowed to give evidence on his own behalf he should not be allowed to fold his arms and say he would only give evidence when it pleased himself.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 11, to leave out the words "if he so require it be allowed," and insert the words "be competent and compellable,"—(Mr. James,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

wished to know if the Government agreed to the Amendment, which would entirely alter the sense in which the Committee had the other night carried his Amendment, and would extend its scope.

MR. BRUCE

reminded the hon. Baronet that the Amendment had been carried against the wish of the Government. It was urged that the defendant should be able to tell his own story, but that was objected to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southampton on the ground that he could not be subjected to cross-examination. It was his (Mr. Bruce's) own opinion that if a man were allowed to give evidence for himself he should be subjected to cross-examination.

MR. STRAIGHT

supported the Amendment. If a publican was to have privileges which no other trader had, he must be subject to them without limits of any sort or kind. It was only the disreputable publicans who would refuse to go into the witness-box, because the respectable trader would have no objection to do so.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, he had not the slightest objection to the Amendment; but thought that not only the publican, but also his wife, should be competent to give evidence.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

took the same view as respected the wives of the publicans; especially as in the Manchester district, it was the wives who really managed the business.

MR. F. S. POWELL

said, he had received strong representations from his constituents, urging him to support such a proposal.

MR. BRUCE

did not see any reason why the wife might not give evidence for her husband.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, the best way to get rid of the difficulty was to repeal the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, and revert to the clause as it had been originally proposed by the Government. It was contrary to all precedent that the wife should be compelled to give evidence against her husband.

MR. JAMES

said, he had no objection to amend his proposal by extending the application of the clause to the wife of the defendant.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Another Amendment made, by inserting the words "or wife," after "defendant" in line 11.

Amendment again proposed, In page 27, line 11, to leave out the words "if he so require it be allowed," and insert the words "be competent and compellable,"—(Mr. James,)—instead thereof.

MR. O'REILLY DEASE

objected to the proposed Amendment, as the power thus placed in the hands of the prosecutor might be used either to make the defendant criminate himself, or to render him liable to be incriminated on the evidence of his wife.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

wished to know what was the opinion of the Government on this proposal, which involved a totally new principle.

MR. BRUCE

said, that the opinion of the Government was that this clause should not have been introduced at all; but it having been carried, he approved the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton.

MR. J. LOWTHER

held the opinion that the object of the Amendment was to compel a man to give evidence against himself. He hoped the House would hesitate to endorse this most dangerous innovation. It was in reality the introduction of the French system of examining prisoners.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

thought the alarm of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was a little exaggerated. Only last night the House affirmed an Amendment introduced by the Lords into the Mines Regulation Bill in which this very principle was admitted. The clause was a very valuable one, though he would have liked to have it left in the state in which it was when he introduced it.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

observed that if the defendant was examined as a witness he would be placed in exactly the same position as any other witness, and be protected by the rules which applied to all witnesses. Although he might be compelled to give evidence, he would not be compelled to give evidence which might criminate himself. If the defendant was to be called as a witness, it would be more satisfactory if the choice of giving evidence or refusing to give evidence did not rest with him.

MR. CAWLEY

said, he could confirm the statement that the principle of the Amendment was adopted by the House last evening, upon confirming the Lords' Amendments to the Mines Regulation Bill.

MR. BRUCE

said, the truth was that the managers and owners of mines were allowed to give evidence in their own defence, only because they were held responsible for the negligence of their workmen.

MR. WATNEY

said, the House had got into a difficulty by trying to alter a decision at which it had already arrived. It had been decided that the defendant, if he liked, should give evidence, and probably he would be the only person who could give evidence in the case. Now, the Attorney General wished to compel the defendant to give evidence. That would be a very dangerous enactment. He thought the House should abide by the decision at which it had already arrived.

SIR DOMINIC CORRIGAN

had, he said, great respect for law, but greater respect for common sense. When the accused was brought up, it would remain for the Judge, himself, or his counsel, to draw fine hair-like lines of division between the questions he was obliged to answer and the questions he was not obliged to answer. He would vote against the insertion of the word "compellable."

Question put, "That the words 'if he so require it,' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 73: Majority 34.

Question proposed, "That the words 'be competent and compellable' be inserted, instead thereof."

MR. JAMES

asked permission to alter the Amendment. The words "and compellable" were not necessary. He proposed to insert the words "shall be competent" only, because if the words "and compellable" were inserted, some might be led to think the witness was not to be protected as other witnesses were. If, however, the witness were simply pronounced competent, he would stand in all respects in the position of other witnesses.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

thought the omission of the words would be an improvement. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that the word "compellable" raised an alarming question. The word "competent" would answer the purpose equally well.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, to insert the words "be competent,"—(Mr. James,)—instead thereof.

MR. LOCKE

was of opinion that the Amendment would place the justices in a most unpleasant position, and the accused in a most unfair one. Recollect, there were two parties in this matter—the husband and the wife; and surely the House was not, in a Bill like this, prepared to enact a law that would compel the wife to give evidence to convict the husband, and the man to give evidence against and convict himself. The man might be charged with various offences, and was the House prepared to adopt the French system of examining and cross-examining the prisoner at the bar, and thus to try and secure his conviction by evidence dragged from himself? He should most decidedly give his vote against the Amendment.

DR. BALL

protested against the proposed invasion of one of the greatest principles of English law—namely, that which laid it down that a man should not be compelled to give evidence to convict himself. If they gave the power to examine and cross-examine him, they might retain the word "compellable" in the Bill; and if they put in the word "competent" it came to the same thing. The man must answer point-blank one way or the other, and it came to this—that either by his silence or his direct evidence the object was to secure his conviction. They put him on his oath, it might be to swear to a direct falsehood to get himself out of the charge. If they did that, they would establish a great evil, for it would be a temptation to the guilty. It was a most serious unconstitutional course to put a man in a position to convict himself; and it was not in a Bill of this character that they should depart from the spirit of the English law and adopt the French law. If they were prepared to do that, they would commit a great mistake against a principle of the English law, upon which they had hitherto prided themselves.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, the right hon. and learned Member seemed to think the only object of this clause was to punish the guilty; it was also designed for the protection of the innocent; and inasmuch as in the majority of cases the only witness for the prosecution would be the police, it was necessary that the defendant should have the opportunity of offering his word against that of the constable.

Question put, "That the words 'be competent' be inserted instead thereof."

The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 31: Majority 51.

Clause, as amended agreed to.

Clause 54 (Record of convictions).

On the Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, verbal Amendments made, with the view of making the clause applicable only to single licenses, and, striking out the plural "licenses," "offences," and "notices;" and to insert the words "the owner" instead of "him," in page 30, line 10.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59 (Disqualification of justices).

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

, in page 31, line 16, moved to leave out from "except" to "firearms," in line 22, both inclusive, and after "licensing Acts," insert— 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 on any highway or other public place of any carriage, horse, cattle, or steam-engine, or of being drunk when in possession of loaded firearms.

SIR ROBERT TORRENS

moved the omission of the word "loaded," as being calculated to render people less careful than they would he if the carriage of all firearms was prohibited. Many persons discharged firearms under the idea that they were not loaded, when in fact they were.

Amendment (Sir Robert Torrens) negatived.

Amendment (Mr. Winterbotham) agreed to.

MR. RYLANDS

said, that before the clause was finally agreed to, he thought there should be some restriction upon the relations held by the licensing justices to the owners or occupiers of public-house property. Acting upon a suggestion which had been made to him upon the subject, he would move the insertion, in line 30, of the words "the father, son, or brother."

Amendment proposed, In page 31, line 30, after the word "occupier," to insert the words "or the father, son, or brother of such occupier."—(Mr. Rylands.)

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

On the Motion of Mr. A. JOHNSTON, in line 28, after "this Act," the words "or under any of the Intoxicating Liquors (Licensing) Acts" inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67 (Regulations as to retail licenses of wholesale dealers).

MR. BRUCE

moved the omission from the clause of the following paragraph:— Every person selling by retail spirits in contravention of this section shall be deemed to have sold the same without being duly licensed. Every person holding a license under this section from the licensing justices shall be subject to the same regulations as to hours of closing and police supervision as persons holding a retail license under the sections of thirty-second and thirty-third Victoria, chapter twenty-seven, and the Acts amending the same.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he was prepared to accept the Amendment, in order to make room for the substitute which the Home Secretary was about to propose, in the shape of a separate paragraph. Practically, that new Proviso would somewhat weaken the provision which he carried the other evening; but it would give effect to much that his clause contemplated.

MR. AUBERON HERBERT

was glad the hon. Baronet had approved the Amendment; but whilst he was in favour of the Amendment of the Government, he intended to move the omission of the clause, because no case had been made out for changing the position of the grocers. Legislation of this kind was opposed to facts and the principles of free trade. The limitation of the grocers' business would have the effect of driving many people to public-houses to get what they wanted. They had heard a good deal about wives going to grocers' shops and drinking there, but was the House going to undertake the management of other people's wives? If so, where would they stop? There were a great many other things besides drinking which wives did without the consent of their husbands. Legislation of this character, altogether independent of the facts, might be called legislation in a balloon.

Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.

On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, the following paragraph was added to the clause:— A license for the sale of liqueurs or spirits by retail not to be consumed on the premises may, where such license is required by this Act, be granted in the same manner in all respects in which a license for selling wine not to be consumed on the premises may by law be granted, and an application for such a license shall not be refused except upon one or more of the grounds on which a certificate in respect of a license to sell by retail beer, cider, or wine not to be consumed on the premises may be refused: Provided, That in respect of any such license for liqueurs or spirits to be granted at any general annual licensing meeting, or adjournment thereof, held between the twentieth of August and the end of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy two, such notices only shall be required to be given, not exceeding seven days' notice, as may be prescribed by the licensing justices.

On the Motion of Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, Amendment made, providing that nothing in the clause should affect Excise licenses granted before the passing of the Act, so long as they should be in force.

MR. GLADSTONE

appealed to the hon. Member for Nottingham not to move the omission of the clause. Although on Monday night a vote was taken which would have introduced the principle of monopoly and vested interests into the grocers' trade with reference to the sale of intoxicating liquors, those who carried the Motion had acceded to the modification of the Home Secretary, which had just been agreed to. All that could be now said was that the clause imposed some unnecessary restrictions, and he agreed in thinking that no case had been made out for their introduction; but if they were found to be vexatious, it would be easy to repeal them. He hoped, under those circumstances, that his hon. Friend would not press his proposal to omit the clause.

MR. AUBERON HERBERT

said, that after the appeal which had been made to him he would not divide the House.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72 (Interpretation).

SIR WILLIAM GALLWEY

proposed, in page 37, line 22, after "means," to insert the words "or any Parliamentary borough."

MR. BRUCE

said, he had no objection to the insertion of "Parliamentary or," which would, he thought, meet the hon. Baronet's views.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 75 (Application to Ireland).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

moved in page 40, line 16, after definition of "licensed person," the insertion of the words— The premises shall include house or place as defined by section twelve of the Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter eighty-nine.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 76 (Closing of premises).

SIR DOMINIC CORRIGAN

proposed, in page 43, line 7, to leave out "or departing from." The object of the omission of these words was a simple one. In the country parts of Ireland the public-houses were closed generally between 7 and 8 o'clock; but persons travelling by or taking excursions in railways would by this Bill be at liberty to go to the nearest railway station, and there commence and continue drinking as long as they pleased. His object was to prevent that evil.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

said, he had no objection to the introduction of the words.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 87 (Legal proceedings. Penalties).

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)

moved to insert an addition, to the effect that no Excise or spirit license should be granted in Ireland under the Intoxicating Liquors Bill to persons or premises disqualified by its provisions, and if it be done it shall be null and void.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill re-committed in respect of Clause 25, New Clause 30A, and Schedule 1; and considered in Committee.

Amendments made.

MR. PLIMSOLL

moved to insert the word "salt" in the 1st Schedule, at line 4, after "cocculus indicus," and to provide against any punishment being inflicted on account of the infinitesimally small quantities of salt which even fresh water contained, by making the Bill say that— Every person who mixes salt, or causes it to be mixed, with beer shall be subject to the penal consequences set forth in the Bill. In that form he thought the provision against the use of salt would be harmless. Much dissatisfaction had been expressed at the result of the discussion in reference to that subject the other night, and that dissatisfaction, he thought, would be removed by the adoption of his present Amendment. He had the authority of the senior Member for Derby (Mr. M. T. Bass) for saying that, though salt was largely used, it was wholly unnecessary.

MR. WETHERED

said, he was equally opposed to the Amendment in the form in which it was now proposed, as it was well known that many brewers used it with great advantage to their products, and in one notable instance the excellence of the ale was due to the brackish water used.

MR. M. A. BASS

observed that the water used in brewing often contained rather large quantities of salt. In the Burton waters the quantity of salt present amounted to 40 grains per gallon, and in the London waters it was still greater.

MR. BRUCE

observed that it would, under the proposed Amendment, be always necessary to prove that salt had been added to the beer.

MR. CAWLEY

, in reference to the proposed Amendment, pointed out that the offences to which the 21st and the 23rd clauses related were entirely different. Keeping and selling what had been adulterated was not the same as actually adulterating.

MR. WATNEY

thought that there ought to be some limit stated in the clause.

MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

observed that there was no reference to the Schedule in Clause 23, and whether they made the Amendment or not, an excess of salt in beer would be condemned by the Bill. He trusted the House would not sanction the selling of beer containing a large amount of salt.

MR. BRUCE

thought the objection a sound one as regarded the 21st clause. The words "the possession of which he could not account for," seemed to him sufficient to meet all reasonable objections.

MR. WETHERED

said, this was a very important matter. As the clause now stood, a man would be liable if salt was found in the beer.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

said, he would only be liable if the beer was adulterated with salt—that is, if it was mixed with it.

MR. WATNEY

asked how if they found salt in it, anyone could tell whether it had been mixed or not?

MR. BRUCE

said, it was known that salt was universally found in beer; and therefore they must prove that there was something more than that to secure a conviction.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, considered.

MR. BRUCE

, in accordance with the Notice which had been given the previous day, moved that the Bill be now read a third time.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, he did not wish to detain the House longer than was necessary; but he did not think it was right that a Bill of that importance should be allowed to go from them without a parting word. He wished to see how far they had dealt with this question in a comprehensive spirit, and how far this Bill might be considered a settlement of the question. They were all, or nearly all, agreed that the trade should be regulated. He thought until that day that the junior hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was the only man in the House who believed in free trade in drink, but he supposed that after the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Auberon Herbert), he must admit that there were two. The only object of this Bill was to limit and curtail the consumption of intoxicating drink. ["No, no!"] Well, he would say that its object was to make those who drank too much drink less, and those who drank too little drink what was not used by those who had hitherto drunk too much. What had they done? They had decided that there should be a heavier penalty for drunkenness. That might be right, or it might be wrong; but his legal Friends in the House knew that when they increased the penalty they increased the danger of not getting a conviction, and he thought that would be found to be the case with regard to drunkenness, which was not regarded by many people as a very serious offence. The effect of the increased penalty would be felt by the drunkard's family, more of whom would be made beggars by it. He was happy to say that the Bill proposed a heavier penalty for the drunkard-maker; but there would always be an increased difficulty in obtaining convictions in consequence of the heavier penalty. The Morning Advertiser said— We have, it is true, heard it said that the present state of the law is severe enough for the purposes of annoyance and persecution, were it universally or even commonly carried out to the letter, or harshly interpreted. 'It is not so carried out,' say some; 'and in like manner the new Bill will not be stringently enforced.' We sincerely trust that it will not be, and that those who talk in this strain are right in their view of the matter. The House would see that there was great danger of the Bill not being carried out. Another object which the Bill sought to effect was to impose penalties on adulterations. If the House would look into the last Report of the Government Analyst, they would find that there were very few cases of adulteration by deleterious ingredients; and there was no greater delusion than to suppose that drunkenness arose from adulteration. The real advantage and benefit of this Bill was, that the Home Secretary had succeeded in providing that public-houses should be open during shorter hours. That principle was not carried so far as he could wish, but he thanked his right hon. Friend for having carried it so far as he had done. The right hon. Gentleman had given permissive powers; but he had given them to the magistrates, who did not altogether understand the wants of the people. The great defect of this Bill was that it did very little to diminish the number of public-houses. That was what the country wanted—what had been demanded in Petitions and public meetings, and that was what this Bill did very little to give them. It was said that these houses were wanted by the working men. The other day what was called a "workmen's city" was inaugurated by Lord Shaftesbury, and one of the rules established in it was that there were to be no public-houses. Not only did the Bill not provide for the diminution of public-houses, but he rather thought that there were some of the clauses which would make it easier to get a license than formerly. With regard to the licensing authority, the magistrates had for generations exercised that authority; and the result of that was that drunkenness was so prevalent that they had to pass this licensing Bill. The real evil was, that the licensing authority was not elected by nor related to the people. The fact was, that this was not a Licensing Bill, but a Police Bill. Another fact to which he wished to direct the attention of the House was, that Scotland was altogether left out of the Bill, so that absolutely they had not done anything for their Scotch brethren. Everyone, then, must see that the arrangement could not stand where it was. The people of this country were now in a state of unexampled prosperity—wages were higher than they had ever been, labour was more plentiful, and money more abundant. The wages were higher, and there were shorter hours of labour, but those advantages only increased the facility of drinking. A Friend of his own had reminded him that he had been in the habit of saying that £100,000,000 were yearly squandered on intoxication; but if things went on as they, were going, he might raise the estimate to £150,000,000 per annum. Now, it appeared to him an awful thing that all that prosperity should be perverted into the ruin of the people, instead of tending to their prosperity and advancement; for he believed that if inquiries were instituted it would be found that the wives of the labouring classes were now worse off than when their husbands earned less than they did at present—so that, in fact, all the money which ought to go to promote the happiness of families went to swell the pockets of the brewers. It seemed to him that the House itself had become an agency in their hands to enable them to carry on their system of gain, He hoped, however, that there was spirit enough yet left in the House of Commons to raise them beyond that position; and there were not, he believed, half-a-dozen Members who would venture to say this measure was more than the settlement of the question for a day. They had for the moment made vested interest paramount to the public interest. He gave the House the credit for a desire to effect a different settlement, but he had been overborne in the matter. Still he knew that the question was not settled, and the House itself, which had during the Session done so much for the general benefit of the community, felt that in this matter it had not done enough. He hoped, however, that the Prime Minister would take it up, for he believed he had never yet looked into it fully so as to appreciate its great moral and social importance. He had promised them for next year a measure in regard to local taxation, and he had no doubt it would prove a large and comprehensive measure; but unless he dealt with this question, which was the origin of so much of the burdens which the people had to bear, he would be only shifting the burden, and not doing away with it. He repeated, then, that the question was not settled, and that it was only adjourned from the House to the constituencies; and now that they for the first time were free and unbiassed in the exercise of the franchise and could elect a House of their own, they would use the power which the Legislature had conferred on them to remedy this great evil for their own good, and to advance the cause of temperance reform, which, according to the late Mr. Cobden, lay at the foundation of all moral and social improvement.

MR. BRUCE

said, he would not follow the hon. Baronet into a general review of the measure. The hon. Baronet was one of those who were of opinion that in order to put down drunkenness they should have recourse to prohibition; but laws of prohibition have been tried in the New England States, and had signally failed. The hon. Baronet said they would still have drunkenness after the passing of this measure—and no doubt they would, so long as the people were not sensible of the evil consequences which it entailed; but he trusted that the measures which, during the last two Sessions, Parliament had passed for their social amelioration would do more than any prohibitory legislation, however stringent, could be expected to effect, as they would then set up for themselves a higher standard of morality. The hon. Baronet complained that Scotland was not included in the Bill; but he was the last person who ought to complain of that, as the effect of it would have been to extend the hours in Scotland, whereas at present the limitation in respect to them was more stringent than that proposed in this Bill. The country at large was too sensible to suppose that the evil of excessive drinking could be cured by this or by any other legislative measure. Parliament would have done enough by throwing every impediment it could in the way of drunkenness; and this measure, moderate as it was, would accomplish much good, though it might not eradicate drunkenness altogether.

MR. HENLEY

thought it would be a blessed thing to get rid of this Bill on any terms, although he regarded it as a most inconsistent piece of legislation; because while it showed the utmost distrust of the licensing authorities in the matter of granting licenses, it gave them almost unlimited discretion over the much more delicate and important matter of regulating the hours of closing. Doubtless, in future we should have in every licensing district the most furious battles between the saints and the sinners as to what hours public-houses should be closed or opened. All he hoped was that when the House of Commons got another Bill of this sort to consider, they would not be under the necessity of hurrying through the business in the way they had been forced to do in disposing of this measure. If they had to do that, it would be better that the Parliament should do away altogether with the Standing Orders and Rules of Parliament. He did not think the measure would do much good, but he was heartily glad to get rid of it.

MR. MURPHY

, on the part of the licensed victuallers of Ireland, thanked Parliament for passing the measure, which was universally acceptable to them, as they had no other desire than to carry on their business in a respectable manner, and to eliminate from it everything that was exceptional.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.